As you all probably know, the Democratic race will probably boil down to two candidates – Hillary Clinton and the Anti-Hillary. Who do you think will be the “Anti-Hillary” candidate? If it’s not listed (there are 7 options, make sure you scroll), put your suggestion in the comments.
>> RELATED: “The Fallback”
Sigh, I saw the part about scrolling right after clicking. I question the usefulness of this dPolls widget if it doesn’t make all the options visible at once, especially when there are only seven. Cute widget. Questionable usefulness. Sorry.
Wes Clark is the only person I’ve seen who has been intelligent enough to cut through the Republican BS and is the reason why I, as an independent, would have no trouble casting my vote for the man today.
The Republicans, most all the TV political news “reporters”, talk show hosts and several, well all, the Democrats I personally know think it’ll be Hillary. I’m afraid that she could well be. Personally, I think she has been on the side of the corporations for way to long. She also has voted Republican on to many issues that define the real Democrats.
Sadly, I believe while the Republican party has proven once again that it is greedy and corrupt. The Democratic party has been so emasculated that it really doesn’t matter as a party anymore. The Democrats of my youth were loud and smart. Seems like the Democrats of today know that things are wrong, but, are waiting on someone else in the party to “grow a set’ and start doing something about it. The is no leadership. The Republicans know there is no leadership.
Let a Republican do something and the party is behind him. Right or wrong!
Let a Democrat do something and he or she might get some support from the party if the polls are right. That is unless the Republican Party turns it into their idea. Then the Dems instead of standing together and screaming loudly “FOUL!” They scatter and hide.
Don’t even get me started on the “Bush Worshippers”. I believe that there are people who’ll argue with traffic signs. Bush apologists fit into that category. They seem to be upset that “fearless leader” isn’t a leader and his record of military service shows he’s not “fearless” either. Still they’ll argue that the country is better off now then it has ever been and all the other crap we hear, see or read daily.
I have a image of the “Apologists” being the teenagers and how devastated they must have been when they learned that there wasn’t a Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. (Has anyone told Sean Hannity yet?)
I would vote Republican if I felt sure that he would reverse the road this country has taken in the last 6 years.
Okay, I rant about every 6 weeks somewhere. It was Oliver’s turn.
I could support Warner. As far as “somebody else” I’d also take a favorable look at Evan Bayh. Otherwise, only Frist as the Republican nominee would force me to seriously consider the others on the list.
As a committed Republican, I hope its not Warner.
Dugger
I don’t know why the Repubs don’t like Hillary. She used to be a strong Republican before she married Clinton. My choice would be Joe Biden. He seems to be the most knowledgeable candidate about the mess in Iraq. I predicted six months ago it would be Biden vs Allen in 08. And I think either man would be a good president. That would be a win-win proposition in my opinion.
Yes, if he teams up with Michael Moore again, the republicans will be very afraid. [/sarcasm]
I don t know why the Repubs don t like Hillary.
He (Clark) is the one they fear the most.
These two statements are clear evidence of the Democrats’ inability to grasp Republican (and, hence, America’s popular) thinking.
Another defeat in ‘08 is at hand.
The republicans remain quiet and stoic about Wesley Clark.
They don’t want to increase his gravitas by landing a blow that
could ricochet and pommel their wooden noggins. He is the one
they fear the most.
And with the Dem machine running on all eight (a most dubious
prospect) he would beat McCain like a red headed step child.
And he (Clark) would humiliate Rice with all the Red State votes
he would pull from her.
I think both sides of the aisle are fielding shit candidates. Six of one half a dozen of the other. I think that the best thing for checks and balances and keeping the country on the right track is to have a President from one party and a legislature of the other. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Frank’s statements were a poor substitute for actually answering the question.
And the Republican party being America’s popular party hasn’t been true since “You’re doin’ a heck of a job, Brownie” and “I did not have bribes from that man Jack Abramoff”.
Personally, I agree that Wesley Clark would be potentially the most formidable candidate because he brings credibility with respect to the military and the War on Terror that no other Democrat would have, taking away a big issue that would otherwise be in favor of the Republicans.
I’ve personally never understood the strong Clark support. I like Gen. Clark a lot, but the intensity of his online support is very hard to understand. Great resume, but I think he (at least in the last go-round) was out of the John Kerry school of campaigning.
The Kerry school of campaigning was Shrum Community College, unfortunately. A lot of people predicted that Kerry blew it when he took on Bob Schrum. http://www.slate.com/?id=2065586
The name is a synonym for blowing it.
I voted Clark in the PA primary in 2004, even though Kerry had a lock by then. He would be the best presidential material, but that often is not why people vote for a candidate. Clark even took the Oklahoma (my home state) primary, even though politically there was little to distinguish him from Kerry. The main problem Clark had was being new to political campaigning and declaring his candidacy too late. I’d like to see him on the ticket but doubt he would be at the top spot.
On the GOP side, my prediction is that it would be between Jeb Bush and McCain, and all the Frists, Rices (sorry Frank), and Giulianis going the way of Gary Bauers and Alan Keyes.
And brings absolutely nothing else
Mark Warner is the man. An Indiana-born, Connecticut-raised man who knows how to win in rural Virginia. A man who gets beyond the old business-labor divide and figured out how to deliver high-tech jobs to rural SW Virginia. A man who cuts throught the culture war crap and gets people to talk about moving America ahead. Warner is a centrist who means it, not a poseur like Hillary Clinton. He doesn’t have foreign policy experience, but he was elected governor just months after 9/11 and did a lot with homeland security issues in Virginia. I don’t agree with Warner on everything – I oppose the death penalty (like Tim Kaine), for example. But I think Warner has a lot of credibility with exurban and rural voters that Hillary could never dream of. And I think he could get the country thinking about things that unite us instead of the same old pot-holes of the Right and Left.
“[/sarcasm]”
Um, I think that went without saying. And while were on the subject of things that should go unsaid:
“he brings credibility with respect to the military and the War on Terror that no other Democrat would have”
I’m sorry but does anyone still think the Republicans respect the military or have any credibility in fighting terrorism? Please. They shot their wad in Iraq and proved themselves incompetent to govern, incompetent to lead, incompetent to work effectively with allies.
Re the Clark thing. He’s as bad a D candidate as Frist is an R. Clark gets a place at the table, becasiue he is ex military and there is always that insecurity on the left. If your foreign policy is sound, it is just as sound with HRC or John Conyers enunciating it as with Clark. If it stinks, Clark’s pedigree will not make it smell better.
Dugger (How bout Gen Clark and Bob Barr as VP – running as the Clark Barr – I’ll be posting all week.)
Anyone who thinks that what clark brings to the table is similar to Kerry or is lacking in anything but the military side of the house clearly has only read what dribbles the MSM let out during the last campaign. If you’ve heard him speak, if you’ve read his website, you’re a fan. And it doesn’t really matter which side of the isle you’re on, because Clark just speaks good sense.
He got gipped by the MSM lasts time, Oliver, he didn’t campaign like Kerry.
JWG, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Clark’s foreign policy is his own, dugger. As is his domestic policy. It isn’t some kind of democratic party line.
Personally, I still think the true progressives should break with the democrats and form a new party. En masse. Onesies won’t do it. Leave the old party hacks like Kerry and Clinton behind. That guy from montana, clark, dean, maybe even kaine and warner (I don’t know much about them, although I wasn’t terribly impressed with Kaine after the state of the union….)
Feingold gets a lot of play in the other liberal blogs and he is the only politician of either party who has been consistently right on Iraq, the Patriot Act and illegal wiretapping. I appreciate the problems he will have in a general election, but the guy got over 60% of the Wisconsin vote while Kerry, and before him, Gore, carried the state by the votes you could count with your shoes on. Although there will be crossover voting in some states, as long as the Republican nomination is in play there are a lot of Democrats who will not care for Hillary’s determined move to the “center”. That is particularly true when the Republicans have moved so far right that the “center” is now to the right of where Goldwater was in 1964. Clark to me is a better national candidate than a primary candidate and looks to the same base as Hillary in the primaries. I have finally gotten over Feingold’s vote to impeach Clinton and he offers a clearer alternative to Hillary than the others.
I have to agree that Clark is not so much the anti-hilary, mainly because the Clinton family supported his candidacy, but he scares Republicans much the way people to Edwards and Fiengold. One, they are plainly more intellegent speakers and I would bet have more mental acuity. Its almost as if Republicans shun thinking candidates. I mean you guys picked Bush, who has proved that he is not on top of anything in life. Secondly, Clark and others are not simpering shoe-gazers like Kerry. Take a note from Paul Hackett. Rethugs love to talk tough, but whine like little girls when they are held to thier own words or principals. No need to just be brash like Dean, but you also talk as if half the country supports your party and your work will not be moved aside because the opposition party uses more hyperbole. Lastly, they are willing to work for the future and solve problems immediately. Bill Frist showed recently on George Stephanoplous that he can only resort to scare tatics because Fiengold has called his bluff. Frist doesn’t want to actually do his job, because playing politics is easier than being a leader. JUst notice that he is already fixated on Iran and how if we hold King George accountable for breaking the law, we are emboldening “future” enemies. Wesley Clark scares Republicans more than because his military expertiese. He is a proven leader, which King George can’t even lead his own life. Better searching for some intellectual conservatives or moderates because Republicans don’t have a shot in winning the White House.
It doesn’t really matter what we think, though, does it. Fact is the DNC will go all out in supporting Hillary because she’s got name recognition. It’s all about branding, not who is best for the job. Goddamn it.
It’s months away from the Iowa caucases, so why are we even speculating? I just don’t want to see Bush I-Clinton-Clinton-Bush II-Bush II-Clinton II. The DNC have got to stop the Dynasty mentality.
I watched Clark on C-Span when he was campaigning, and while I don’t doubt he has improved, he wasn’t very good. I think the power to work a crowd is 75% instinct, and practically essential to winning modern elections – its something I see people like Bill Clinton and John Edwards do like its second nature, while folks like Hillary Clinton, Dean, Kerry, Clark struggle with it mightily.
Give up your third party dreams now. America is a two-party nation, and any change to be done (on either side) has to be created within the party.
I like Feingold (though maybe not for president), but to be perfectly blunt I almost feel like America is more ready to vote for a woman than a Jewish man for president. And as to the dream candidate – yeah, we ain’t ready.
Gore! Gore Gore Gore!
I am 100% not kidding.
Bullshit, oliver. Its a “two party nation” because people like you only think in terms of the next couple of years.
But it was also a two party nation when we started, but we don’t have the same two parties we did then.
Two party politics is also ridiculous given our abilities to communicate, nowadays.
The reason for the two party system is, originally, most of the country would be lucky to *read* a speech by a candidate, let alone hear one. So they had to have an organization they could vote for in lieu of voting for a candidate.
Now that everyone is able to not only hear what the candidate says, but basically review their life, its time to move on to a more modern political framework. At the very least, we need a “none of the above option” (would’ve solved 2000 *and* 2004, and we probably need proportional representation.
By the time obama is ready, he’s going to be just another senator who can’t make it because he had to vote and play politics. Senators make good vps, they make horrible presidents.
Furthermore, all your scheming about “america is ready” and “strategic voting” is what got us four more years of bush, oliver. drop that shit.
Also bullshit on the “dean can’t work crowds”. The only thing dean *couldn’t* do was win the MSM…we was winning until about 4 days before iowa, when all of a sudden all of the media just started screaming about how he wasn’t “electable”. Bullshit. He got people excited. He got my parents excited about politics for the first time in my memory. He was someone people believed in.
What we get instead was the “electable” candidate who wasn’t, with the small cadre of professional politicos that are still playing a 20 year old game, rather than a horde of people who actually believe in the message of the candidate they’re behind. Thats what the democrats have forgotten. One true believer is worth 10 swing voters, and again and again you throw them all away because they might believe to much.
Finally, if you haven’t paid clark any attention since earrly in his campaign, then clearly, you don’t know what they hell you’re talking about. Take 10 minutes out of your day and go take a goddamn look. If you still don’t get it, fine, but at least your opinion will be honest.
Jesus, oliver, I feel like I”m talking to a neocon right about now.
Now he doesn’t have enough experience. Senators never make good presidents. You need a different skill set. I’m looking for a clark/obama ticket.
“By the time obama is ready, he s going to be just another senator who can t make it because he had to vote and play politics. Senators make good vps, they make horrible presidents.”
That is the very reason he should take a shot now.
At the very least, people would watch….
Thats actually 22,000.
The only thing dean *couldn t* do was win the MSM& we was winning until about 4 days before iowa, when all of a sudden all of the media just started screaming about how he wasn t electable . Bullshit. He got people excited.
You’re absolutely right. He was doing fine until that whole “heyaa” thing. and it was MSM’ fault. Hell, I was excited too, for the first time since Watergate. It’s a shame that that sort of youthful exuberance and “tell it like it is” attitude makes someone unelectable. then again, remember Sargent Shriver.
I think we should do the next election like American Idle. Call in and vote! Must be 18! First vote is free. Vote as often as you like, but the next one will cost you $2,457.32, your share of the national Deficit under the Republican Administration!
At the very least, we need a none of the above option (would ve solved 2000 *and* 2004, and we probably need proportional representation.
And I want a pony too. We’re a two party nation. The way to repair is through one of the 2 parties. It’s very possible. The Dem party now is very different from the Dem party when I was born (for better and for worse).
Also bullshit on the dean can t work crowds .
Dean had a simple very good message that cut through the clutter. That’s what got me on his side, but if all the Dems had adopted that message, Gov. Dean would have never broke through.
rather than a horde of people who actually believe in the message of the candidate they re behind
I’m not disagreeing with you, and what I write about Obama is more of a lamentation than strategizing.
We’re only a two party nation as long as people won’t even acknowledge the possibility of change. That is one of the foundations of the country…that we be able to change when we needed to. Now, we need to. You’re right, but only as long as people continue to vote (and advocate for voting) only for the current election. You have to vote in what you believe in, long term.
“Now he doesn t have enough experience’
How much experience did Truman have?
As many are prone to scuttle Senatorial bids for WH, I should think
a lack of experience would be a plus. He’s a quick study who will
establish alliances quickly, and he strikes me as less ego-driven so
his delegation and appointments will need seasoned advisors.
He can do it.
Jesus Christ would have to come down from Heaven driving a 1958 Corvette and annouce his candidacy in the Green Party for a third party to get anywhere over 15% of the vote.
if guiliani runs, it won’t matter who the dems nominate.
Again, have you guys taken 20 minutes and read and watched some recent wes clark? If you have, I’ll stop bugging you.
I agree moonbat- the Democrat wins.
Bible Thumpers voting for someone who slept with his girlfriend under the same roof as his wife and kid?
Bible Thumpers voting for a man who lived with a gay man (where he spent the night of 9/10/01)(not that there’s anything wrong with that)?
Bible Thumpers voting for someone who married their 1st cousin? Well, that may help him down south, actually.
Bible Thumpers voting for a Noo Yorker who is CATHOLIC!