Hillary or Bayh or Biden

[prolesunited]

These are apparently the early contenders. If you had to select from the three above, who has the best chance of winning in 2008?

[greatauntoftriplets]

1. Where is the move overseas option???

:puke:

[Cha]

75. Or up North to

CANADA?! I get to go to Canada around September 9 and am so glad I'm going to be out of the damn country when the pukey "freedom walk" is propogandized ALL OVER THE TUBE.

[TruthIsAll]

112. NOT A DAMN ONE. THEY ARE ALL SPINELESS PHONIES.

We should vote them all OUT of office.

[PassingFair]

2. I second that emotion!

:puke:

If this is the best we can do, I'm not voting.

[mmonk]

3. If those are our options,

I won't be voting in the presidential race. I'm going to fight to return Americans their constitutional liberties and against the neocon empire dream.

[Coexist]

68. second that - Green party, anyone?!

[Another Bill C.]

4. Same here.

If any of these are the candidate, I'll stay home and get drunk (and I hardly ever drink). I'm too old to leave the country.

[prolesunited]

5. What if they held an election

and the Democrats all stayed home?

[mmonk]

82. It might send a message

[WildEyedLiberal]

87. A message that Republicans have an even bigger majority?

What an awesome message! President Frist would be so much better than President Clinton or Bayh or Biden. But at least DU could still feel morally superior, and THAT'S what's important!

[idlisambar]

6. We better hope the Republicans can't find a candidate too. n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. Gag me.

If that's the best we can do, we're screwed again.

[mike_c]

8. never....

eom

[Donna Zen]

9. What a coincidence!

I just wrote on another thread that "the political shit-heads that got us into this war can go fuck themselves.

[still_one]

10. I won't vote if those are the choices

[CanOfWhoopAss]

14. As bad as they are you will vote.

Chicken George and Kooky Karl will come up with someone to make you vote.

[still_one]

44. I respect you convictions, but I really won't vote for that group

If that is the choice, then it really won't matter to me anymore

[Sandpiper]

11. If I wanted a pro-corporate, pro-war candidate

I'd vote Republican.

[StudentOfDarrow]

12. All you people saying you won't vote for these.

The alternative is 4-8 years of Frist or Jeb. Sure, I'd prefer almost anyone over these three, but if we don't win in '08, America is done. Non-voters are enablers.

[Totally Committed]

49. "Non-voters are enablers"?

if the choice is between any of these candidates and Frist or Jeb, the Republicans will win either way.

Respectfully, to my way of thinking, voting in that case would make those who vote the enablers. Never again will I hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. If I and my family will be screwed either way, then I abstain. And, I will continue to abtain until we are given a REAL choice.

We who have voted AGAINST the Republicans have aided and abetted this Party and brought us to where it is today. It's time to stop and demand that our Party does better by us, instead of rubber-stamping the rogering they give us every election cycle now.

[WildEyedLiberal]

89. You think you'd get "screwed" under a President Gore or Kerry?

Or hell, even a President Clinton or Bayh or Biden? Bullshit. See, when our party is in POWER, we can actually set the agenda, which, contrary to your Nader-like pronouncements, is considerably better than a Republican's agenda. Bill Clinton was seriously conservative for a Democrat, but I bet you don't go around saying you were as "screwed" by him as you were by Bush, do you?

Ideological purity is so self-defeating. If you want a socialist paradise, move to the Netherlands. Me, I'll vote for a Hillary Clinton (even though she's not my favorite) so that we don't have a President Frist. But I guess I'm not as pure as you.

[StudentOfDarrow]

95. Non-voters ARE enablers.

In the same way that Nader voters helped Bush steal it in 2000. The nation is closely divided. A couple votes here and there will tip the scale. Ask yourself: If it was completely up to you to choose a Hillary Clinton presidency or a Bill Frist presidency, which would you choose? Just to put things in perspective, Clinton has a 9% ACU approval rating. Contrast that with Feingold's 12%, Kucinich's 12%, Byrd's whopping 30%, and Reid's 21%. Frist has an 89%. Yes, I agree she could be better on foreign policy issues, but it's the choice here between a candidate who is wrong some of the time or one who is wrong all of the time.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

65. I disagree-- a Presidency by any of these three would make things worse

They'd be masquerading as Democrats but in full hock to the neocon agenda, and the Republicans (by emphasizing the need to "check the liberals' power"), would then be able to seize more seats in Congress and in the statehouses as a "reaction" to the supposedly "liberal" feds. Plus, in 2012 (or 2016) they'd be arguing for a "reaction" against the (pseudo)liberals in the White House and thus have 8 more years of power. Thus counting George W. Bush's two terms, that would be 20 or 24 consecutive years of the US being ruled by a corporatist, warmongering neocon subject.

No-- if one of these three were to be nominated, better to abstain or go 3rd party. If (ugh) one of the Rethugs does get into the Oval Office in 2008, he would be compelled to continue the Bush idiocy and he'll then have to suffer the brunt of popular anger as the economy collapses and interest rates spiral up from Dubya's exploding deficits and failed wars. Thus the way would be paved in 2012 for a real Democrat to take the reins. This would be far preferable.

[StudentOfDarrow]

94. Um..no.

They'd be masquerading as Democrats but in full hock to the neocon agenda, and the Republicans (by emphasizing the need to "check the liberals' power"), would then be able to seize more seats in Congress and in the statehouses as a "reaction" to the supposedly "liberal" feds. Plus, in 2012 (or 2016) they'd be arguing for a "reaction" against the (pseudo)liberals in the White House and thus have 8 more years of power. Thus counting George W. Bush's two terms, that would be 20 or 24 consecutive years of the US being ruled by a corporatist, warmongering neocon subject.

The problem with this reasoning is that it assumes that the same population that voted President Moderate Democrat into office will respond to the Republicans' call to "check the liberals' power." Now, assume Clinton/Biden/Bayh wins. The Democrats have the momentum, as the Radical Republicans did after the Civil War and as the Democrats did after the Great Depression. If President Moderate Democrat is one of the aforementioned liberals, the Republicans will have to turn the momentum. Not easy if the public voted Democrat because they were fed up with Bush, as all data indicate that they will be.

[hiley]

73. I said none of the above

would get my vote but I would vote for some other candidate instead of not voting at all.

[Cha]

77. I hear Christopher Walken is

running for Prez..he just might have my vote.

I'm hoping it's anti-Corporate tool who is going to be the Dem nominee.

[sallyseven]

88. I am sorry for you all.

You would not vote for the nominee of the party? Oh my how perfect your reasoning is. How could I doubt that. I don't think that anyone can measure up to your expectations. Vote for the god damn nominee and work with your locals to get your point across. Bush is a shit head and cheney is worse. Any republican is worse than any of them. Some of your favorites are not so hot. I have been a democrat ever since I was a kid. At least 60 years. Give me a Democrat any time over a republican. Grow up you people.

[hiley]

119. you have got to be kidding me!

you have not a clue on what my expectations are.
do not tell me who to vote for, i am perfectly able to decide for myself who deserves my vote. All three of them are republican lite and there will be other candidates, get a fucking clue. sallyseven, you do not know what kind of work I put out politically so back up.

How dare you sit in judgement on me or anyone else who would not vote for Hilliary Clinton, Evan Bayh or Joe Biden.

[hiley]

13. From those three

it would be none..

[City Lights]

15. None of the above.

They all look like losers to me. Sorry. :-(

[greatauntoftriplets]

16. The votes in your poll are really interesting...

vs. the people who have responded.

:shrug:

[prolesunited]

20. I purposefully did not include

"none of the above" in the poll. I guess they felt their only option was to reply.

I would love to hear from the people who could back any of the above. Here's your chance to sell the candidate.

[greatauntoftriplets]

21. Figured that was what you did....

I'd love to hear from them as well.

[radio4progressives]

78. Wrong! There is another Option - and that is to IGNORE this STUPID POLL!

Are you insane?

these are all people that need to be IMPEACHED right along with the Bush Crime Family. for their support and approval of this inhumane and ILLEGAL invasion/occupation of a country who posed NO HARM or THREAT to US!

[roguevalley]

17. I wouldn't vote for any of them. Ever.

[Mojambo]

18. I couldn't support any of them

The Democrats would not earn my vote for president in 08 with those choices.

[Knight of Ni]

19. Not vote? Are you fucking INSANE????

What's the matter, isn't eight years of the neocons enough for you? You REALLY want to go for twelve?

If more people potentially on our side (like young people, for instance) would have voted in 2004, we wouldn't have had to worry about election theft because the margin would have been theft-proof!

I'd rather vote for a centrist than another extreme right-wing fundie nutjob who wants to shove intelligent design up our asses.

[prolesunited]

23. Agreed

"I'd rather vote for a centrist than another extreme right-wing fundie nutjob who wants to shove intelligent design up our asses."

[StudentOfDarrow]

24. Thank you, the voice of reason!

n/t

[AntiCoup2K4]

34. All three of those fucking sellouts ARE rightwing extremist nutjobs.

Or haven't you paid attention to the SHIT they voted for? Including this illegal, immoral fucked up LIE of a war.

[mtnsnake]

118. Oh come on. That's simply not true and about as extreme as it gets.

I don't agree with some of what Hillary or Biden's said or done, but for crisesakes, they are not "rightwing extremist nutjobs." Not even close.

[Totally Committed]

46. If the choice is between "The Lesser of Two Evils", why vote?

How can we trust Hillary and the DLC to have our best interests at heart when this information is out there and in our faces? Seems like the Father of the Neo-Cons likes her just fine!:

New odd couple: Hillary Clinton and Newt Gingrich
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/13/news/clinton.php

Hillary Clinton, Newt Gingrich Team Up on Medical Data Bill
http://www.cnsnews.com/Politics/archive/200505/POL20050512b.html

Hillary And Newt Go Public
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/13/opinion/smith/main695090.shtml

Hillary Clinton and Newt Gingrich now hanging out
http://news.phaseiii.org/article5667.html

Gingrich Thinks Clinton Could Win
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/04/14/gingrich_thinks_clinton_could_win.html

Hillary and Newt: Making music together
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20050516.shtml

Aside from the fact that Hillary really used to be a Republican (she was a "Goldwater Girl" in college before she met Bill), she has gotten into bed with the DLC now. Doesn't this scare the bejeezus out of anyone here? It does me! These days, a vote for some (a LOT of) Democrats is the same as the vote for a Republican. So even I, who have never missed a single election in over 35 years (even a municipal one), ask myself WHY VOTE AT ALL? if these are our choices. When the choice is between "the lesser of two evils", why aid and abet the outcome? Either way, we are fucked.

Oh, and when Hillary can't be there with Newt, someone else from the DLC is there to hold his hand:

Vilsack gets assistance from Newt Gingrich at Charity Steer Show
http://www.kwqc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3719225

Anyone who thinks there is a difference between voting for a candidate from the DLC and one from the RNC is just plain wrong. It's time to JUST SAY NO.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

66. They *are* neocons

"What's the matter, isn't eight years of the neocons enough for you?"

Yes it is, which is why we wouldn't vote for any of those three (though Bayh may be slightly less offensive than the others)-- that would just mean 4 or 8 more years of neocon rule but under a supposedly Democratic flag, followed most likely by 8 more years of pure neocon "Rethug" rule as a "conservative reaction." Thus 20-24 years (starting in 2000) of straight-out neocon War Party control of the US government, which would ruin the country.

If we abstain or go 3rd party in 2008 with one of these DLCers on the ticket, then what? So then a Rethug gets into office in 2008, continues the Bush policies-- and gets hit hard by the anger over the inevitable recession resulting from Bush's disastrous economic policies and his expanding wars. Which means that in 2012, the Dems put in somebody who stands up to the warmongerers, and we get 8 years of an Administration that actually works.

Come to think of it, why wait until 2012? We have plenty of strong, antiwar, mainstream candidates who could easily win in 2008-- Clark, Gore, maybe Brian Schweitzer of Montana, Barbara Boxer, the reformed Kerry, Feingold. Why ruin things for ourselves by selecting a neocon DLC in 2008 to headline our own ticket?

[Coexist]

69. there is the Green party you know...

I would vote - but happily vote for a far-left candidate before any of those DLCers.

[greendog]

22. Uh, no thanks.

n/t

[billbuckhead]

25. Bring back the Clinton years!

:)

[usregimechange]

26. No Hillary but she could win NY really good.

[Jai4WKC08]

27. Not only the "best chance of winning"

But probably the ONLY chance is Bayh. Midwest. Executive experience. Relatively free of baggage.

But God help us if we can't do better. :P

[Crunchy Frog]

106. Yeah, of the three, Bayh probably is the only one with a shot at winning.

He'll just have to do it without my vote. If he's a viable candidate, he won't need my vote anyway.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

28. Other.

An horrible self-inflicted death.

[leesa]

29. Absolutely none of the above.

Warmongers, all of them.

[windbreeze]

30. I didn't vote...because...

I would have a serious problem...and it would require a whole lot of soul searching...because...I think we're screwed IF it turns out to be any of the 3...I held my nose and voted Kerry last time...and he, from all appearances, left me swinging in the wind...I am still stinging from that one...so thank god, we have a couple years to go...maybe I could find some reason to vote for one of them, but to put my money on any of them right now...would not be fair...
windbreeze

[ginnyinWI]

31. I would write in John Kerry. n/t

[Mass]

86. If we really need another 08 poll, I second that choice.

[ginnyinWI]

93. You got that right--these polls are getting a little old!

:boring: :boring: :boring:

[FrenchieCat]

32. Gag me with a spoon.....a big giant one, at that.....

Are we THAT helpless? Do the people have any power at all? These all look like the media's choices to me! :shrug:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

33. I don't see why we can't add Clark to that list.

:evilgrin:

[AntiCoup2K4]

35. Because they weren't looking for viable candidates.

Don't you know a DLC push poll when you see one?

[Pepperbelly]

51. give me a break ...

I think Koko knew that it was a given that Wesley would win a poll here and wanted it see what it would look like without cousin Wes.

[AntiCoup2K4]

92. No, that's another thread.

There's another thread going with a larger list of candidates, but no Clark, where the Clarkies obviously all voted "Other". And that's fine.

This one is a forced choice between three DLC'ers with no other option.

And that's not an acceptable choice, even in theory.

[prolesunited]

103. Yes, *I* am conducting a DLC push poll

Give me a freakin' break.

[Ouabache]

36. forced choice

You really know how to construct that with the emphasis on 'forced', don't you?

[Douglas Carpenter]

37. of the three...I suppose Hillary would take us back wards less fast

But, surely I hope we will see at least one strong grassroots oriented and non-corporate controlled candidate.

[Telly Savalas]

38. I'd just stay home and masturbate, thank you very much.

[Ouabache]

39. lol

funny

[kodi]

40. gee, some choices there: cancer, heart disease , or leprosy?

.

[LittleClarkie]

41. As someone on Kos once said

Where's the "gun in mouth" option?

[Greyhound]

42. As if any of these hacks could win a national election. n/t

[Greyhound]

43. and judging from the other replies, you better come up with more options.

There is a rising anger within the party that our 'leaders' had better take notice of.

[WildEyedLiberal]

90. DU doens't come close to representing the mainstream Dem party

Let alone mainstream America. Hillary would stand a very good chance of winning a Democratic primary, because DU represents MAYBE 10% of the party. I don't like Hillary. But the fact that DU thinks Kucinich is a more viable candidate than Hillary says a lot about DU.

[Q]

45. Here we go again...

...the party bosses will tell us that ONLY THE CENTRISTS can win. Then they'll say something like:

"I'd rather vote for a centrist than another extreme right-wing fundie nutjob who wants to shove intelligent design up our asses."

Well...what about giving us a CHOICE for a change? Instead of the Centrists launching their usual corporate-financed SMEAR CAMPAIGN against liberal and progressive candidates...why not allow them to compete on an even playing field?

The New Democratic 'centrist' leadership is afraid that a progressive will attract a vast following and voter base and become the nominee. That's why they're trying to steer us towards their candidates years in advance.

There are other options. Support and vote for (real) progressive candidates.

[Swamp Rat]

47. ditto!

[Totally Committed]

48. Exactly!

I could not agree more.

Having a choice between a DLC candidate and a Republican just means the winner will either be a moderate Republican or a RW Republican.

I am praying Howard will be able to effect some real change before 2008, but if this Party does not begin to offer a real choice, I am afraid I will have to refuse to participate.

I am so tired of "the lesser of two evils".

[jpgray]

55. Getting a good choice is OUR responsibility

We had a wide range of options last year (from DK to Joementum), and the people in our party (IA and NH, anyway) made their choice. As Dean would say, we've got the power, but it's much easier to do nothing and blame groups like the DLC. The DLC just doesn't have the mythic power regularly attributed to them here--they are a strategically moronic leadership group that endorses centrist and corporate-friendly candidates. If we can't beat them in the primaries, we have no chance against a well-run strategic machine like the GOP's.

[tomg]

50. This would finally do it

for me. I would absolutely go third party, and not simply when the Green is also a Democrat or for a Dem on the liberal line or whatever. In fact, I would hope that the entire local Dem party around here would defect.

[bemildred]

52. NOTA.

All War Party Dems are unacceptable.

[AndreaCG]

53. Hello where's Clark?

[Crunchy Frog]

108. I think the point of the poll was to present extremely unpalatable

candidates, to see which one people considered to be the least unpalatable. I hope you don't think that Clark belongs in that category.

[jpgray]

54. I don't like any of them, but of those choices Hillary

Biden is among the most self-obsessed egotists I've ever seen in politics (!), and Bayh is a politically worthless pretty face. Hillary has the best chance of winning, as well as having stances a bit closer to my way of thinking (but not much).

[IndianaGreen]

56. Bayh, because...

unlike the other two clever neolibs, Bayh is an empty suit that will do no harm.

Moving to Israel remains an option...

[Totally Committed]

57. Bayh???? Empty suits do nothing BUT harm.

We have an empty suit in the WH right now, and he is harm, personified.

With Bayh so vacant and pretty, whom he is surrounded with will be how his government would go. He is owned and operated by the DLC, so it will be Republican-lite instead of Republican-heavy. Either way, corporate interests will win out over the poor, and the shrinking middle class.

And, we will be screwed.

This poll is nothing but an slick attempt to get you to think about who you might be willing to vote for as the DLC's "lesser of two evils" candidate. Don't go there.

[IndianaGreen]

59. Hillary, and certainly Biden, will continue with the war

Like other presidential wannabees, they are convinced that they can extract victory from the jaws of defeat. None of them ever consider the moral issues raised by our remaining in Iraq in order to justify the blood already spilled or to glue the broken porcelain back together.

[Totally Committed]

61. I take it you never saw this article:

Bayh: Democrats face security threshold

http://newsobserver.com/24hour/politics/story/2609653p-11068999c.html

Bayh is as pro-war as the other two, and isn't afraid to attack his fellow Dems to prove it.

[IndianaGreen]

63. Bayh won't win the nomination, and neither will Biden

For the purposes of the poll, we were only given 3 choices. Given the lesser of 3 evils, which one would you have picked and why?

[Totally Committed]

67. What scares, appalls, and disgusts me is the thought of a

Hillary/Bayh, Hillary/Vilsack, Hillary/Warner, or Hillary/any-other-DLC-shill ticket. We would lose no matter which side "won". I'm convinced of it.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

58. My vote was Hillary, but I'd like to amend that a bit to read

Hillary and Bill. I think many Americans see that as a package deal and Bill is still very popular.

[Pithy Cherub]

60. No votes for the DLC Ishtar candidates!

:puke:

[ecoalex]

62. Bernie Sanders

I nominate Bernie Sanders, he's not beholden to anyone.

[radio4progressives]

79. yes Bernie gets my Vote! n/t

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

64. How about "none of the above"?

No neoconish DLCer on the Democratic ticket, period. Any one of those three (especially Biden and Hillary, or Lieberman) would split the Party with an antiwar third party rising up immediately.

How 'bout Clark, Gore, Boxer, Feingold, Kerry (who really has come around)? All are not only anti-neocon but charismatic and pretty mainstream-- Wesley Clark being a decorated general, Gore and Kerry both *proving* they can capture majorities in national elections, Boxer and Feingold both electrifying the Democratic base by standing up to the corporatist warmongering Rethugs and the neocon DLC infiltrators' wing of the Democratic Party as well. We have winners in the Democratic circle-- time to support them.

[PresidentObama]

70. From this list?

Joe Biden.

But I'm supporting Kerry in 2008!

[election_2004]

71. If I *HAD* to choose....

Out of those three, Bayh would probably be the most reasonable in the Oval Office. Not that he's my first choice.

Hillary's presidency would be all about feeding her own ego, and even if she won the Electoral College she would cause disastrous "trickle-down" damage to Democratic candidates running for lower offices in the red states.

Biden is just full of hot air, and likes to shoot his mouth off.

I honestly believe that out of the centrists, Blanche Lincoln would be the best choice:

http://www.lincoln2008.com

Here's hoping for a Lincoln/Feingold ticket in 2008 to bridge a Center/Left coalition.

[OzarkDem]

72. I'll support

the candidate who helps us win elections in 2006.

[Donailin]

74. NONE of the above

I refuse to give my precious vote to any sellout-self-absorbed-power hungry-corporate-handmaid dressed as a dem ever AGAIN.

[bnr65432]

76. hilary

but none of them have a good chance
we need to do better

[ClassWarrior]

80. Fuck false choices. I choose Boxer, Conyers, or Feingold.

NGU.

[mattclearing]

81. Those are options?

Forget it.

[Totally Committed]

83. No, that is an example of a DLC push poll to test the waters here at DU

n/t

[mattclearing]

84. We seem to be getting a lot of that here lately.

Nice that the DLC has picked up on DU's importance, but as long as they keep peddling the same bullshit with marketing and no actual attempts to appeal to the substance of our actual grievances, we ain't buying.

Eat shit, DLC.

[prolesunited]

102. Hahaha!

Sorry, but I just got a chance to check in. Me a DLCer?!?!? Surely you jest. I voted for Kucinich and prefer democratic socialism.

These were simply names that have surfaced in the news and I wanted to gauge the reaction. (And it was just about what I thought.)

[jonnyblitz]

116. oh give me a fucking break . Prolesunited is hardly a DLCer

:eyes:

[Gloria]

85. Where's the "None of the Above" option???

eom

[Larkspur]

91. I vote "THE ABOVE SHOULD ROT IN HELL Next to W & Dick!"

[Crunchy Frog]

96. Green. n/t

[Patchuli]

97. NONE of the above! nt

[Clarkie1]

98. .

:puke:

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

99. "President Biden?" Never in a MILLION FUCKING YEARS.

[indypaul]

100. It's a long, long time til 08

and if we don't win back the House in 06
we might as well forget 08.

[ihelpu2see]

101. IF that is really the list none of the above.... I would Draft Dean on to

an Indi. ticket

[Vadem]

104. None of the above!........n/t

[Cocoa]

105. WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU LEAVING OUT FEINGOLD?

WHY ARE YOU PUSHING THE DLCERS AND IGNORING FEINGOLD?

[Crunchy Frog]

109. Object of the poll is to present extremely unpalatable candidates.

At least that's my impression. Feingold would have likely walked away with it if he had been in the poll, but that's not what its purpose was.

That's my impression anyway.

[Carolab]

107. None of the above. I wouldn't vote for any of them. n/t

Biden is too egotistical.

Hillary too DLC and same with Bayh.

POO. I want a Progressive candidate.

[kath]

110. EWWW, EWWW, and EWWW. None of the above.

:puke:

[wiley]

111. Clark or Hackett

[LeahD]

113. None of the Above. n/t

[Yuugal]

114. These are the early contenders?

My ass they are. The only thing these 3 are contending for is the "Corporate Bootlick of the year" award. I'm tired of my party taking my vote for granted and figuring they can run any corporate turd they want and I'll magically fall in line and vote for my own demise. The dems either give me someone worth voting for or I'll find some other party that can. Screw the DLC and everything they stand for.

[Tesha]

115. Green. (NT)

[flpoljunkie]

117. Lieberman led in all the polls before the primary season got under way.

Although I do not doubt that the DLC will be pushing hard for Hillary Clinton to win the nomination--or, if she bombs, one of their prior leaders--like Evan Bayh, who just stepped down as Chairman of the DLC.

The DLC motto seems to be "go along to get along"--that is, no standing up to fight for core Democratic principles--like economic justice.

Hillary Clinton appears to have made the wrong move joining up to lead the Al From's DLC "American Dream Initiative." It shows just how removed the Clintons are from the what is going on outside the beltway, and particularly, in their own party.

[hippiechick]

120. I'd rather stab myself in the eyeballs ...

... than pick any one of them.

[yurbud]

121. time is past for bland GOP apologists--especially Biden

If slams Howard Dean one more time, he won't get a single primary vote.

[noonwitch]

122. Biden is not a good candidate because he got caught cheating in college

They will hit him with this repeatedly. He's a good speaker (he was great on TDS a few weeks ago), I agree with his record for the most part, but the GOP will remind everyone daily about his one instance of cheating in college and he'll be sunk.

I'm voting for Hillary in the primary, if she runs. Byah would be a good candidate, too, as would Wesley Clark. If Hillary and Wesley both run, I'll be torn as to who to vote for, because I think together, they are definitely a winning ticket.