Latest Democratic Presidential Preference Poll: Hillary First, Al Second

Alan, when you release these polls I would be interested in a link back to the source or some information on methodology used.

I would love to vote for and see a woman as President but not Hillary. She is SOS that we have right now. Politicans bought and sold to the highest bidder.

2008 polls taken this early only reflect current name recognition, not levels of support that will mean anything when the primary season begins in early 2008.

I politeloy disagree. If we don't nominate a real liberal (like Biden, Feingold or Edwards) we will have no choice and there can be no improvement. We need someone serious about stopping global warming and saving the environment, economic fairness (eliminating the massive tax giveaways to the richest), real healthcare reform, rolling back scores of special priveleges for the richest and a massive shift in foreign policy. Only a progressive candidate is going to be serious about those crucial issues. If you look at Russ Feingold's voting record (I posted it on my Gather site; you can find it with Search), you will see he is on the humane side on all the big and small issues.

I think the Democrats will naturally gravitate toward a "liberal" nominee, but not necessarily an extreme. If you know anything about liberalism or conservatism, you should know the difference between a mainstream liberal and an extreme-left liberal. Similarly, conservative and neo-conservative are, in practice, not the same at all.

I really like Joe Biden, and I think he's someone who could pull a lot of more moderate Republicans with his no-nonsense style and straightforward language. Al Gore seems to have actually learned something from his last major loss. (Yes, I know he "won," but he SHOULD have mopped the floor with GWB.)

I don't know what the appeal of Hillary is, unless it's just the woman thing. She's the last of the great vote whores -- I'll take whatever position will get me the most votes.

Rich,
Most of the polls are directly available from either http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm and Rasmussen Reports, although I also consult Zogby, Taegan Godard's Political Wire (http://politicalwire.com/) and others.

Wendy,
I agree with you on both Biden and Hillary. One of many things I like about Biden is that he agrees with me that Iraq should be divided into three ethnic autonomous regions or nations: Shiite, Sunni and Kurd. They hate each other and the Shiites and Kurds want to be free. Problem is, they have to do something about oil revenue distribution, because while Saddam stole most oil money for the Sunnis, the current government has given most of it back to Kurds and Shiites, who live where most oil is. To avoid ongoing civil war, the three will have to agree on a formula to share oil revenue in a way that Sunni's get enough to satisfy them. Biden did on very stupid thing about 20 years ago that still harms us, but that would not keep me from happily voting for him. He was chairman of the Senate committee examining Supreme Court candidate Clarence Thomas. Anita Hill had made several charges of sexual inappropriateness against him and several other women were lined up to give similar testimony, even though GOP Sen. Arlen Specter called hill a liar. President Bush asked Biden not to call any more witnesses and to wrap up the Thomas hearings. In a moment of grotesque stupidity--and out of politeness to the president--Biden did so, and we got a very young, very conservative justice who has almost always voted against the common good and for the rich elite.

I gotta say I would really like it if Al Gore would run again. Maybe people can look at the result of what happened when he had the election stolen out from under him and say, gee, we made a horrible, horrible mistake. Who knows? He may do better than he did last time now that he knows how they're going to go at him. Maybe his campaign can come up with simple and stupid sounding lines people can remember like "fuzzy math" and "flip flop."

Given the fact that Gore won the time he ran, I think he should be given another chance and would team him with John Edwards this time. Hillary, I am afraid, comes off too cold -- plus I am sure we would return to the Clinton sex scandal (Rove's creative ability at smearing opponents I am sure will figure out a way of making Bill's indiscretion his wronged wife's fault) I would have Gore focus on foreign policy, environmental policy, and health care reform, and have Edwards continue his two Americas populist attack. I think it would be a winning combination this time around.

Paul,
I would support any Democrat against any Republican, but I think people are SO fed up with Bush's extremism that they would like a real change. Bush did damage across a whole range of issues, and a wishy-washy, middle of the road Democrat might not be gutsy enough to be willing to start undoing public harm in lots of areas. We need someone serious about foreign affairs, social equality, economic fairness, real healthcare reform, tax reform, minimum wage, stem cell, major enviornmental overhaul, reform of the FCC, FDA etc, consumer protection, etc, etc. If we put someone weak in the White House, then the 2000-2015 could end up being a net loss for all of us. There is SO MUCH WRONG that needs to be fixed, and wars based on lies, policies designed just to further enrich corporate donors, judges who will cater to regiligious fanatics and foreign policy based on bullying other nations and putting our corporate needs above planetary needs will no longer do the job.

George, I'm with you. I was going to echo Carville's "It's the economy, stupid!" until you mentioned Edwards and his "two Americas." I think that as time goes on, that resonates more and more powerfully with a lot of Americans who have to fill the tank to get to work, who can't afford to take their kids to a doctor, who can no longer afford to live in their own homes, who are just barely squeaking by on two incomes. If someone can speak to that and to the other domestic issues (health care, education, the environment, dependence on foreign oil), they have something.

Paul,
If anyone besides Bush had been president from 2000-2008, a moderate next president might have been acceptible to me (as moderates Carter and Clinton were). But with the Bush-Cheney-Rove machine, which also controls the Congress, Court, media and all federal agencies in the saddle for 5.5 years so far, they have done such significiant harm to everyone but the very richest that it will take a true progressive and a progressive Congress to undo enough of the damage they have wrought. It will take courageous, activist, committed liberals to reverse the Bush tax cuts for the richest, much less get us out of Iraq, begin to aid rather than harm the environment, stop spying on Americans, re-instate stem cell research, etc. etc. etc. If I had my way, we would have a very gutsy liberal Congress and president who would not just undo the Bush harm but would go on to reform other needed areas. For instance, the FTC used to protect people from dangerous products and false advertising. That hasn't happened in decades. For a long time the FDA has put representatives of drug companies on the panels that evaluate their own drugs. That is insanely dangerous, but it will take a real progressive to start reversing that. The harm that Nixon, Reagan and two Bushes did to us, complicated by the small amount of progress under moderate presidents, has resulted in a very shitty situation for most normal people. A "moderate" will just piddle around, compromising with the bad guys and not doing enough good. I'm not sure you understand the enormity of harm that Republican presidents and Congresses have done to most aspects of American life. Radical change is necessary. If you saw Gore's powerful AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH, and you have a remotely open mind, you realize that major international efforts need to be made in several key areas to make sure your kids and grandkids don't live through a era of horrific weather, disease, flooding and suffering--worldwide. A moderate approach to global warming equals an unliveable planet.

I have to go with Alan on this one. The great danger in 2006 is that we elect enough Democrats to just dampen the pain and it results in forestalling a Progressive tidal wave in 2008. I too am fed up with the Centrist crap -- its like appeasement, we need to recognize that the Republicans are engaging in class warfare with the gullible religious right acting as their pawns.