It's quite insulting to the majority of Democratic voters to claim Hillary's support is not genuine.

[calteacherguy]

From Edwards calling a 33% lead "superficial" to some here on DU saying hogwash such as:

1. It's name recognition - yah, people have never heard of Obama or Edwards. Sure...

2. It's all the media - didn't ever occur to anyone that candidates get media attention because of their popularity, not the other way around? It's very insulting to dismiss the majority of Democrats as being media pawns.

3. Nobody gives a good reason to support her - Truly the lamest claim of all, perhaps. The people who make this claim blind themselves to Clinton's experience, strength as a campaigner, and favorability ratings (as evidenced in the latest polls) equal to or greater than her nearest rivals.

Those are the top three claims the Clinton-bashers make, and frankly at this point the more they make the discredited claims the more they make themselves look like just more sour grapes. Give Democrats some credit, and accept that everyone who does not share the same opinion as you is not a media pawn. Many of our candidates have strengths, in my view. We have a great field. I'm still leaning towards Clinton because the others have not convinced me, in many months of campaigning, that they are a better choice. They haven't convinced a majority of Democrats, either.

[ShortnFiery]

1. "sour grapes" Wow! I didn't know that The Primaries have been completed?!?

:eyes:

[mike_c]

2. agreed-- there are no media pawns in America, and if there are...

...they're all republicans!

:rofl:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. She's no Democrat. She's only supported by women, blacks, and the poor. (joke)

[ShortnFiery]

4. We'll see when it comes time for voting? I don't think so. n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. If someone beats her then that person is a gifted campaigner, and is fine with me.

And if she wins, ditto.

[BigDDem]

35. So...

when the votes are counted who do you think is going to win?

(Suprise me and actually answer!)

[rusty quoin]

5. I don't dismiss the fact that Clinton is in the lead.

I also do not disbelieve what the majority of Democrats say. I just am not ready to give in that she is the one, yet.

[depakid]

6. What's insulting is how few people discuss policy

and rely instead on cheap media polls to make their case.

[calteacherguy]

8. A President is more than a series of policy papers.

Furthermore, I don't accept your assertion. Policy is discussed on DU quite extensively. Quite often, the policies are similar, as is the case with health reform. There is a consensus on issues such as health care what the best general policy approach is, but a policy paper does not a President make.

[Steve_in_California]

14. Joe Biden has done more for America in the past week than all of his rivals have done in their . . .

In the past week alone, Biden has done more for America than have all of his rivals over their entire careers!

In the past week alone:

1. Joe Biden demonstrates his skills as a statesmen, leader and problem solver by prompting the United States Senate to pass the Biden-Brownback-Boxer amendment by a vote of 75 to 23. This marks the first time since the Iraq war begin that a majority of Republicans abandoned the failed policies of the leader of their party, the President.

Could Hillary or Obama or John have pulled that off? Not on your life!

2. Joe Biden leads the senate to approve by unanimous consent his resolution calling for an investigation into the death of a political leader in Lebanon.

Could Hillary or Obama or John have pulled that off? Not on your life!


3. Joe Biden's amendment to the defense bill passes the Senate, requiring that $26 billion be spent on supplying our troops with the most up-to-date and effective vehicles against IED attacks, the MRAP's, which reduce casualties by 68 to 80%. You keep them safe while you work on bringing them home. It isn't an either/or situation. As an American President, you must do both.

Could Hillary or Obama or John have pulled that off? Not on your life!

4. Senators Joe Biden and Tom Carper (both of Delaware) lead the senate to approve their amendment to the water resources bill, causing the Senate to finally take some action to prevent catastrophic damage to our nation's port cities from natural disasters.

Could Hillary or Obama or John have pulled that off? Not on your life!

5. Senators Biden and Kennedy gain the unanimous consent of the Senate in approving their amendment top the defense bill requiring the Pentagon be held to account for the deaths and injuries of our servicemen and servicewomen serving in Iraq and Afghanistan by reporting to Congress what measures were taken to reduce the number of casualies and prevent needless deaths.

Could Hillary or Obama or John have pulled that off? Not on your life!

4. Senator Biden introduces legislation to Congress that calls for $2 billion to be devoted to reducing class size in America's schools by hiring 100,000 new teachers.

Did Hillary or Obama take such action to help America's schools? No!

The facts show that Joe Biden is the most effective leader this nation has seen in many generations. The guy never stops working. He does his job and still finds time to run a campaign that is moving ahead in the polls.

Senator Obama, on the other hand, makes speaches in which he says that he, and I quote, "is running against the way Washington conducts politics. Yeah, Barack, but the way you do it is by not showing up to do your job, having missed many critical votes in just the past week. That's going against the grain, all right.

Look at Biden's record--AND THAT'S JUST IN THE PAST WEEK!--and it will be easy to see why it is that Biden's supporters know--not merely believe . . . but know!--that Joe Biden is the best person for the job of leader of this country and the free world.

[aquart]

16. And one day I'll get past the Thomas/Hill hearings, yes, I will.

[LittleClarkie]

31. But nine times out of ten it seems that all I see about Hillary here are threads on polls

as if they were all that mattered.

I will not vote for her based on a poll. Her supporters will have to do better than that. Or do they think they have votes to burn?

[wtmusic]

9. Insulting?

It's just hard to believe that such a truly unremarkable, noncommittal candidate enjoys such widespread support.

Easier (for some of us) to believe that Hillary is being groomed to lose. Too much money at stake.

[illinoisprogressive]

10. I agree with Edwards and the top three reasons. maybe we can come up with a top ten!

[calteacherguy]

12. Sure, go for it. Be my guest.

I'm sure it will help your favored candidate tremendously...

While you and the other candidates are at it, Hillary will be focusing on winning the General Election.

[illinoisprogressive]

11. Even the media is criticizing itself for shilling for Hillary

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aquart]

18. Now that is beyond insulting.

It may even be a rule violation.

And how nice of you to talk about majority rule as inheriting a throne. Maybe YOU don't understand the process.

[LittleClarkie]

30. How does being abrasive win your candidate votes?

ratchet it down a notch, eh?

[AdHocSolver]

15. Kerry was popular among Democrats - and he LOST, because a Dem needs Republican votes and...

independent votes to win the general election, which is why I want someone other than Hillary Clinton to be our candidate in 2008. Popularity among Democrats is of little significance in the general election.

Not for nothing is the Democratic party described as the party that is quick to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. Kerry was touted as the "most presidential", the "most electable" candidate that we could field. Kerry supporters also claimed that he was a sure winner because "anyone could beat Bush".

My complaint in 2004, after Kerry was "anointed" early in the selection of our candidate, was that the Democrats were taking all the "mystery", and hence the excitement, out of the race and giving a stationary target to the Republicans to stockpile ammunition and plan attacks. I complained that Kerry was an uninspiring candidate, and he didn't appear to have a serious, well-thoughtout strategy to win independent and Republican voters away from Bush. And, my biggest complaint was that Democratic Party leaders and "consultants" were totally underestimating the Republicans' political abilities. I must have been mistaken since Kerry is completing his first term...

The Democratic Party leadership is now poised to reprise in 2008 the same disaster with Hillary Clinton that they brought us in 2004 with Kerry. To ensure a Hillary Clinton "win" in the 2008 primaries, they want to end the nominating race early before Democrats start to realize that her biggest political "success" would be to elect a Republican president from a field of obvious losers.

The current battle for the Democratic nomination is getting attention from independent and Republican voters that no amount of campaign money could buy. Anointing Clinton now would eliminate this superb advantage that the Democratic Party has, and negate any advantage a big war chest could give her.

Last, but not least, a Clinton candidacy would energize the Republican base to come out specifically to vote Republican because they actively dislike her. So many of them dislike Bush, and find the current crop of Republican candidates so lackluster, that many would just not bother to vote. A Clinton candidacy would change that scenario. And Bill Clinton is no help to Hillary. A lot of Republicans actively disliked him, so why should they vote for his wife?

A moderate Republican friend of mine, who dislikes Bush, voted for Kerry in 2004. He was negative on Bill Clinton. I doubt he has any liking for Hillary. I haven't asked him his opinion about the candidates yet, but I believe that if Hillary is the Democratic candidate, and he found the Republican candidate acceptable, he would vote Republican. If many Republicans have similar attitudes, the Democratic candidate cannot win. Why? Because if the election is close, the Republicans will steal enough votes, as they did in Ohio, to win. A Clinton candidacy will make such an outcome not merely possible, but probable.

[aquart]

19. We do NOT need Republican votes. We barely need independents.

72 million Democrats. 55 million Republicans. 42 million independents.

We need thirteen million of the independents. The Republicans need THIRTY million.

Maybe that will clue you in as to why so many of them are choosing not to run in this election.

SCREW WHAT THE REPUBLICANS WANT. We don't have to care.

[AdHocSolver]

21. You are forgetting the Reagan Democrats, and the many Democrats who don't like any Clinton, and...

the many Democrats whose votes were not counted in Ohio, Florida, and elsewhere, and the many Democrats right here on DU who said that they would stay home if Hillary were the nominee. Moreover, if your numbers meant anything, why didn't Kerry win in 2004? He had a lot of crossover votes from independents and Republicans and he still didn't receive the number of votes necessary to win the Presidency.

[aquart]

28. If you believe Kerry didn't win in 2004, we have nothing further to discuss.

Because you will believe anything the media tells you.

[Apollo11]

22. If there are 72 million Democrats - why did 20 million of them stay home in 2004?

Your figures assume that everyone votes at every election, which is not the case.

What we know (from polls, history and common sense) is that if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate, the Republicans will find it easier to get out their vote. The simple reason is that ALL Republicans FEAR another 8 years of the Clintons in the Whitehouse.

On the other hand - if we go with Gore, Obama, Edwards or Biden (my Top 4) - it would be more difficult for Republicans to scare their base to the polls.

[aquart]

26. Did they? You're sure about that?

Because I'm not.

Now as to how many Republicans will stay under the covers on election day 2008, I suspect the number will be quite spritely.

[Steve_in_California]

34. Official 2004 Election Results (as per CNN)

Bush
(Incumbent)
62,040,606 51% 286
Kerry
59,028,109 48% 252
Nader
411,304 1% 0

[LittleClarkie]

17. How can it be insulting to Democratic voters when they haven't voted for her yet

it's perhaps insulting to those who've answered the phone so far. But we don't know how many of those who don't have caller ID will be voting this year.

How many early front runners actually turn out to be the one?

[aquart]

20. "THEY"?

If you're not a Democrat, what are you doing here?

[LittleClarkie]

25. Oh please.

:eyes:

[AZ Criminal JD]

23. Historically, with people that have the lead Hillary does

Almost all of them. People who try to compare her to Dean and others are trying to re-write history. She has had the lead with a large margin and for the entire race. Most candidates in her position will be nominated and have been in the last 60 years.

[LittleClarkie]

24. Okay, but I still don't get why denying her support would be

insulting to voters who haven't voted yet as the headline suggests.

[Steve_in_California]

33. 70% of voters remain undecided.

So, what are you talking about?

[Apollo11]

27. I love that graphic image!

Lemme tell ya - I had a good cackle at that one! ;-)

After Jeb - why not continue with Chelsea and Jenna? B-)

[LittleClarkie]

29. Or Neil

And thanks. I just today put the hard copy on my car.

[Steve_in_California]

32. Majority? You call 15% (in real numbers) a majority? On what Planet?

[Clintonista2]

38. Umm she has over 50%, but whatever

Don't let the facts blind you now!

[BigDDem]

36. When your candidate is stuck at 2% and going nowhere...

you grasp at straws....daily.

[bpeale]

37. the dems always lose

because they divide the people of their own party. not only do they need some republicans to vote democrat, but they need to keep from splintering their own party. they just don't have the lockstep thing down pat yet. they will lose if they go with hillary for president because a lot of dems just won't vote for her. they would rather throw their vote away than give it to her. i know. i am one of them. there is nothing in her stance that would be a plus to get me to vote for her & she's changed her mind (flipflopped) on so many things, i think she must be some sort of jekyl-hyde. she's a liar and she will always be a liar.

[jmp]

39. I'm another.

No Hillary ... no way!