Friday, August 24, 2007
Friday poll: If you knew the Democrats were going to win the White House...
...which Democrat would you want?
Regular readers know that I am not a partisan, in the sense that I have no political ambition or stake, per se, in the victory of one party or another. However, I lean toward the Republicans more often than I lean to the Democrats, and, more importantly, I lean toward the Republicans on the issues I care the most about. A significant proportion of our readers would probably say more or less the same thing about their own political preferences.
That out of the way, suppose Allah whispered in our ear and told us that some Democrat would win the presidency in 2008. Among the plausible nominees, which Democrat would you prefer? Take the poll, and put your reasons in the comments here or over at Crittenden's.
MORE: In related news, the architect of Jimmy Carter's foreign policy has endorsed Obama.
30 Comments:
By 
Adam Lawson, at
Fri Aug 24, 05:41:00 PM:
I can't vote. I started to, and checked a candidate, then I thought about it for a moment. It's like picking what kind of stomach ailment you want, vomiting, painful gas, or diarrhea.
Not necessarily in any order, there.
By 
, at
Fri Aug 24, 05:44:00 PM:
I think it may be "out team's" turn to threaten to go to Canada or France.
andrewdb
By Miss Ladybug, at
Fri Aug 24, 05:49:00 PM:
I agree with Adam. I can't pick a "would prefer" from that list.
By Mystery Meat, at
Fri Aug 24, 05:59:00 PM:
That's easy. Dennis Kucinich.
Dennis understands the fears and concerns of the lowest strata of society. Social justice demands that all strata of society share these fears and concerns. Who better understands America's place in the world? Visualize a Department of Peace replacing the Defense Department. Visualize the poor and downtrodden of the world with all their material needs met, a simple matter of the rich sharing their abundance.
Visualize a Kucinich/Gravel ticket.
By AmPowerBlog, at
Fri Aug 24, 06:04:00 PM:
By , at
Fri Aug 24, 06:15:00 PM:
Hillary at least seems to understand the foreign policy issues, and I think that will still be most important for some time, while I think it's doubtful the other two can say the same. My spouse likes Obama, but I'm convinced it's so early in the cycle for her (and most Americans) that she is, so far, taking a "glamour quotient" view rather than making a serious assessment.
Andrew
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Aug 24, 06:35:00 PM:
It physically pained me, but I picked Hillary. Like Andrew said, she's at least demonstrated that she understands foreign policy.
By , at
Fri Aug 24, 07:57:00 PM:
TH-
You really know how to confound a guy. I could not vote for any of the three listed under any circumstance. This fits well with my observations since 1984 that Democrats eliminate their most reasonable candidates first.
All of the above would be a true disaster for America at this critical juncture.
By Purple Avenger, at
Fri Aug 24, 08:09:00 PM:
Easy choice - Hillary. She's the only one with the stones to pull the trigger on starting a war if its really necessary. She'll do it for all the wrong reasons of course, but she'd do it.
By Christopher Chambers, at
Fri Aug 24, 08:15:00 PM:
Only Hillary "understands" foreign policy? Hmmm. Ok. Our current president can barely tie his own shoes.
Barack 08. Understand it. Accept it. Get the f*k over it.
By Purple Avenger, at
Fri Aug 24, 08:23:00 PM:
I got $10,000 says Obama don't get the nomination. Want to back your bluster with some green?
By , at
Fri Aug 24, 08:47:00 PM:
I'd say that's a sucker's bet like Fred Thompson getting the GOP nomination. Hillary's got a "machine" and when you combine that with the Democrats' propensity for self-destruction and denial of the obvious, how can the nominee not be Hillary!
This might sound weasel-worthy but if Obama gets by Hillary, I'd then put down cash on him to take the White House.
By , at
Fri Aug 24, 08:49:00 PM:
Oh, please.
Obama can't win on the I'm half black or half white vote.
Edwards is so weak it's painful.
Hillary wins the nomination, but there's a storm of info to come on who she really is.
Bottom line, I don't see us electing a black guy or evil woman. If a dem gets it, it's someone who hasen't entered the race yet.
... I'll go with Bloomberg, who really is a dem, and has deep pockets.
By Jim in Virginia, at
Fri Aug 24, 09:17:00 PM:
Hilary's camapaign is toast the moment the next Juanita Broderick or Kathleen Willey calls a newspaper or an attorney. If I were running John Edwards' campaigh I'd have sweet young things trolling for Bill like chum in the water. If I were running Hilary's, I'd have a 24 hour guard on Bill.
I picked Hilary in the poll, for the same reasons noted by others.
By , at
Fri Aug 24, 09:45:00 PM:
Hilary, because she at least seems to have a better understanding of foreign policy than Barack "Let's invade Pakistan!" Obama. Edwards just gives me a terminal case of smug.
By , at
Fri Aug 24, 10:08:00 PM:
I have to admit that for me it is not even close amongst those choices. I only wish Bill Richardson were closer...
In all candor, she did spend 8 years at the throne of power and if you believe what David Gergen wrote in his book "Eyewitness to Power" Bill Clinton had a triumverate decision making process with Al and Hillary. So she at least realizes what it takes. Which brings me to the bigger and more contentious question to TigerHawk's readers who would they choose if it were between Al Gore and Hillary?
Again, if you believe Gergen's book he felt that Gore was very solid and is not given his due for being a pretty savvy politician and statesman?
The bigger issue I have with a poll like this is that it gets out to the mainstream media and it comes out that conservatives choose Hillary, when in fact 99% of those who read this blog would just as soon dig their eyes out with their own fingernails before pulling the lever for Hillary (save for that lunatic CC.)
By , at
Fri Aug 24, 10:16:00 PM:
I'm with Purple Avenger. Put your money where your LOUD empty mouth is. Obama is a very empty suit. Accept it. Get the f over it.
That being said I would stay home. My only mistake to date was McGovern. Mohammad Obama slightly above the Breck girl, Hillary at the top, but never.
SEW
By Purple Avenger, at
Fri Aug 24, 11:10:00 PM:
Hilary's campaign is toast the moment the next Juanita Broderick or Kathleen Willey calls a newspaper or an attorney.
They'll all wait until AFTER she's nominated though before attempting any extortions. The hush money offers will be much higher then.
I still believe there's some disgruntled Clinton era Whitehouse staffers out there somewhere who have some really choice Hillary recordings that were made on the laptops the Clinton's installed. In the last few years of his term, high end laptops started to be equipped with built in microphones. It would have been simply too easy to just bring up the Windows sound recorder and let it run whenever she was in the vicinity emitting a profanity laced rant.
Any staffer who has such a recording would sit on it until it could be fired for maximum effect. The NY senate race wouldn't have been good enough. They all knew she was ultimately aiming at 1600 and would have held fire during the senate race.
By , at
Fri Aug 24, 11:18:00 PM:
Oh, PA:
Get over it! :)
Nothing is going to de-rail the Hillary machine. She'll be elected, and suprisingly enough, the United States will still be around in 2012 when the next election rolls around. There's only a limited amount of damage she can cause in four years. She gets elected, Katie Couric has some kind of orgiastic outburst on CBS (putting the BS back in CBS), and we wait for Mrs. Clinton to unravel over the next four years.
We get this thing about electing a woman as president, and Hillary to boot, out of our system.
'Course, there's always Chelsea in 2032 to worry about......
-David
By , at
Fri Aug 24, 11:20:00 PM:
Barack 08. Understand it. Accept it. Get the f*k over it.
By Christopher Chambers, at Fri Aug 24, 08:15:00 PM
LOL! What a pompous jerk!
By , at
Fri Aug 24, 11:34:00 PM:
Zbigdeal Brezinski has a lot of man-love for Barack.
Learn to accept that, and you'll never get over it.
Ebony and ivory......
-David
By , at
Sat Aug 25, 02:31:00 AM:
So if I HAD to vote for a democrat, I'd probably vote for Obama, just to give him another vote and see if I could screw up the Dems. I think he's more pathetic than Edwards. Of the three bozos, I think Hillary probably has more balls, but then we'll get that annoying healthcare stuff, and 24/7 Bill Clinton again. That'd suck.
I'm hoping Obama does well, and gets enough groundswell to go indendepent, and splits the vote.
In the end, I still don't see the US voting in a black person, or a woman.
By TigerHawk, at
Sat Aug 25, 08:43:00 AM:
Hilary's campaign is toast the moment the next Juanita Broderick or Kathleen Willey calls a newspaper or an attorney.
I don't think this is going to happen. I think the odds are greater that any should that could have dropped would have dropped during the Starr investigation. He seems to have turned over just about every rock there was to turn over. More importantly, I think that if you are literally talking about another "bimbo eruption", there is at least as good a chance that works to Hillary's benefit.
The more interesting question is whether there are more shoes to drop regarding Hillary's own conduct, a la cattle futures, real estate deals with hair on them, billing records, etc. For example, if somebody came forward and explained why the famous Rose Law Firm billing records disappeared and suddenly resurfaced, that could be a problem. Similarly, a careful deconstruction of the "cattle futures" episode would, I think, reveal that a crime had committed. I know at least one liberal and anti-Bush retired Congressman, who is very knowledgeable on the subject, who believes that the cattle futures trades were criminal, that there was plenty of evidence that they were criminal, but that there was no prosecution because the statute had run. Well, the running of the statute doesn't make it right.
By , at
Sat Aug 25, 10:09:00 AM:
How about NONE OF THE ABOVE i dont trust any of those liberal demacrats
By Purple Avenger, at
Sat Aug 25, 10:49:00 AM:
Nothing is going to de-rail the Hillary machine. She'll be elected
Her negatives are too high. My mom, who has been an independent democrat leaner her whole life detests Hillary and has stated she would never vote for her under any circumstances.
I've found the "mom test" to be pretty reliable predictor over the years.
By , at
Sat Aug 25, 12:34:00 PM:
Strangely enough, in this year of no love for the GOP, it might be that the only hope for a Republican victory is if Hillary gets the nomination. PA hits the nail on the head: her negatives are unbelievably high. Americans know all about her and don't like her.
Andrew
By , at
Sat Aug 25, 01:47:00 PM:
Hillary. I can't stand her, but she is smart, tough, and ruthless - and ruthless may turn out to be what we need. Obama and Edwards are spineless empty suits.
By , at
Sat Aug 25, 06:33:00 PM:
Well, Edwards is truly an empty suit, but Obama is just inexperienced. He's an intelligent man, just politcally green on the national stage.
PA, that was meant as just slightly sarcastic. Who knows how the campaign will unfold over the next 15 months? You're absolutely correct in assesing all the negatives that surround Mrs. Clinton, because a great many people have already formed an opinion of her.
I doubt any severe revelations regarding Mrs. Clinton will arise, just because most of the Press is carrying water for her. But there will be "unforced" campaign errors on both sides, which will be fun to watch.
-David
By TigerHawk, at
Sat Aug 25, 08:30:00 PM:
I know people who were colleagues of Barack Obama while he was professor of law at the University of Chicago law school. He is by all accounts both very smart and a wonderful guy, and I have seen nothing in the campaign to refute that impression. However, he still thinks very much like a professor, and carries much of the academic's view of the world with him, I think. That is my perception, anyway. I'm not sure that is what we are looking for right now.
I thought Hillary's attacks on Obama's frankly minor rhetorical missteps were brilliant, by the way. Watching her against these other guys reminds me of the time I saw Derek Jeter playing for the Trenton Thunder when he was working his way back from an injury. All those perfectly good minor league players really looked bush league next to Jeter. Same thing -- politically, at least, Hillary makes everybody else look like they cannot play the game.
Edwards remains very much the trial lawyer, particularly in his view that things he says and does in one forum will not be held against him in another. He is an empty suit, and yet has the litigator's arrogance of thinking that no subject is beyond his mastery.
By , at
Sun Aug 26, 01:24:00 PM:
Can you imagine Geoff Stone as Secretary of Homeland Security, or as a judicial nominee? I shudder.
Andrew
