Clinton leads in Pennsylvania

[wyldwolf]

Adding to recent polls showing Hillary Clinton leading all Democratic challengers in Iowa, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Florida, Clinton leads the Democratic pack in Pennsylvania with 37 percent of respondents' support, while Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and former Vice President Al Gore all clocked in with 11 percent.

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-qpoll-feb07-cn,0,2317890.story?coll=all-newslocal-hed

[Lerkfish]

1. if she becomes the nominee, I'll support her 100%

[HockeyMom]

4. Same here

Plus I would love to see her pick Obama for her VP. He is "young", has time, and the VP would be a major launching point for him.

[AtomicKitten]

7. me three

I will support the Democratic nominee.

[Lerkfish]

8. and if someone else is the nominee, I'll support THEM 100%

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

47. And millions of others won't-- don't get carried away with name recognition

This is playing with fire here, there are already ridiculous numbers of Democrats who won't vote for Hillary at all if she's nominated, due to her war stands and pro-corporate DLC policies-- I've never seen this level of animosity before among Democrats toward one of our own candidates.

The only reason Hillary leads in these polls is sheer name recognition-- people just don't know much about Bill Richardson, John Edwards and Barack Obama yet, they're largely unknown quantities, whereas HRC has been in the public spotlight constantly for almost 15 years. We'll be pushing away the rank and file of our own party by nominating a DLC adherent like Hillary, but hey, if political suicide is the objective of the Democratic Party these days, then nominating Hillary Rodham Clinton would be a great way to do it.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

2. Al Gore Tied For Second!!

He's already at 11%, tied with Obama & Edwards, and he's not even running.

I have to say, that's probably a good sign, don't you think?

[AtomicKitten]

6. Now that's something to cheer about!

I do believe he would take the nomination without breaking a sweat.

[PresidentObama]

3. Wake me up in a year n/t

[snowbear]

5. Wyldwolf leads on DU !!!

... In posting the most "Hillary leads" threads.

I agree with the others ol buddy ol pal ...

Wake us up in about a year!

[wyldwolf]

9. have you done a count?

[Lerkfish]

10. Are you on the clinton campaign committee?

:)

[wyldwolf]

13. That is a new one! So far, people on DU have insinuated or claimed the following...

...I'm paid by Michael Ruppert (I got that for supporting his plan to put anti-Bush ads in major newspapers.)
...I AM Michael Ruppert (I guess I was a little vehement in my support of the above plan)
...I'm paid by Wes Clark (a constant charge in 2004)
...I'm paid by John Kerry (someone said that because I called "Skull and Bones" only a fraternity.)
...I'm paid by the DLC (a constant charge since 2004)
...Am I on the Clinton Campaign Committee? We'll see if it sticks, although I've come out more that twice supporting Bill Richardson.

[Lerkfish]

15. dude, did you see the smiley? I was kidding.

[KingofNewOrleans]

19. My theory is that you are in fact

Bill Clinton. Your picture looks kind of like him.

[Tellurian]

20. He can't be..

Bill has better handwriting.

[Clark2008]

11. I still think she'd lose the state in the general election, though.

Most of my closest friends live or are from Pennsylvania (I don't know why. I must just attract folks from that state) and they are all Democrats and, well, they agree with me. It's the hunting thing.

I could be wrong, but I can perceive that happening.

[EndElectoral]

12. Shes unpopular here....if Clark or Gore enter she'll be trounced, and she would lose to GOP

[wyldwolf]

14. ...only of DU decided the election

[Clark2008]

16. I wish we did - we're better informed, by and large.

:hi:

[wyldwolf]

18. yeah. Sure.

[EndElectoral]

53. You do realize she's predicted to lose to Guliani in the 1014 peope poll you cite? Forget her

[wisteria]

17. You sure they don't think Bill is running? n/t

[hopein08]

21. Oh well, Pennsylvania never counts in the primary anyway?

Or did they manage to move up the primary date here in PA? Is it even set yet?

[Lerkfish]

22. I'm curious what clinton cheerleaders have to say about this story...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3103493&mesg_id=3103493

is this an accurate quoting of her? If so, how do you defend it?

[Lerkfish]

23. crickets chirping.....chirp chirp....

[Superman Returns]

24. I don't mean to start trouble

But how many "Clinton's leading _______ state" or "Clinton pulls ahead in ______" threads have there been in the past few days? Its almost as if certain forces want DU and other liberal outlets to think Clinton, a year in advance, without any debates, is inevitable as the Democratic nominee. I'm suspicious.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. Suspicious of what?

this is a political discussion board, and this is the forum for discussing electoral politics.

If Edwards were in the lead in all these states, I'm sure Edwards supporters would post about it. Same for any other candidate.

[SaveElmer]

26. Why...

Because the notion that there are Hillary supporters here in DU land is suspicious...

I guarantee if Edwards, of Kucinich, or Obama were ahead in these polls, you would see a tenfold increase in the numbers of these types of posts...

[madfloridian]

27. Not sure why you keep pushing the polls like that....

but I think Hillary needs to tend to the party base. The people she spoke to at AIPAC were alarmed that she actually wanted to negotiate with Iran, not just go to war.

There are some people you can't win over unless you are extreme.

I hear Dick Morris has a hit-piece documentary coming out on her in the fall. In conjunction with Citizens United, a right wing activist site.

I would love to hear her just stand up and speak out. I wish they would all do that.

There are some we can't win over.

[wyldwolf]

28. here you go again with that "party base" line.

hint: the netroots/grass roots is only a teeny weeny little piece of the Democratic party base. I contend that she is tending to the base.

[madfloridian]

30. So the party base is who?

You can contend all you want. The reality is not always what you think or what I think.

People are angry about this war. The little wan pale snippets we are getting are not sufficing. It is not just me. Locally there is anger. Ones who loved the Clintons always are wondering now.

She will have her hands full with Dicky boy Morris and his right wing nut friends. So I am not going to say that much against her. Actually I like her.

My main contention if you have noticed is that they both had a responsbility to be more frank about the dangers Iraq offered to us....BEFORE we attacked them. With power goes responsibiiity.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1041

[wyldwolf]

32. I recall a piece by Will Pitt

I hear a lot of stuff on DU about anti-war left-wing types being the base, and Kerry better not piss us off, or Kerry better court us, or Kerry has already pissed us off, so screw you guys, I'm going home.

I hate to break it to you, but anti-war left-wing types are not the base of the Democratic party.

Union members are the base of the party, particularly in the northeast and Pacific northwest. Women are the base of the party, particularly in the northeast, far west, and portions of the midwest. African Americans are the base of the party all across the country.

Anti-war left-wing types are the single most unreliable voter group in America. Unless you are simon-pure, you are unworthy of support from that group. As no politician in 21st Century America (with a snowball's chance of winning a national election) is simon-pure, they are not likely to bust their asses to get anti-war left-wing support.

Anti-war left-wing support, by the way, is buried by the aforementioned real base. Yes, anti-war left-wing support can swing an election, but because of the aforementioned unreliability problem - anti-war left-wing voters will bolt at the first sign of impurity, even in a tight race (See: 2000) - it is too often a hopeless exercise to try and court that group with any real vigor. The real base outnumbers anti-war left-wing types 10-1. That's where the focus goes.

So all you anti-war left-wing folks should probably stop referring to yourselves as the base of the Democratic party. Don't feel bad; I'm a anti-war left-wing type, too, and so I'm out of the fun as well. We were close to being the base, but blew up in 1968 because we couldn't stand it anymore. The party looked at us and said, "OOOOkay...let's look elsewhere."

I would also add...

the base of the party are working class men and women of differing races and levels of "liberalness." Many are regular church goers. Many shop at Wal-mart.

Rank and file Democrats are not one issue voters. Our base - our most reliable voting block - are only aware of the "progressive" crutch of "corporate malfeasance" from news reports about Enron.

Who is the "base?"

Democrats get most of the homosexual vote. Democrats still get most of the black vote - yet more blacks than whites DISAGREE with gay marriage (a Pew research survey found 43% of African Americans didn't rank gay marriage an important issue with 60% opposing it.) African Americans also more likely to oppose abortion according to an ABC news poll.

Blue collar union workers - often very religious, often anti-abortion.

Women, most concerned with health care, education, their children, jobs and the economy.

See, the base is a hodgepodge of beliefs that conflict with the "progressive" mindset of Democratic Underground so often floated here as the base. Parts of the base are religious. Parts are anti-abortion and pro-gun rights. Parts are anti-gay marriage. Yet the base consists in part of women and gays.

If the base was "anti-corporate progressives," as often floated here, corporations would not be flourishing as they are in blue states. With the country pretty evenly split, I don't believe only Republicans are doing business with corporations.

[SaveElmer]

34. Nice...deserves its own thread...nt

[madfloridian]

37. Actually I have no illusions that we matter at all.

But I will still keep trying to bring about change when it is needed. If you don't try, there is no chance at all.

Hey, I am not even fringe...but I am considered that now. Any one who has stood up to the corporate wing of the party was and is considered fringe. Doesn't bother me at all.

But I am a realist.

I am not even sure what I will do in 08. We have pretty well silenced what dissent the GOP and the religious right haven't silenced. We demand of our party that they be proper and cautious and so careful that they end up saying nothing at all..

Where did you get that I really thought we mattered? Not yet. But we are making a difference.

When the DLC decided to get the money from the corporations and sell out the traditional "base"....they nearly destroyed the party overall.

If the Iraq war has done anything good...it woke us up.

[wyldwolf]

38. but you're still clinging to the tired "corporate Dems" myth

When the DLC decided to get the money from the corporations and sell out the traditional "base"....they nearly destroyed the party overall.

EXACTLY how did they "sell out" the traditional base? The "traditional base" was getting the asses kicked all over the country thanks to the "New Left" that whined their way out of the 60s into losing 5 of 6 presidential elections.

It was the "New Left" (which has morphed into the "netroots") that has nearly destroyed the party.

[madfloridian]

39. Well, well, my my. We have our talking points down about the New Left.

I have loads of stuff in my journal, but if you are starting with that attitude...it won't matter.

The quote is from Simon Rosenberg, among many other sources. They needed the money, the base didn't have it so they sold us out.

Your DLC has been controlling the party with an iron fist...they got Clinton elected. Then by 2004 we had lost the WH and both houses. They failed.

But they have the spokespeople in the media. That gives them the power.

[wyldwolf]

40. Well, well, my my. We have our FACTS down about the New Left

Your JOURNAL???

They needed the money, the base didn't have it so they sold us out.

The DLC IS the base. The DLC sprang from the Truman/Kennedy wing of the party, not the Wallace/McGovern wing like the New Left did.

Yes, when it was obvious the right had MORE money and was winning at rhe national level MORE often, something had to be done. What? Did you think a protest march would cut it???

Your DLC has been controlling the party with an iron fist...they got Clinton elected.

Yeah, twice.

Then by 2004 we had lost the WH and both houses. They failed.

Unfortunately for you and the New Left/Netroots, EVERY study of the 1994 midterm elections reveals we lost both houses because the party had become too liberal in the votera' minds.

See, people like YOU weren't even part of the base until recently. YOUR philosophy entered the Democratic debate very late. It is presumptious to even think the "net roots" is the base as some here contend.

[madfloridian]

41. "people like YOU weren't even part of the base until recently"

I think that statement should just stand alone. I am bookmarking it,saving it.

It is so classic, it is so arrogant...that anyone reading it should catch on to the way our party has been going under DLC leadership.

I am so glad you said it. I think it just might fit into a post sometime as an example of what DLC advocates think of "people like ME".

Thanks. It says it all.

[wyldwolf]

50. Yes, it should. That aside, can you rebut anything on the topic?

[enough already]

44. Oh my....

"See, people like YOU weren't even part of the base until recently...."

Talk about mind-boggling arrogance. This is just another reason why I'll never, ever support Hillary.

[wyldwolf]

52. but can you rebut it with anything?

I mean, I've been hearing how for 4 years on DU how the DLC and those who like the DLC are "corporate whores," "repub lite," etc.

Funny how the feathers get ruffled when shots are returned.

[SaveElmer]

54. Well when you are used to genuflecting and hallelujahs...

With each anti-DLC thread...it can be a little disconcerting to find out not everyone disagrees with you...

They are gonna have to get used to it!

[wyldwolf]

55. True. Sometimes It gets pointless to even discuss the historic record with these folks

wyldwolf: ... then in 1948...
anti-DLCer: WHORE!!!
wyldwolf: ... but by 1968...
anti-DLCer: BULLSHIT!!!
wyldwolf: ...then, 1972 came along...
anti-DLCer: FASCIST REBUG-LITE CORPORATIST!!!
wyldwolf: listen, people like YOU need a clue..
anti-DLCer: YOU'RE SO ARROGANT!!!

[enough already]

56. Sure

I'll be rebutting it with a non-vote for your war mongering candidate. Thanks for caring so much about our country and for promoting more war.

[wyldwolf]

59. Bll Richardson?

[SOS]

43. The base...

204 million eligible voters (age 18 or older)
63 million registered Democrats
47 million registered Republicans
32 million registered as independents or with minor party
62 million not registered
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnists/neuharth/neu057.htm

2004 election results:

62,040,606 Bush
59,028,109 Kerry

15 million more votes for Bush than the total of registered Republicans.
4 million less votes for Kerry than the total of registered Democrats.

The "base" isn't electing anyone in 2008.
The outcome will rest with Independents and party-switching registered Democrats.

The Iraq War will determine the outcome. Angered Independents will come to our side in 2008, as long as we don't nominate someone who voted for it.

[oasis]

29. " AIPAC alarmed that she actually wanted to negotiate with Iran"? Post #22

has a different take on her AIPAC address.

[madfloridian]

31. I saw something different. Will have to search.

I read it sometime today...that she was not hawkish enough for them.

[SaveElmer]

33. Yes I think that is true...

Edwards did not speak of engaging Iran diplomatically first...Hillary did...

[madfloridian]

35. LOL....oh yeh, that John Edwards just wants to bomb bomb bomb Iran.

now come on, that is pathetic.

:rofl:

Nice try.

[SaveElmer]

36. I didn't say he did...

His speech at AIPAC did not mention engagement with Iran...this is what is being referred to in other threads...

Edwards, for his part, stuck almost entirely to hawkish campaign rhetoric while addressing the American and Israeli security experts gathered for Israel’s Herzliya Conference in late January. Like Clinton, Edwards stressed the line that Iran cannot be permitted nuclear weapons, but his address made no mention of engagement. Afterward, when an audience member asked, “Would you be prepared, if diplomacy failed, to take further action against Iran?” the former senator said he supported talking with Tehran.

“As to what to do, we should not take anything off the table,” Edwards said.

Hillary's did...

Funny how there was no thread on how we can't trust Edwards with Iran...wonder why that is?!!

[madfloridian]

42. Someone in this thread just said "people like me "....

had not been part of the party base until recently. I was stunned at that.

I am a former Southern Baptist, maybe soon to be going to Unitarian church. Undecided. I might still have been Southern Baptist if not for their support for the Iraq war.

I am a retired school teacher with many years of service behind me.

I am a mother, a grandmother, an aunt, a niece, a cousin many times over.

I was raised in a very strict, moderate, religious home.

I am active politically on the ground and otherwise.

My husband and I became active Democrats after many years because of Howard Dean's campaign. We have remained active in DFA and as part of the DNC. (I do hope that would not be why that was said....why the term people like me was used.)

I am going to keep trying to change our party so it stands for everyday Americans again.

There is no doubt of where our party was headed under the DLC and the Clintons who founded it. It was going to do the bidding of corporations because they had the money.

Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

"People like me" stand for what Simon Rosenberg said the DLC did not stand for....what the people of the country need. Not the war the corporations need, not the Medicare bill the corporations wanted and got, and still have, not the privatized Social Security.

"People like me" have been in this party forever. Just because some don't think we belong has nothing whatever to do with it.

The person who said this supports the DLC. I sincerely hope that is not the feeling of most of their members and advocates.

Quote: "people like YOU weren't even part of the base until recently"

We have been here forever and ever.

[fuzzyball]

45. Another state wher HRC is the Snow White & the 3 dwarfs are trailing

behind her....GO HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON!!!!

[Superman Returns]

51. 3 dwarfs?

Haha, I can't wait for Obama to break her.

[fuzzyball]

57. So long as HRC has a double digit lead over Obama,

he has to be considered a dwarf in comparison. We
shall see if anyone can catch up with HRC.

[liberalpragmatist]

46. I honestly believe ALL of our major candidates can win

Given the political climate (much better for us than 2000 or 2004) and the strength of our candidates (yes, including Hillary), I'm of the opinion that we have an excellent chance to win whether the nominee is Edwards, Obama, Hillary, or somebody else (Richardson, Clark, even Vilsack).

For that reason, I'm looking at who I think will be the best president and push the policies I support most. But I'll echo some other comments here and say that, although she's my third or fourth choice, I will support Hillary 100% if she's the nominee.

[FrenchieCat]

48. Polls; Shmolls!

[MasonJar]

49. I will support 100% any candidate that the dems choose. I intend

to work non-stop. Enough is enough. These pugs have cheated and lied and robbed and frightened themselves and the world into a black hole. Only a dem can bring any light!

[Andromeda]

58. Hillary is running pretty strong now...

Can't wait for the debates. I will support Hillary if she wins the nomination.

[dfgrbac]

60. The only reason for that is that ...

Clinton is the one the media is pushing with constant exposure. I wrote the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette to tell us about the other candidates that they are trying to keep secret from the public.