If Senator Clinton finishes poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire ... (POLL)

[saltpoint]

The mainstream media have all but awarded Senator Clinton the Democratic Party presidential nomination for 2008. Even if you agree that she is unstoppable, this poll speculates on her withdrawal from the race after only two primaries.

It's an unplugging of the media for a minute to decide a possible turn of fate.

Say Sen. Clinton finishes fourth or even fifth in Iowa under strong efforts by Feingold, Clark, Edwards and Bayh. That's an arbitrary group in no particular order, but all four have significant constituencies. Bayh's father scored very well in Iowa and is fondly recalled by many Iowa Democrats; Edwards made an impressive second-place showing in the 2004 caucuses.

The following week in New Hampshire, Senator Clinton is buried alive. Here she finishes fifth. She suspends her campaign, campaign contributions slow, and eventually she realizes that she will have to withdraw owing to unusually well-funded and organized South Carolina campaigns by Clark and Edwards.

Absent the media's favorite, who goes on to win the Democratic nomination in the event that Senator Clinton withdraws after consecutive defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire?

___
note: I only have ten slots, so a few potential candidates' names are included in slot 10 - OTHER.

[Wickerman]

1. I'd love to see a Clark-Feingold ticket

THough I think we have a fine crop of Dems coming to that race. It's the 2006 elections that scare the crap out of me.

[saltpoint]

3. I think a ticket like that would enjoy a lot of support -- and

probably a lot of momentum, given the crap that Bush has been dishing out.

It would refresh a lot of grassroots Democrats, too.

[Wickerman]

6. Certainly not all Dems would be pleased, but

feels like a winner to me.

[saltpoint]

9. Dems can't all have their own tailor-made tickets. But your ticket

sounds convincing and has strong regional appeal. Arkansas and Wisconsin are often close calls in elections, and it wouldn't hurt one bit to have both go blue next time.

I'd show up for that one, Wickerman, and vote for it over any 2 thugs the Republicans send up.

[Clark2008]

10. My dream ticket, as well.

(And my hubby looks like a younger Feingold. :) )

[theshadow]

39. Excellent choices. Alternative: Clark/Obama eom

[demosincebirth]

2. I like Hillary, but she's a sure loser with the nomination

Wesley Clark, for me.

[saltpoint]

4. Hi, augie38. I'm not going to dis Senator Clinton if she winds up

as the party's nominee, because I want the Republicans out, out, out of Washington. I'll support the Democratic ticket unless they nominate Lieberman, and then I have to draw a line there.

But I agree with you; I don't think Sen. Clinton has the oomph to wiin a general election, and I'm still thinking she faces significant fights just getting the nomination.

General Clark? He could be the one. A hell of a lot of people like him on DU and elsewhere.

PS: Go Unions!

[demosincebirth]

15. If she is nominated I will vote for her. I have no choice.

If nominated, the will galvanize the right wing and republican party to no end. She is like a lightning rod. Lets not shoot ourselve in the foot again like we did in '72

[madinmaryland]

5. Let's see what happens in 2006 first.

If a repub wins the governorship of NY, Hillary may think twice about running, as the gov would appoint the replacement to hillary (if in fact she wins). If the Senate remains tight, she may not run.

just a thought.

[saltpoint]

8. True -- but isn't Eliot Spitzer running ahead in the gubernatorial polls

by something like a million percentage points? Weld is way behind, and he's arguably the most qualified.

My money's on Spitzer for that job, and that would eliminate the fear that a Rethug governor would appoint her replacement.

You are absolutely right on the fear of losing another senate seat. My god we've lost way too many as it is.

[madinmaryland]

30. If Spitzer wins (looks like he will), I assume that

Hillary would run.

[shaniqua6392]

7. General Wesley Clark should be the one.

I really think we could win with him. Does he have any aspirations to run? He would definitely bring over Republicans who are unhappy with Bushco. He is well received by many and has even been on FAUX news quite a bit so he would be recognized by those we need to sway.

[Adelante]

11. We won't know until after the 2006 elections

That's all he concentrates on now, helping to get Dems in around the country. At that time, if he sees he has the support, I expect him to run. I pray he will run.

[saltpoint]

13. Clark has said that he will "likely" run. He's organizing and showing up

all over the place at various Democratic functions, etc.

I think he's definitely a candidate for 2008.

[Adelante]

33. I hope so

I really hope so.

[LibDemAlways]

12. The corporate media tried to tout

Lieberman as the front runner in 2004, which was laughable. DUers could have told them a year in advance that Joe had zero "Joementum" and his candidacy would go nowhere. I'm getting a similar vibe about Hillary. The corporate whores try to create an aura of inevitability about her, but haven't bothered to find out where the party base is. I think if Clark runs, the nomination is his to lose.

[saltpoint]

14. True. The media loved Holy Joe and declared him the winner before

the first snowflakes fell on Iowa's fields. Then Joe had to drop out of Iowa altogether for lack of support and the following week he was buried alive in New Hampshire.

The media need to report and not pre-figure events.

Appreciate your post, LibDemAlways.

[9119495]

21. I hope you're right, but H. Clinton isn't exactly Joe-mentum

She is the wife of a (now) beleved ex-president.

[Historic NY]

16. Does anyone except Republicans really want Hillary to run..........

they always seem to be touting her impending change of status. Folks, Hillary has done nothing to deserve it except staying with Bill. She is not as strong as people believe. Republicans view her as beatable because they have already geared up a swift-boat campaign to sink her. It obvious neither McCain or Rudy will make it with them, so they would have to find a more moderate candidate that would make Hillary look like wicked witch.

[saltpoint]

20. I agree with you that she is not as strong as perceived, but the media

have "created" an environment where Senator Clinton is the "front-runner." I've seen "front-runners" fall on their faces way too many times to listen to the media now. So I'm not a believer.

My poll begins after her withdrawal from the race after near deathblows in Iowa and New Hampshire. At that point the media will finally go on to cover other candidates differently than they had prior to a "front-runner's" withdrawal.

Rudy is a real wild card, and I agree with you that he is not going to persuade all that many Republicans to propel him to the GOP nomination.

McCain is formidable, but health issues plague him, and I am not sure he will make the run. I'm sure he wants the job, but he may not want to eat rubber chicken and shake the hands of yahoos in Republican South Carolina, etc. He has an understandably short fuse for morons, and god knows, the Republican Party is jammed with them.

I think you are right again on the "wicked witch" aspect of a campaign by Senator Clinton. The Republicans will try to marginalize her as the very witch in the woods who would shovel Hansel and Gretel into an oven. Limbaugh has picked on Senator Clinton for years now, even as he was gulping pain pills by the handful. She threatens a lot of people -- men and women both -- because she's smart and poised, but I just don't feel she will be our nominee.

[whododayis]

22. hilary

I agree, she hasn't shown me anything more than a loud sound bite. No consistency in her positions on the issues that matter, only more 'finger in the wind' stances that her husband was famous for.

[nickshepDEM]

17. It really depends on who wins IA and NH.

If Bayh wins IA and does well in NH. Hillary will throw her support and $$$ behind him, and that will be all she wrote. Bayh goes on to win the nomination.

Warner and Feingold have the potential to do very well in IA.

If Warner does well in IA and NH, he will tear up the south, period. He may not be a good ol' boy, but he's proven he can connect with rural voters. P.S. dont try to sell me on local success does not equal national success, because Im not buying, sorry.

After that, its slim pickings.

[whododayis]

26. the only thing that hilary has run successfully has been her mouth

[saltpoint]

28. Hi, nickshepDEM. I'm not selling local success these days. I grew up not

far from Cincinnati, and I don't even know what local success IS!

Bayh does have some potential. He's too conservative for me as a first-choice Democrat, but his votes in the last couple of years have definitely shown some blue-bloddedness and real heart. I give credit where it's due. His father, Birch Bayh, was a classic liberal and was turned out by Indiana voters in the 1980 Reagan landslide, signifcantly because a young idiot Congressman named Dan Quayle smeared Bayh with abortion literature. Not much different than the Swfitboating of candidates like Kerry, Max Cleland, etc.

Some folks are emailing me that Al Gore is yet to be fully factored in this race, and I concede that his entry would throw my poll results off considerably. It would probably piss off Senator Clinton a lot more, though. She would probably have the most to lose if Gore decided to jump in.

All good wishes to you, and thanks for your post.

[Tom Rinaldo]

74. On local success does not equal national success. Simple logic Nick

If Warner runs, and if Bayh runs, and if Richardson runs, and if Vilsak runs, if all those guys run, local success can not equal national success for all of them. At most it can for one of them. Every four years a bunch of contenders seek the Presidency from both major parties who have excellent credentials regarding popularity in their home state, and almost all of them lose, and many of them bomb.

Look at Senator Bob Graham from Florida last time. He was the most popular politician in Florida, an extremely respected Senator and Ex-Governor of that State. He didn't even make it to Iowa. We can run down the list from prior years also and it is the same thing. Sure, frequently a Democrat who was really popular in their home state wins, but more often they are eliminated from contention on the national stage, often in the early stages. I remember really liking Bruce Babitt in 1992, popular Democratic Governor of the then very red state of Arizona. Great guy, eliminated early.

It is not a definitive indicator of anything, other than that someone should probably be regarded as a serious candidate, if they are popular in their home state. Better than the opposite? Certainly.

[whododayis]

18. clarks strengths and weaknesses

Clark's strength and weakness may be the same;he's not a career politician. The deal making and backscratching that goes on within the inner circles of DC might make him the target from the beginning of the campaign(anyone remember how quickly they DC insiders cut Howard Dean off at the knees when he was clearly starting to pull away from the pack in Iowa?. As someone who hasn't run and won any political campaign, he has no idea how dirty things can get when you're the lead dog.

[saltpoint]

35. I wonder if the Democratic Party, led this time by Dr. Dean, might

consider letting the people speak. What I loved about the Dean campaign was the sheer number of enthusiastic human beings who volunteered for it.

I think it's very possible that General Clark could enjoy the same level of enthusiasm.

[roguevalley]

19. we'll need a general and an economist and a leader and a

good person to lead us out of this morass, one who has admiration and contacts internationally. ONly wes clark has that background.

[AtomicKitten]

23. Al Gore deserved a slot in your poll. (nt)

[saltpoint]

31. He does. I concede the point. I can't fix it without bumping Boxer or

someone else now. I've been touting Gore's speeches sine 2000 and sending everything I can get on him to an increasingly larger group of associates.

I LOVE his speeches since leaving office. He's more sure-footed, he's resonant with the heritage and spirit of the country. He's been a star in my book.

I also believe he is the legitimate president of the United States.

He officially has said he won't run in 2008, but you and I know that candidates can be persuaded to change their minds. I've written a letter to him urging him to reconsider.

[Virginia Dare]

24. I'm on the fence..

I think Clark is finding his voice, but I think that Edwards is going to remind everybody why they loved Bill Clinton on the campaign trail. Personally, I'd support either one. I also think Warner could be a dark horse if he doesn't make any mistakes, which would be fine with me as well.

[saltpoint]

32. Virginia Dare, you are where a lot of us may be right now.

Also, many of us like more than one candidate and can find virtue in several potential candidates.

Loved your post. Thank you.

[9119495]

25. If Vilsack runs, Iowa doesn't count.

I live in Iowa. While I don't think he has a shot at the nom, his entry inthe race would help Clinton because no one would come here. That would allow H.C. to last for sure to the third contest, which if I remember right will NOT be South Carolina this time. Why do we let that state have a say when the current dynamics will not allow our party to win it?

[whododayis]

29. can you say 'clinton/vilsack 06' ?

[Debi]

Hopefully nobody n/t

[saltpoint]

37. Hi, 9119495. I love the way you Iowans do politics. I love the idea

of caucuses.

You may be right on Vilsack. Favorite sons have enjoyed support over the span of election history, but once in a while one goes down to a well-oiled national campaign.

I was thinking of Roger Branigan, then-govenor of Indiana, losing to Robert Kennedy in the Indiana primary in 1968.

Think of that: a liberal Catholic Democrat defeating a sitting governor of very red Indiana.

Some of my relatives at the time supported Branigan. I was way, way too small to know the difference, but I am a bit amazed at the result.

I need to keep a closer eye on Gov. Vilsack. I think I've slighted him in many ways and need to stop overlooking his chances.

Thanks for your post.

[Debi]

49. Don't count other candidates out in Iowa

Vilsack had to do some serious ass kissing to get Union support in his re-election and if given an alternative Democrats in Iowa might not be so quick to support him. Watch the 2006 Governor's race. Vilsack's pick is Mike Blouin, if he wins the primary/general Vilsack may still have some pull. But if Vilsack can't get Blouin elected he may want to think twice before running for President.

[saltpoint]

57. I didn't mean to sound as if I was counting anyone out.

I would have listed everyone I could possibly think of, announced, unannounced, likely or unlikely, but I only had 10 slots to work with.

No offense intended.

[Debi]

47. Let all us Iowans pray Vilsack doesn't run......n/t

[Jai4WKC08]

55. Clark will be in Iowa, whether Vilsack runs or not.

He cannot and will not miss it, assuming he runs at all. Not after what happened in 2004. Fwiw, he didn't want to skip it then. It took a lot of persuading by his senior staff, and the advice of some big-name professional politicians. Clark is a fighter--it's not his nature to sit out a competition.

Besides, Iowa is only Vilsack's to lose. And losing for Vilsack will mean not getting a majority. If he comes in first but with less than 50%, he might as well hang it up. A majority will be pretty tough, given the number and caliber of candidates, even if they don't campaign.

If anyone comes in a respectable second behind Vilsack, anything more than 30% or so, maybe even less, it'll be the same as winning.

[Jon8503]

27. OK but I think Gore deserves a slot of his own, should not be lumped

with Biden, Lincoln, Daschle and the others.

[saltpoint]

34. Agree with you here, but 'am limited as to the number of slots.

In other posts on DU, I've speculated that Al Gore's entry into the next presidential election would destroy Senator Clinton's shot at the nomination.

Too many statewide Democrats across the country believe Gore was cheated by Bush and Cheney, and I agree with them. Their loyalties will be first to Al Gore before Sen. Clinton. That's just my own personal view, but I think it is a strong argument.

[whododayis]

36. running mate?

[saltpoint]

38. For Gore you mean? Well, he could choose almost anyone and it would

`work. But please dear god let it not be Joe Lieberman this time!

Maybe Howard Dean. Gore endorsed Dean in the 2004 primaries.

Or Barbara Boxer. Why not have two big-league fighters on the same ticket? Hell, I'd vote for it.

Gore's strong enough in and of himself that he could probably carry the country this time with almost anyone as a running mate except perhaps O. J. Simpson or Michael Jackson. Absent those 2 choices, I'd say he is the next president.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

65. I second that notion

I absolutely do NOT want Lieberman anywhere near the next presidential election. A Gore/Dean candidacy would be great, I've even spoken with conservatives who really admire and like Howard Dean.

[Yupster]

76. I think Lieberman could be a serious VP contender

for John McCain.

That's the only candidate I can see who would consider him.

[CTyankee]

40. How about 2 southerners, like with Clinton/Gore in 1991?

It could be Clark/Warner or Clark/Edwards. It worked before for us dems.

[saltpoint]

58. I think you have a strong point. I remember all the negative

response to Clinton choosing Gore (two bordering states, "no geographic diversity," etc.) but they did just fine.

Your proposals could happen, and I think they'd be viable.

[demdiva]

41. Kerry / Obama 2008

Although Obama said flat out on MTP that he would not be on the ticket in 2008.
Any way he can get out of it?

[whododayis]

42. kerry/obama

obama seems like a great guy, like someone you'd want as a neighbor, but he hasn't shown me that he can lead anything yet. maybe next time around. as for kerry, i didn't want him last time, and i think that we've got a stable full of top talent this time. this country is crying out for so much more than a candidate that looks good on television. what people want is leadership that will be honest and forthright, provide clear direction and convince people to support and work towards a set of firm beliefs and fundamental goals. most people in this country are so lacking in self direction that it's no wonder that they latch on to whatever snake oil salesman that holds their interest long enough to make the sale. slick marketers and self promoters like dr. phil, any televangelist, or even that kevin "cure it all" guy have suckered people to give up their right to self determination and against their own self interest through their various pitches. I want a leader who leads people and movements, not a master of the soundbite or photo op.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

43. Kerry conceded an election he had won

And Obama declared that he was "absolutely convinced" that the '04 election was legit. Could we count on them to challenge the next stolen election? Would they wait a couple of weeks to allow investigation of voter disenfranchisement, computer "glitches", over 100% turnout, impossible jumps in the opponent's totals, bogus terror threats, etc.?

Now, Boxer probably doesn't have the strongest appeal, so rolling over on fraud shouldn't trump all senators. Still, Obama was so vociferous it was a real turn off.

[saltpoint]

67. Hi, O.M.B.inOhio. Can I ask you a question about things in the

Buckeye State?

I'm following with interest the proceedings with Congressman Ney and the coin scandal, and the statewide disillusionment with Gov. Taft.

Is there any sense at all that some of the top statewide offices will go blue next time? It looks as if Kenneth Blackwell was the source of a great deal of the mischief in the Ohio election, and I have been told that Butler County, north of Cincinnati, was awash in "mystery counting" of ballots.

How I would love it if Ohio elected a Democratic senator again, and a Democratic governor.

Is there any good news your way to share with the rest of us?

[O.M.B.inOhio]

92. For what it's worth...

I'm writing from a liberal enclave, but here's the Buckeye State as I perceive it.

There's disillusionment with the corrupt Repugs. I think our Republican voters are the "honest, traditional folk" types who just haven't gotten the memo about the GOP being an agent of the devil. As I canvassed in '04, the Kerry support was strong, even in communities where you might not expect it. Still, there was an editorial in the local paper indefense of Ney, the tireless defender of his constituents.

You know how you can sometimes feel a snowstorm? There's a feeling of Sen. DeWine losing to a Democrat. Paul Hackett is getting attention that reads as baffled curiosity. Gov. Taft is a joke. Rep. Ted Strickland seems to have a strong following as he pursues Taft's job. Bob Fitrakis is running for Gov -- either a Naderesque spoiler or an important voice on the subject of election fraud.... or to be shut out of debates and the press. I can't help but think that for Blackwell and Taft to stay out of jail, they have to stay in power, so watch for a surprise victory as more voting machines go offline on election night for mysterious reasons. (Terror threat in Warren Cty when * "won" and excessive humidity when Hackett lost last year.)

Still, one candidate for Governor talking about electronic election theft and strong Dems against feeble Pukes, it's looking good. I'm optimistic that we'll win or there'll be no denying tampering.

Cheers!

[saltpoint]

59. Obama is a big draw for Democrats, but it's only been a few months or

so that he was a state senator in Illinois. I'm not sure party rank and file and committee chairs nationwide will be hogwild about his "lack of experience" but then again, a lot can happen in a couple of years and I could be proved wrong on this big time.

I'll wait and see on Obama for 2008, but I know his profile will be one of the party's largest from there on, no question.

[demdiva]

82. JFK reportedly said to detractors

who had a problem with him running for President so early in his career, that waiting to run would both make him a less attractive presidential candidate and would make him a less effective Senator.

And, by the way, W had only six years in elected office when he ran for his first term. This drove me nuts when he compared his experience to Kerry's in 2004.

I agree it's a concern, but again, not a strong prohibitor.

[Yupster]

77. Yeah - being asked

How can you say no when a presidential candidate says he needs you?

It's downright unpatriotic to say no when you're called to lead.

It wouldn't be a problem. Both candidates would make clear how he didn't want the job but the Presidential candidate insisted the country needed him.

[demdiva]

81. True

[Rambis]

44. She is not the nominee period

Fox news can't stop talking about it but she is not going to run.
I think she would do a great job but it isn't going to happen.

[saltpoint]

60. Hi, Rambis. Your position is one of the strongest in this thread so

far, and I thank you for it.

You're certainly right-on about FOX. They are slobbering over her "inevitable" nomination.

This is just my opinion, but I think other Democrats will outflank her in Iowa, even ones that ma not have all the bucks she has.

[BlueIris]

84. Oh, thank God. Another person paying attention.

Not gonna happen. I won't rule her out as vice, but I think even she knows that a) that would hand the Republican the election because the media would easily be able to spin the GOP's Diebold-bought "victory" as believable because "America wouldn't support the Dems for bringing in a female with the last name Clinton in the age of 9/11" and b) it's better for her to wait on the whole deal, let Kerry's people break their backs for four years doing the hardest of the reconstruction work so she can swoop in and take the credit for it in '12 and/or '16. Sorry, kiddies, not this time.

For the record, it's not like I hate her, but she's nothing special. Personally, though, I've seen no evidence that she would do a good or even functional job, especially during the critical '08-'12 years, but might do a servicable work in the next decade. At the moment, though, right-wing control is still too extreme to make it possible for her to get the nomination. She knows it, Party knows it, and most thinking people here know that.

[FrenchieCat]

45. I think that Clark could do it this time....

He wasn't in Iowa last time....

Clark's problem is gonna be money and media exposure. Unlike the rest of the "Candidates" the man has no personal fortune....although he finally became a millionaire in 2002.....that was a 1 million millionaire, not more. He said (yesterday when I spoke to him in S.F.) that soon after the campaign ended he realized he didn't have enough money to pay both his secretary and his house note.

This money problem is, of course, is made worse because the media seems not to want to cover him....unless they are forced to do so. I remember when he won a KOS poll, and yet CNN only talked about who came in second (no friggin' clue, no less). Without media exposure, raising money is very difficult in an environment where Senators are constantly raising money for their senate races, and the media reports on folks like Hillary and Warner enough to give them name recognition which in turn can lead to contributions.

Hillary currently raised 21 million for her senate race. That's hard to beat....regardless of whether she could win or lose....to date, she's got the dough....and moula speaks volumes, unfortunately.

At least, Wes Clark has something that the others don't .....

[saltpoint]

61. If General Clark collects enough cash and starts organizing in

Iowa, I believe his showing will be impressive.

Especially if a lot of DUers live in that state, since he is enjoying a commanding lead in this poll tonight.

[CTyankee]

89. Maybe George Soros could fundraise

for him. Soros is really smart and he knows where a lot of liberal bucks lie.

[Scout1071]

46. Gore! nt

[sofedup]

48. reelect Gore!!! n/t

[jackpan1260]

50. Feingold and Warner for me.eom

[senaca]

51. It's hard to pick definatively.

I like Clark's background, Finegold's ability to cut through the bull and vote with an eye toward the future, Edwards empathetic ability to reach out, Gore's vision, etc. It will be hard to tell until each brings their own vision of tackling the issues that people are facing on a day to day basis. Which candidate will have the ability to truly connect and inspire. I can say I for one will be looking alot closer at what each proposes at the beginning of their campaigns. We are lucky to have some fine candidates.

[saltpoint]

73. senaca, yours is the sort of post that has long, long legs and deserves

to be part of almost any discussion about the future of the Democratic Party.

You are dead-on right to say there are many fine candidates right now, and that we're lucky to have them.

Unless Jeff Sessions and John Cornyn switch parties and become the Democratic ticket in 2008, I'll support our ticket and volunteer for its success.

I can take a lot of crap from Bush so long as I know a volunteer's role can help in a small way to counter it.

Nice, nice post, senaca. Thank you.

[IndianaGreen]

52. Bayh's fame increases the farther one travels away from Indiana

I voted for Kerry. I am still having warm fuzzy feelings about his role in the Alito filibuster.

[saltpoint]

62. Hi, IndianaGreen. You're right about Bayh's fame. He's won a lot of

statewide races in Indiana but remains less popular than Senator Lugar. He's been more cautious than his more liberal father, and more conservative, and for me, more frustrating.

It's just that when he speaks, I have the feeling that someone's pulling a cord behind a Ken doll and making him say things. It tends to sound way too practiced and not totally authentic. I'm not slamming him personally, just commenting that his style is still a bit stiff.

But I concede that he's smart and maybe he's electable, I don't know.

And again, you are absolutely right about Kerry's role in the Alito scenario.

[Radical Activist]

53. This is waaaaay too hypothetical

since we don't know who is going to run or who places ahead of her in Iowa and New Hampshire.

However, Hillary can lose the first two states and stay alive a while. She has enough national name recognition, money, and following that she can survive a loss in those two states and still have a chance at getting the nomination. Remember, Dean lasted for several more weeks even after losing Iowa and New Hampshire. Hillary will have even more money and national support than Dean did. Those two states won't be enough to stop her.

[saltpoint]

63. Radical Activist, please accept a couple of things right off the bat.

First, hello. Your points in your post here are strong ones, and particularly with the example of Howard Dean. Dean's volunteers worked from the blood and bone and they did awfully well. The Democratic Party owes a multitude of thank-yous to Dr. Dean and the people whose energy comprised his campaign. Many were first-time-ever volunteers and participants in the political process. Many made abiding friendships working together on that campaign and a few even fell in love with each other. The degree of good will in Howard Dean's path is higstory-breaking, at least in my opinion.

Second. Please accept words of praise for your writing and thinking on DU, which I continue to enjoy, no matter the topic. I have the feeling that there is one or two books around your place, and that your critical thinking capacities are far higher than many other U.S. voters and citizens even attempt. You do not boast, ever, so I want to carry the ball this time and offer well-earned praise to you here in public in this thread.

[Radical Activist]

66. Wow.

Well, thanks. I think I spend most of my time mouthing off but thanks for the praise.

[saltpoint]

68. : )

:thumbsup:

:hi:

[radio4progressives]

70. and a toast to you for your kind acknowledgements!

:toast:

[saltpoint]

72. And right back atcha, good person.

By the way, your Dylan image in your signature field is another indication of a sound mind.

I had on "Shelter from the Storm" a while ago and I'm still humming it inbetween DU posts!

The man is a goddam genius.

[NJ Democrats]

54. Feingold and Warner for me please.

I wouldn't mind Clark on the ticket though.

[radio4progressives]

56. "Indicting Hillary" to be released soon (?)

"Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" (which truly does exist) appears to have created a hit piece on HRC and is about to be released in theatres soon, but I don't know when - and the link to the trailer isn't working for my computer.

http://www.peterfpaul.com/

Indicting Hillary

[saltpoint]

64. I remember her words when she actually spoke them -- "vast

right-wing conspiracy" and you are right to say that there truly is one.

The Bush administration pays reporters to assess the Iraq effort more positively than it ever deserved to be assessed -- O yes there IS a vast right-wing conspiracy. Perle and Feith and Rumsfeld and Krystol and that bunch -- the architects and instigators of the assault on Iraq -- also significant parts of the conspiracy.

But I have a feeling you are one among a growing number of citizens who refuse to listen to the Bush administration lie through their teeth. I think to the extent that Sen. Clinton is perceived as against those lies and deceits, versus kowtowing TO them, will determine her success at the 2008 nomination.

[radio4progressives]

69. Yes, of course... i put this out here for a heads up.. looks like they're

preparing for a major swift-boating and I'm wondering how prepared the counter veiling forces will be to slap this down..

I'm no HRC fan, but I hate the scum bags repukes much worse, and it's going to be a very ugly scene if this isn't smacked down right away.

[saltpoint]

71. Exactly. When the GOP guys pick on her, it's a case of the boys in

the schoolyard taunting the smart girl in their class.

Unacceptable and undemocratic to boot.

[Yupster]

75. Interesting poll

I voted Kerry on the thinking that if Hillary got swamped from the race, that news would dominate the news even more than the guys who did do well.

Therefore the alternative would have to have enough name ID to take advantage and to me that would be Kerry.

Interesting poll though.

[saltpoint]

78. Hi to you, Yupster, and thanks for the kind words.

Name recognition is something I never seem to get the hang of when it's discussed on the news programs. I need to pay closer attention to it, because your point holds water.

John Kerry says he is undecided about another run, but the reports say he has plenty of on-hand cash and could maybe make a go of it.

I still regard him as the legitimate winner of the Ohio election last time, and thereby, the presidency.

[Yupster]

79. Ya gots to understand that there are

many people who will pay close attention to the people running and make a good decision in both parties. However, I'd say even the majority of voters don't fall into those categories. Most people don't listen to political radio,don't go to political websites, don't watch the news, and don't read newspapers.

There are many voters who always vote and always vote Republican or always vote Democratic and couldn't tell you why. In fact pollsters will get answers like "I vote republican because we need a change in congress so Delay and his crooks are run out of town."

So when it's primary day and these people go in to vote, having paid little or no attention to the campaign, and not even being able to name half the candidates, who do they vote for? The name that they know.

That's name ID.

PS - a funny story from 1984. The Reagan campaign ran a controversial ad called "A Bear in the Woods." Basically it was a guy with a gun pointing down looking a bear. The audio went something like "There's a bear in the woods. Some people think it's harmless. Others are not so sure. But until we know for sure don't you think we should keep a close eye on him?" The story of course was to keep being tough on the Soviets.

Lynn Nofzinger (I think) of the reagan campaign tells the story that they were worried about the ad because it was kind of complex, so they focus grouped it extensively. What they found was surprising. The people who got the point liked the ad, but even more surprisingly, the larger group which didn't get the point of the ad liked it even more. They thought it was saying Reagan wanted to preserve more animals in nature and that was nice of him. So they kept the ad and played it over and over.

[saltpoint]

86. I hear ya. What is really occupying my thoughts on Party strategy

these days is the Iowa caucus, because it is so unlike the other primaries.

I think it's a more reliable gauge of a state's Democrats to gather in living rooms and coffee shops, etc. across the state and stand up for your candidate.

I'm not asserting that it's perfect and every other state's primary is hopelessly flawed, but I do love the way Iowans handle this.

Name ID, as you say, is major. No argument there. But the machinations of power and the variant perceptions of political personalities are an alluring slurry and I want more and more of a dose.

It would be interesting to hear from several Iowa Democrats to get their thoughts on all the potential candidates.

[Jai4WKC08]

88. Name recognition is important but...

It can be a double edged sword. Candidates with high name recognition are sometimes the same ones who have a high percentage of negative opinion, because most voters will have already made up their minds about them. Even if they are grossly uninformed about the candidate, as I agree with you that most primary voters will be.

That said, a candidate has to have enough name recognition to capitalize on any negatives that might be associated with those who have the highest. I think that by your theory, which may very well be correct, Edwards could have the advantage if Clinton tanks, and it may be why he's doing fairly well in the "scientific" (not on-line) polls now. He's almost as well known as Kerry, but without as much negative baggage from the '04 swiftboating and having lost the election. However, a lot will depend on what he does between now and Jan 08, and what coverage he can get, because the public tends to have a short memory and, like my favorite, Edwards doesn't have the advantage of a Senate seat to keep him in the news. But he's always tended to be a media darling, so maybe he can. If I'm hearing right, tho, he won't have the money he had before, so we shall see.

I also think the proposed DNC schedule, assuming it goes into effect and depending on how, will give even more advantage to those candidates with greater name recognition than there has been in the past. The more states in the mix, the harder it is for a relatively unknown candidate to get his or her name out.

I am always struck by a newspaper article I read on-line where some guy in rural Tennesee was interviewed on the morning of the primary there in 04. He said something to the effect that he knew there was "some general" running and would vote for him, but he didn't know his name. Given how much time and money Clark poured into TN, I find that shocking and very discouraging. Not just for Clark in 08, but for our democracy overall. Makes ya just want slap 'em, don't it?

I disagree with what someone, I think it was you, said up stream about media coverage of whoever beats Clinton in Iowa and/or NH. Clinton's defeat will be the main story, but they'll have a hard time ignoring whoever was the one who beat her. Lord knows I could be wrong--I never cease to be amazed at how the media can shape a story to whatever they want, and completely ignore the news that people need to hear.

But I suspect that, if Vilsack runs in Iowa and Clinton doesn't even go there, then the winner, whether Vilsack or someone else, will be ignored because the media will say the caucus didn't matter at all because Clinton wasn't in it. Especially if there are a few caucuses inserted between Iowa and NH, as I have heard is in the DNC plan. The media will just move on to whichever ones (probably all of 'em) she's in, and there will be next to no momentum for the Iowa winner.

[Awsi Dooger]

80. Warner will emerge during the 2007 debates

Remember, we're only about a year away. The 2004 campaign kicked off with the Roe. v. Wade dinner in February 2003. There will be tons of debates and events to weed out the field throughout 2007.

Mark Warner doesn't have a 74% approval rating in a red state for nothing. I'm a handicapper and I'll project Warner to put himself in great position for the nomination long before a single vote is cast. Certainly he'll dominate some of the phony names on that list, namely Feingold and Bayh who have zero shot. After 2004 a senator is going to be low on the priority list which halts Feingold and Bayh before they get started and makes Hillary much less inevitable than the polls or warchest suggests.

Warner is clearly the most electable via the trump card status of winning Virginia's 13 electoral votes, which essentially means winning Florida or Ohio is unnecessary. That changes the entire playing field and Rove knows it. Hopefully, our primary voters will realize it also. I'm just worried they will shy away from the most electable tag after idiotically applying it to Kerry in 2004.

[saltpoint]

87. Very insightful analysis, Awsi Dooger. Florida and Ohio are going to

have to be in the blue column or it's going to be a gloomy evening at Democreatic election headquarters.

Warner? His name is bandied about and always in a positive context. I hear some neutral-to-positive comments too, but almost no negative reactions. No one seems virulently opposed to him in the way they would be for a fool like Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller. Warner's got major cred and doesn't seem to be frightening anybody off.

But I would like him better myslef -- just my own opinion here -- if he had more of an oratorical flare. I don't require it, of course, but I am awfully homesick for a candidate who can use language to uplift and inspire and challenge, unlike the current president, who is such a stumble-bum when it comes to sentences and ideas. I hate the way Bush tries to speak. I hate it. Once in a while the History Channel will run a program on John Kennedy's speeches and wow -- Dubya sounds like a brain-dead ninny by comparison.

A lot of practical, real, here-and-now things will help heal the country, and they're a priority, yes. But in addition, I would like to have somebody who can master language and frame our national life with some view toward the permanent record and general uplift.

Warner? No real reason it couldn't be Warner on the top of the ticket next time.

[mtnsnake]

83. Wishful thinking. The only way she finishes poorly is if she doesn't run.

None of the "knowns" we have stand a chance against her, like Kerry, Edwards, or even Clark, unfortunately, although I wish deep inside that Clark was our president.

The only one I can see having a chance is Warner, but that's mostly because he's a relatively "unknown", and he would come off as centrist enough to win over votes of the fence-hugging fools out there. Would I want Warner over someone like Clark? Fuck no.

[saltpoint]

85. But the wish is strongly felt and widely held, even among establishment

Democrats. Senator Clinton may have some considerable clout as you suggest she does. We agree. But frontrunners run the risk of being knocked for a loop in presidential campaigns. It's happened many times before. Senator Clinton is not immune to history. She could bulldoze everything in her path and have it wrapped up by the end of the Pennsylvania primary for instance, or be ambushed by 4 or 5 other candidates in iowa and never recover.

You join a hell of a lot of other DUers on Clark. He is wildly popular here and the commanding winner of this (and every other) poll on DU.

Turns out we agree on Warner, too. I don't hate the guy at all and I love his stand on the death penalty, but I listen to him on C-Span and he sounds funereal and flat. No zip.

Good wishes, mtnsnake. Appreciate your post.

[Yupster]

91. I kind of agree with you mtnsnake

For one thing, I kind of envision two campaigns.

In the first one, Hillary will be a rock star on the streets getting 24 hour cable coverage.

The second campaign though will be below ground and will be Bill and his minions clearing the way for her like a snowplow. Bill is such a student of the 100 different things that have to be done to win a nomination, and he has so many talented political people at his call.

This can be seen a ittle bit in Susan Estrich's recent book "The Case For Hillary," in which she names some people I never heard of as the top California local precinct organizer, and the top Gergia guy, and she goes through them and says they're all already on Hillary's payroll, or more properly her PAC's payroll.

I just don't see other candidate's standing up to the two of them working in public and behind the scenes.

For the same reason I think she has a very good chance of winning the general election too.

PS - I am not a supporter of hers though I'll vote for her if she gets the nomination.

[Greyhound]

90. Voted Clark, have little hope that he'll survive the process. n/t

[thatsrightimirish]

93. One very attractive thing about Clark is

That the republicans think that we are weak on National Security and foreign policy. Well if we nominate a 4 star general and they nominate some wacko in Virginia. i think we'll get big points on that issue