I think the Balz article is noticeable for attacking Sen. Clinton on the Iraq issue without bringing up the dirty fucking hippies who were demonstrating both in Iowa and in Washington this weekend.
A pretty typical Balz article otherwise, trading in a lot of feeling and supposition instead of fact; except that he does adequately apply the right amount weight in Sen. Clinton's weak spot for a lot of committed D voters in Iowa.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 29, 2007 09:03 AMI'm having a hard time seeing the good news here...49% want a Dem president??? Kerry got 48-49% and Gore got 50%....six years of Bush and the the % stays the same???? All this tells me is that the Dems still don't have a candidate that has captured the public excitement.
Posted by T2 at January 29, 2007 09:12 AMThat's what's wrong with the whole nominating process, and why conventions need to matter again.
I'm tired of having the press use the people of two small states of no particularly significant demographic picking my presidential candidate.
California is a decent microcosm of the country, demographically, geographically, economically, San Diego County is too, yet I have never had a vote of any consequence in Presidential primaries, not to mention general's. And it's crap like this that is the reason. God, I really don't like the DC Beltway crowd, 500 people we'd be a lot better off without.
Posted by Duckman GR at January 29, 2007 09:15 AMI'm sorry Steve,
but I don't think a little positive coverage of Hillary now, represents any significant change in our 3rd 1/2 Estate. I'm still convinced the Republicans want to run against Hillary. No other candidate would guarantee their fundraising and the knuckle-dragger turnout as much as Hillary, bitch-queen of the Dems. The ONE the red base loves to hate.
I think we will see the press building the case for the inevitable Clinton juggernaut, rolling over all opposition until she wins the nomination.
Then, suddenly, it will be the awful mistake the hapless Dems made. Hilly the Hag. Stories about her stock transfers 30 years ago will become the breathless buzz. She'll be ridiculed like Gore, hounded by the worst videos like Dean and shunned as a woman who would provide a second grab at the ring for her horrid, philandering husband. In other words, Standard Operating Procedure.
The media are still pwned by the plutocracy and they know how to do their jobs. Hand jobs for Jeb(?) and the back of the hand for any Democrat we choose. Even with lots of mascara, lipstick, a tutu and perfume, this little Vietnamese pig will NOT be pretty, even if we all drink liberally.
Posted by DeminNewJ at January 29, 2007 09:15 AMT2, nearly twice as many registered voters want a Democratic president in 2009 as those who want a GOP one. That's a hell of a base to start from in winning half of the undecided remaining registered voters. Your concern would be justified if all of the remaining undecideds went for a GOP candidate, but they surely will not.
Posted by Steve Soto at January 29, 2007 09:17 AMI can't help but be extremely suspicious of the media. I agree with DeminNJ - I think they are playing to the Republicans by appearing to boost the candidate the Repubs would most like to run against.
Perhaps another poll to these same people polled, asking the single question - "Are you prepared to vote for a female Democratic candidate?"
We can only hope Gore jumps in.
It's quite clear that "conservatives" and the Repubs wish to run against Hillary--hence the endless rhetoric by them and their agents that she's the leading candidate, and telling us to just "accept" that she will be the nominee.
The press would like her to be the nominee because their inevitable complete vilification, mockery and ridicule of her will sell papers and keep the viewers glued to their stupid televisions watching the exciting, funny blood sport.
Lord knows what will happen, but I fear she's our weakest major candidate, with too many built-in San Andreas fault-lines.
Posted by euzoius at January 29, 2007 10:00 AM...half the country (58 percent) say they wish the Bush presidency were simply over.
In our household and amongst our circle of friends, that number is 100%.
Posted by Christopher at January 29, 2007 10:15 AMWonder how many wish it had never occurred?
Posted by snark at January 29, 2007 10:39 AMI'm having a hard time seeing the good news here...49% want a Dem president???
The number for "want a Republican president" was 28%. That differential is bigger even than the generic congressional numbers we were having trouble believing would hold up a few months back.
The reason it's not higher than 49% is because Americans cherish the fantasy of being saved by an Independent on a white horse. Unless something changes pretty drastically, that 21% gulf is going to swallow up the GOP nominee.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 29, 2007 11:28 AMHillary is the one candidate who could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. She's so scripted and, yes, divisive, that she'll wander into Kerryville when presented with tough questions.
Her Iowa events, along with her online adventures, thus far have been exercises in abject scripting.
I await the debates with anticipation.
Posted by God Of War at January 29, 2007 11:50 AMthere will be two choices, a Dem and GOPer, neither named Bush. Not a dozen choices. If one has 49%, the other will get more. If this poll says 49% of the registered voters will go Dem, that's great. But that leaves 51%. I agree that it would be hard to believe that 50% of the public would vote GOP, but it just did, two elections in a row.
Posted by T2 at January 29, 2007 12:08 PMthere will be two choices, a Dem and GOPer, neither named Bush. Not a dozen choices. If one has 49%, the other will get more.
You're being awfully hard-headed about this, T2.
Look: 49 and 28 add up to 77. That leaves 23 percent who expressed some preference other than R or D, or who expressed no preference at all.
If you think that once the field narrows to two choices, R and D, the R candidate will pick up 22 of those remaining 23 percentage points—especially considering the dim prospects for an improvement in the war— then your pessimism has crossed over into derangement.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 29, 2007 12:19 PMSpeaking of derangement, if anyone here believes that any of these numbers will remain stable from now until 2008, then "derangement" is an applicable term indeed.
This poll shows two things:
1) People CURRENTLY loathe the GOP and the GENERIC GOP 2008 candidate;
and
2) The media front-runners from the Democratic party are doing marginally better than the media front-runners in the GOP.
This shit has all started way, way too soon. It's going to be ugly in oh so many ways.
Posted by God Of War at January 29, 2007 12:46 PMMaybe I am hardheaded, but I'll wait to count chickens until the polls say 58% of registered voters say they will vote Dem. Six years of Bush and the Dems are only at 49% of registered voters, which is right at what they've racked up the last two presidential elections. What I'm saying is that nothing has changed on the Dem side,49 is 49 is 49. And yeah, I'd much rather be at 49% than 28%. But it takes 50.5% (or 50% and the Supreme Court).
Posted by T2 at January 29, 2007 01:13 PMNo. the msm is not attacking Clinton, Rather they are declaring her our nominee whether we like it or not. the gushing over her is enough to cause puking several times aday.
I resent being told who my nominee is without the benefit of us democrats voting for one. It is our primary and I am sick to death of the msm coronating the new queen.
i want al gore to run..if he doesn't hillary will be the nominee..and it will be because she has earned it..like she has earned everything in her life..many here seem to have bought into the fucking bullshit that the media has fed them over the last 17 years..they are all scripted to a certain degree..if you believe otherwise you are naive..she is a liberal at heart..and can do great things..if given the chance..a lot of you ought to lighten up on her..
Posted by dennis at January 29, 2007 04:41 PMno one in history has ever been hated by the far right in this country as much as the clintons were and are...great lengths were traveled to destroy them..and why...it says a lot that they were that afraid of them...
Posted by dennis at January 29, 2007 05:33 PMAs someone pointed out on my blog, the only chance at derailing Hillary is an "I'm in!" decision by global warming propagandist, Al Gore.
Posted by muckdog at January 29, 2007 07:56 PMThe %'s are low for the Dems and the GOP, not because people really wish for a 3rd party, but because neither existing party represents us, the common American citizen, anymore. Partisanship is partly what got us in the mess where we are today and Lord knows we don't need more parties as a cure for the ones we already have. Both existing parties have been hijacked (or bought out more specifically) and been pulled from the middle out towards their extremes on the fringes and that's the problem that needs to be fixed if we value our democracy and freedoms.
The party of Lincoln and Reagan has been taken over from within by so-called "neo-cons", or neo-Federalists harboring a twisted Hamiltonian take on what the presidency should be: a strong-man, king-like executive. Look no further than their policies that Bush has promoted, all of which falls neatly in line with that kind of extremist view. Of course these Bush flunkies & Bush himself have had no problem trampling all over our civil liberties since they don't trust the people to begin with. They promote only the interests of the few (those who are privileged like they are and/or with the money & inclination to buy access and influence) at the expense of the many. The GOP today is about as far away as you can get from representing what the common person needs & wants, or what represents the best interests of the nation as a whole.
The Democrats on the other hand, the party of FDR & JFK, have been making a living of pandering to extremists of a different sort for a couple generations now and have also been promoting advancement of the few at the expense of the many not unlike the GOP. The only difference is that the few whose interests they champion may represent a different set of special interests than those that cuddle up with the GOP.
Either way and with either party in power, the end result is the same for the common citizen:
we get screwed.
Special interests is the common enemy corrupting both parties. Until that is fixed it wont matter which party is in power, which has been proven over the past decade or so.
Bush the 1st got the ball rolling on measures designed to strengthen the presidency and to promote the depth & reach of special interests. Clinton advanced the process of strengthening “presidential powers” and pulled even more power from the legislature and courts into the executive branch through the many “executive orders” he issued. Bush the 2nd has faithfully continued the tradition and the project of expanding “presidential powers” through his blatant abuses of “signing statements”. Meanwhile on capital hill, several Congresses with both a Democrat and GOP majorities have sat idlely by doing nothing. Congress under BOTH parties has grossly failed in honoring their oaths of office and performing their constitutional responsibility to act as a vigorous and effective check and balance to the executive branch.
Members of BOTH parties in Congress have been bought & paid for by special interests and Americans don’t know which way to turn. This explains why the #s/percentages have stagnated despite massive disapproval of Bush & his policies across the board.
Radical partisanship and extremism resulting from the systemic corruption of OUR government by special interests taking over is a disease afflicting BOTH parties. In a corrupted system, it’s no surprise that we also have carpetbagger politicians hopping from district to district around the country to wherever they can get elected and can have the greatest power and influence (which they in turn sell to the highest bidder). It’s no longer about representing the common good for the country's present and for a better future for OUR people.
If the Dems backed a commonsense, no-nonsense FDR-like, or Jeffersonian pro-democracy candidate (rather than a closet-socialist or a corrupt carpetbagger) with a like-minded running mate (fellow citizens who actually mean what they say, have some common sense for a change and promote the common good rather than radical social re-engineering fringe policies, or policies that reward special interests) then I don’t think we’d have another GOP president for the next 16+ years. The GOP has so badly damaged their reputation when they trampled on the Constitution with Padilla, wiretaps & NSA spying/mail-opening policies, I for one doubt I would ever vote GOP for president (I've always up to know voted for the candidate, not the party). But where's the alternative?
What’s telling with today’s corrupt Democratic party though, is the glaring sound of silence on the subject of civil liberties from all, but Al Gore.
Dems are instead fixated on Iraq and seem to think they’re experiencing a flashback with another Viet Nam - all of which will play into the hands of the GOP if they aren't careful. Iraq is not Nam. The war should be ended and our troops brought home, this is true and most Americans support ending this illegal war, but most Americans are also even more concerned about the loss of our civil liberties and what this might mean for us down the line.
The Dems have a golden opportunity right in front of their faces now, if only they’d wake up and just grab it.
Hillary, Edwards, Richardson, Obama and that ilk (those motivated only by raw ambition for power & who will advance any policy that benefits the special interests that bought their offices) will only lead to defeat. Of the bunch running so far, only Biden makes any sense. If only Gore would run though. For that matter, Gore & Biden would be a hell of a ticket and would be hard to beat.
Its just amazing to me that in a nation this large and with so many bright people who cherish our founding principles and way of life, Hillary and Obama are the best that the Dems can produce, giving them all the advantages & support in the world. It should not be enough just to be a potential “first", and it should not be enough to just have a thirst for power and the "warchest" with money enough to seek it - this is our homeland, freedoms and our future that's at stake.
Posted by A Weir at January 30, 2007 01:18 PM