Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If we end up with the so-called top two Hillary and Obama, the choice is easy, right?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Nimrod2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 04:10 PM
Original message
If we end up with the so-called top two Hillary and Obama, the choice is easy, right?
I think some 83% (or more) of all Dems. oppose the war, the votes go to Obama.

Am I missing anything? Obama is going to be our nominee?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Janice325 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm still hoping for Al Gore to run,
but maybe that's just a fantasy of mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wryter2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. It's a fantasy of mine, too
I hope he will run.

If I have to choose between Hillary and Obama, it's Obama for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. Gore is a very big "strange attractor" particle sitting out there, keeping clean.n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. that's assuming that the war is the criteria
... and that one-issue voters constitute the majority, which they do not. Many Americans will consider the bigger picture and look at experience, intelligence, political savvy, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nimrod2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I am thinking the war will make up about 99.99% of this debate well into 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I am hopeful we're out of Iraq well before then.
Voters may look to the future and not consider past stances on the war. The IWR still sticks in my craw, but I'll bet John Q. Public has no clue about that vote nor its implications. Sometimes I think DU is oblivious to the masses and thinks all Democrats think like that splashed across these boards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. "Many Americans will consider the bigger picture and look at exp, intelligence, political savvy, etc
Sadly, George Bush is living proof that this is not necessarily true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sanity Claws Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
5. Nader, right?
:hide:

Just yanking your chain. I don't see Hillary finishing in the top two. If she did, it would be a triumph of the old guard. We need new ideas and new ways of doing them. I think Obama and Edwards would bring new ideas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
graywarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
7. It's anyone's guess.
Personally, I'm sick to death of dynasties. I want Gore, but I'm leaning toward Obama or maybe Edwards. NOT Hillary.

Of course, I'm one of those way to the left nutcases from DU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
8. If we say "pretty please" may we listen to the debates before making a choice?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
10. of course it's easy
If Clinton is currently the front runner, and we end up with Clinton and Obama with Clinton still leading, where is the evidence that the people who support Clinton would jump to Obama? If the war is the #1 issue, they'd support Obama now and HE would be in the lead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpeale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
11. the choice is far from clear
there is Richardson, Edwards, Bilary & Obama (at the least). how did two of them just get dropped? and what about Biden, Dodd & there are probably others. If hilary or biden get the nod, then i will have to find another person to vote for because i will not, i will never, vote for biden or hilary. i would have to take a hard look at dodd, but right at this moment, my two picks are edwards & richardson (in that order), then obama.

Hilary? NO NO NO NO NO NEVER
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. I'm a big Richardson supporter, too... but I have a feeling...
...that those who are against Clinton but like Richardson don't know Richardson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Richardson, Biden and Dodd stand next to zero chance
Because they can't raise the cash. Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are the only one who can raise the cash to compete in the February 5th Super Tuesday, and whether Edwards can even do that is questionable.

There's no such thing as a wide open primary anymore, only those that raise the $ can win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nimrod2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #17
25. I would like to see Richardson on the ticket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
13. From your lips to God's ears (nm)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
14. I think Obama might need to worry about flaming out...
Edited on Tue Feb-20-07 04:32 PM by mnhtnbb
and I wouldn't write off Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Double T Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
15. NOW is NOT the time to make that kind of a decision............
let's let ALL the Democratic candidates have their opportunity to respond to the issues in upcoming debates so 'WE' can choose the BEST nominee for 'OUR' Democratic Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
18. Thinking back
Edited on Tue Feb-20-07 05:00 PM by PATRICK
to pre-primary days of yore. Without an actual vote being counted, candidates who harness all the trappings, the dough, the endorsements who realize that none of this gives them any guarantee but handicapping and manipulation by the MSM and many power players do themselves actual harm in trying to "win" these favored judgments. Already Hillary and Obama show the classic signs of trying to own the bridge so much that they can't straddle or move across the divide to the actual votes in the actual primaries. And where is the grass roots fervor, the new zeal that propelled Dean at this stage against the big money and the MSM? Surrendered as per usual by the usual system.

The danger in this game is that money and support vanishes like the wind- for Democrats especially, depending on what happens when these mammoth circuses arrive at the first voting booth. Part of the chaos in states moving their primary dates are could be seen as a visceral panic, dissatisfaction or distrust(even by top candidates who dread getting trashed by Iowa and New Hampshire!). This spells turmoil at a fundamental level which does not bode well for a somnolent two candidate easy choice, great unity winner. Underneath that turmoil is what probably the two top candidates, by tradition, are hamstrung in reaching- the deeply scarred Dem voter psyche from having been cheated horribly twice before
with "great" unity and safe candidates who triumphed FOR the system which did not produce.

It may be in smoke and flimflam of the money and press and primary confusion that the dull establishment can field another losing or unnecessarily weak bigshot or that this time it will fall apart like it does when the GOP is stabbing it in the back and picking its pocket.

This is why Gore, Edwards, or Clark or some other does have a chance, because there is no upstart Dean to isolate and destroy along with the grass roots hopes. The grass roots are likely unmoved and unenthusiastic under the general assault by the established news and political game and are more intent on picking a winner based solely this time on the cold merits of the most appeal and least negatives who can bluntly cut the crap and win something besides the earliest cover of Newsweek. This time the candidate least likely ever to convince voters with this underlying sentiment is Hillary. This "frontrunner" blocks the real selections much more than Joe L. could ever do. This is making a mess of the real will of the primary voters- who unfortunately this time, by bitter education, are right about what they are looking for. One can only hope that their will can make itself known through the polling, the debates, the spin, the useless punditry, before the chaos of the primaries readjust reality for the
blindly ambitious dancers of the pre-game show.

Last time there were co-equal heavyweights with Dean throwing a huge counter challenge. Kerry was set to be the designated favored guy with Joe L. as the fond hope of the GOP to screw things up for us and at least keep the Dems from going populist or wake up in general. Clark came in as another surprise quality choice but screwed by having only the same conventional establishment props in restricted enough amounts to strangle his chances. So there was realistically Kerry, Edwards, Clark and Dean. Kerry self-destructed early partly from his own misjudgments and mostly from the voter unease at having
someone stiff and northern(the cold appraisal factor that has to be more frantic in 2008). Dean was like the polar opposite, igniting fervent support and a new system challenge(almost tapping into the fed up response) yet creating anxiety not just in the establishment but among voters who wanted a lot of what the establishment also wanted- a safe strong winner. The rightness of Kucinich, the charisma of Edwards, the crisp newness of Clark in retrospect got lost in what swiftly became a Kerry Dean decisive war in the early primaries. It was, in fact, a mess- though it looked like a success to most Dem voters
and relieved party pros.

Until we got robbed again.

Now the establishment, including many past warhorses and discredited, untimely loser advisers, are at it again, hoping without a Dean in the forefront that no one will notice. The MSM has almost engineered an Obama/Hillary faux drama that will scar both polar opposites and give the impression of choice or the discouragement of Dem voters who might find to their horror- after only a couple weeks into the voting season- that the least preferred candidate is the "winner they must rally around.

The real people's choices-so far- are thus: Edwards, Clark, Obama, Gore and not at all in that order nor exclusive should a popular choice earn an enthused consensus spot. Hillary, Kucinich, Richardson and others all have admiration and committed followings. Note: in this discussion I am not talking about who would be the best president with the best policies. That refined squabble is what distracts us from the primeval scream of the Dem voters. Again, what is helping defeat the people's choice is what is worst about the primary system and American elections in general. Big money, big media, big bosses. The goal of all those unholy three(by their very ingrained and proved nature) is to saddle the electorate with the gamiest choice, the safest status quo and someone who can give the GOP- NOT the Democrats- their biggest hope. So we are right to worry, not about the voters, but about the game that conspires against them.

This is not to disparage the Dems playing- or trapped within- this hostile game(do some even know how hopelessly compromised they are?) or attribute dark complicity or personal shortcomings that are endemic to this season. This is only about the nerve-wracking self-produced crisis that our own party offers as an obstacle to hope while trying to believe it is otherwise. Trust the people, really. Since we are the ones who will die en masse from the choices that terrible establishment failures have been forcing upon us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
19. Hopefully Obama WILL be our nominate
I would be involved in his campaign like crazy if he is. Right now, the top choices for me are, in this order:

1) Obama
2) Edwards
3) Richardson
4) Clark
5) Clinton
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quinnox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
20. Yes, easy
I would vote for Hillary Clinton over Obama. And I think if it comes down to these two she will win easily, most dems will vote for her. Edwards is perhaps the only one who has a chance to derail Clinton and I would say she is the clear favorite going in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. So, why bother with the primaries?
Let's not waste time... right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MasonJar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
21. I like Hillary better than Obama, who by the way is awesome. He
needs to wait until 2012 or 2016. However, since Gore has said he has no intention of running, I hope it is Clinton/Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nedsdag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #21
27. Why should he wait?
He has every right to run for President. He's old enough and he's a natural born U.S. citizen. In other words, he meets the criteria.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
23. A front runner is determined the first time voters cast their ballots
The odds are against anyone leading in the polls this early, being the ones leading the polls after the primaries begin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-20-07 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
24. You missing some stuff
#1 is the war is not the single defining issue though it will of course loom largely.

Even more so, what will happen when both candidates back similar withdraw plans and its a matter of arguing semantics (he says a year, I say 6 months etc)?

Then you go onto other issues and even there its not like some chasm separates the candidates positions.

My feeling is that if it comes down to Obama and Clinton shortly after the 1st set of primaries (say post So Carolina) its going to be who has the better organization. And this far out I am not sure whose is better. Obama has assembled a great team and continues to tap into the party's leading lights in fudnraising and running the campaign while Clinton has her group of grizzzled veterans and is a virtual machine at fundraising.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElizabethDC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. Exactly
although I know that some people are basing their vote on the issue of the IWR, etc., I would guess that most aren't. For me, the war is just one of a variety of issues I consider when choosing a candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
26. If they're the top two, I will spend the whole election season in a
bad mood.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nimrod2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. I think many other DU'ers will too.........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-22-07 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
30. The choice is easy: Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC