Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Morning News | Republican Straw Poll! »

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Slog Straw Poll!

posted by on January 30 at 8:43 AM

[Originally posted Thursday morning.]

Kerry is out, Hillary is in (“to win”), McCain’s asleep, and Obama’s mad as hell. But never mind all of that. Who do you want to be the Democratic presidential nominee?

Our first-ever Slog Straw Poll began on Thursday. Voting closes today at noon.

(This polling mechanism is new to Slog, so let us know if you see any glitches.)

UPDATE: Voting is now closed. Here are the final results:


RSS icon Comments


i thought i would be the only kucinich vote. maybe there's hope, after all!

Posted by dna | January 25, 2007 10:44 AM

I'm still having trouble with whether I pick most likely to beat a generic Republican, or best choice who still has reasonable chance of winning.

It's a fascinating group of people.

Posted by mirror | January 25, 2007 10:46 AM

Kucinich?? Get the fuck out you hippies.

Posted by seattle98104 | January 25, 2007 10:47 AM

Ok, so I'm going to pick on who I think has the best chance of cleaning up the mess in Iraq with the least negative fall out for everybody.

I heard somebody say this yesterday on the radio. Richard Clark? The main job of the next president will be following with a shovel after the elephant that just marched through the house.

Posted by mirror | January 25, 2007 10:50 AM

Kucinich was strongly pro-life until he switched his allegiance on the issue in 2002 because he knew his natural base in the primaries would never support him unless he did.

He also voted in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration.

Kind of puts a dent in the notion that he's the one with the True Progressive Convictions, if you ask me.

Posted by tsm | January 25, 2007 10:52 AM

My problem with Kucinich is that he is just plain weird. I like his ideas and values, and I would probably enjoy having a ginger beer with him (unlike Bush at any point in his lifetime even if he was supplying a side of coke), but I just don't see him being effective at the real work and arm twisting that will face the next president, including a government that has been corrupted top to bottom with debilitating ideology, ignorance and ineptitude.

Posted by mirror | January 25, 2007 10:55 AM

One of the main reasons why I am staying out of the 2008 Democratic Presidental Primary is so I will not be dissapointed when the victor is picked.
Who should the Democrats pick? It doesn't matter to me since I will be working against whoever the radical right picks.

Posted by Jake of | January 25, 2007 10:58 AM

Mirror good point about Clark, I didn't think about that before...

Posted by Silvertail | January 25, 2007 11:00 AM

No, I take it back. Kucinich really isn't a type of moralizing weird I enjoy hanging out with.

Posted by mirror | January 25, 2007 11:01 AM

Kucinich wouuld be awesome but he wouldn't get a damn thing done cus he wouldn't compromise on anything. I admire his stubbornness, but the federal government could never pass a budget he wouldn't veto.

Posted by john | January 25, 2007 11:03 AM

...and by the federal government I meant the US congress. sorry bout the miswording.

Posted by john | January 25, 2007 11:04 AM

Uhm, is there something wrong with me? The only "glitch" I see is that instead of a poll at the the bottom of this post, I see the movie times search box.

Posted by Callie | January 25, 2007 11:20 AM

Er, pardon me, the "Stranger Restaurants and Events Listing" search box.

Posted by Callie | January 25, 2007 11:22 AM

I voted for Obama. Ok, no one is perfect, but most on this list wouldn't stand a chance against whoever the F the Rs send up. So my vote represents not so much my undying love for Obama, but rather my undying contemt for the Rs.

Who would I love to see if you take the "Who can beat them" factor out? Hmm, that's a but tougher. Gore, Richardson, Wesley Clark, Kucinich, & Obama all have good things & bad things about them.

Posted by Mike in MO | January 25, 2007 11:25 AM

Richard Clarke is a Republican, and not damn likely to change. He doesn't like Bush, but doesn't blame the GOP.

Posted by switzerblog | January 25, 2007 11:26 AM

A lot of people I personally know who support Kucinich have told me they don't think he has a chance in 2008, so they haven't made up their minds yet.

Looks like my Gore/Obama 2008 bumper sticker was a wise investment!

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 25, 2007 11:27 AM

Callie @12&13,

Yeah, that's really weird, but we did see it once before. Try emptying your browser's cache, and if that doesn't work, quit and restart your browser. That cleared it up the only other time we saw it.


Posted by Anthony Hecht | January 25, 2007 11:40 AM

Will -

I'm going to say this one last time in small words so you can understand it:

Al Gore is not running for president.

Will you get that through your head? Puhleeze?!

Posted by Willis | January 25, 2007 11:54 AM

kucinich is a troll

Posted by patrick | January 25, 2007 12:19 PM

I like that after 2 hours Dodd still hasn't registered a single % point.

Posted by Mike in MO | January 25, 2007 12:26 PM

@18 - Gore hasn't said he isn't. Kerry, however, is not running. He announced that earlier this week.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 25, 2007 1:05 PM

WOW, Gore is doing pretty well since he has not announced he is running! GO AL!!! And if we have a really hot dry summer with an unusually high number of hurricanes, I think he will blow everyone else away. (no pun intended)

Posted by Andrew | January 25, 2007 1:19 PM

I haven't announced that I'm not running - does that mean that I will - NO. Gore is better off talking about climate change than running for public office - because you just know in the pit of your stomach that the second he gets back into campaign mode that he'll transform back into Robo-Gore....

And I didn't mention Kerry - everyone knows he isn't running. Very out of left field, even for you.

Posted by Willis | January 25, 2007 1:21 PM

Sorry white dudes, the only two choices are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. White dudes had the last 231 years to be in power. Now it's time to take a nap.

Posted by jamier | January 25, 2007 1:31 PM

Can you add Donnie Davies to the list?

Posted by dzienkowski | January 25, 2007 1:55 PM

Willis, you have as much chance as Kucinich does. But Gore and Obama have a real chance.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 25, 2007 2:07 PM

Gore (cough) isn't (cough) running.

Barack's the man - but holding out for a guy who isn't going to run can only hurt Obama.

Posted by Willis | January 25, 2007 2:34 PM

I love Bill Richardson. He's turned my shitty little home state around. I hope he rallies the Hispanic vote in California and Nevada, now that those primaries are getting moved up. If not him though, I'd be all for Obama.

Now, who the fuck is Mike Gravel?

Posted by Gitai | January 25, 2007 2:44 PM


Gore expressly ruled out a run by this point in the 2004 election cycle, so the fact that he hasn't this time may be significant.

Given that Obama doesn't have much of a record on the issues to speak of, it's hard to care too much whether my holding out will hurt his chances.

Posted by Poll Watcher | January 25, 2007 3:37 PM

my point about Richard (not wesley) Clark was what he said, not his ideology. More than anything else, the next president is going to have the job of getting us out of Iraq.

I think Obama is too conciliatory. I dont think he will have enough stature or hutzpah to squeeze the balls and tits and make the threats that will need to be made to push through the necessary compromises that will follow the necessary international diplomacy. That said, I really don't know as much about Obama as I would like to.

I think Hilary would do a great job on the shit work and the diplomatic finesse work to be done on Iraq. I could live with her domestically too, I suppose. But is she electable? I am doubtful regarding the received wisdom, but do I really want to take a chance? However, I think she would suprise us all in the role of Geena Davis and be even better.

I think Gore would do a fantastic job with the big sausage-making the extricating us from Iraq will entail, with domestic issues and global warming thrown in.

I think Richardson probably has the hutzpah to do the job in Iraq too.

Edwards would probably be alright also, but I think about him a little like I think about Obama, a little too soft.

Wesley Clark. I can't see him making it, so I'm not going to vote for him.

Total pass on the rest - too soft or too wacky.

Ooops. I'd better go eat. I'm feeling a little bitchy and judgemental.

Posted by mirror | January 25, 2007 5:34 PM

Obama has great promise, but doesn't seem quite ready for the presidency.

Gore won't run and the rest of the field is the same old moderate white guys we always put up.

Clinton-Richardson has a nice ring to it. They have the experience and credibility internationally this country is going to need after Bush is done. After 230 years it is time for a woman to lead this country. The effects on this country would be tremendous in countless ways. I can't think of a better anecdote for the homophobic, racist, classist, and sexist Bush gang.

Posted by time for a woman | January 25, 2007 10:25 PM

you should do another poll WITHOUT Gore to see where those votes go....

and/or add the most powerful person in the country:

Miss Winfrey

Posted by michael strangeways | January 26, 2007 9:24 AM

ELI: Are you going to put up a Republican poll too? Seriously. I mean, there are very few Republicans on Slog, I imagine, but I'd be interested to see what people think.

If you do, you should include Chuck Hagel, even though you don't consider him one of your "Contenders".

Posted by DOUG. | January 26, 2007 9:31 AM

Anthony @ 17 - thanks for responding. Yeah, the only other time I noticed a poll (I think for the squirrel thing) the same thing happened and the next day it was fine. I think restarting the browser probably works, but I use firefox and usually have like six tabs going at a time, so that's not always an option. Anyway, no big deal. I appreciate your noticing my comment.

Posted by Callie | January 26, 2007 9:32 AM


Yes, we're going to do a Republican poll once this poll is finished. And "The Contenders" series isn't finished, it's just not going to be every day anymore.

@ 32: I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps we'll do that soon, although I don't want people to get poll fatigue, so we might wait a bit. (And there's plenty of time: 22 months to go until the election.)

Posted by Eli Sanders | January 26, 2007 9:34 AM

What about a poll for the D-VP candidates? And a sounding of who sloggers think would content themselves with the VP slot?

Among the current darlings: Clinton would never take VP, especially if she could become Senate Majority Leader. I'd much rather see her there than on the presidential ticket.

Edwards wouldn't take a second stab at second place. Nor should he.

Obama may want the top spot, but I think he's absolutely ideal for VP, almost regardless of who heads the ticket. He'd bring huge excitement and cash to any ticket he joins, assuage reservations about his lack of experience, and cultivate himself for a Presidential run in '12 or '16.

My ideal ticket: Richardson/Obama.

Posted by Xtina | January 26, 2007 10:12 AM

Eli, this is not a statistically valid poll by any stretch of the imagination, and you shouldn't imply in any way that it is. It is at best a mildly amusing distraction. But it is poll of self selected Slog readers, which is hardly a valid cross section of Seattle, much less the state or the country. Thus, while amusing to some, it is indicative of absolutely nothing. Except maybe the whimsical political proclivities of a handful of Slog readers on any particular day.

*grumble, grumble, grumble*

I really hate these internet "polls". One of my pet peeves. Sorry.

Posted by SDA in SEA | January 26, 2007 10:26 AM

SDA: Who said this was a statistically valid poll? I never did. It's a poll of Slog readers (hence the title, Slog Straw Poll) and in that sense I find it fascinating.

Posted by Eli Sanders | January 26, 2007 10:38 AM

I think having Obama way out in front in this poll bodes ill for his national campaign. I like the guy, but I'm unconvinced. I keep thinking back to the fact that the only reason anybody thinks Kennedy was a good president is because he was murdered. And I keep seeing that word "Senator".

Keep in mind that none of these people are actually campaigning yet. I think we'll see a lot of people start looking harder at the governors and people who have held other positions, like Bill Richardson.

Posted by Fnarf | January 26, 2007 10:41 AM

Give this Gravel guy a look, even though he has no chance. He was the Alaska senator who published the Pentagon Papers in 1971 after the Nixon administration moved to block the NYT. Here's the bio from his site:

Posted by Jim Demetre | January 26, 2007 11:08 AM

Eli, no, I know you didn't specifically state that this is a statistically valid poll. But The Stranger is a newspaper ("Seattle's Only Newspaper"), and people tend to give credence to polls in newspapers, valid or not. So while I know that you called it a straw poll, any newspaper that labels anything a "poll" lends an implied credibility to it. And stuff like this just waters down the validity of legit well-conducted polls. Maybe if there was a different word for it, it wouldn't bug me so much.

And as navel gazing goes, I don't find it particularly interesting either. I'm probably more wonkish than the average guy, and I'm sort of embarrassed to admit I'm probably spending an unhealthy amount of time following this stuff when the election is still a LONG way off. I have enjoyed your "Contender" series.

I find the comments in this post far more interesting than the poll itself. The poll itself is completely meaningless. But I'm interested in why people like one candidate or don't like another, or why they think someone is electable or not. I like learning things about different candidates that I didn't know before. The whole "will Gore run or won't he?" speculation is fun to watch. It is the discussion that is interesting, not the poll.

Posted by SDA in SEA | January 26, 2007 11:57 AM

Fnarf - well, his book is front and center at Fremont Place Books, so I'm guessing it's selling well. But so are some of Gore's. My guess is so are Sen. Clinton's.

Sounds like we're the deciderers.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 26, 2007 12:08 PM

Oh, and as for me, I'm kinda sorta leaning toward Obama at the moment. I could also be persuaded to vote for Hillary, Edwards, or Gore (if he actually decides to run). I don't think any of the rest of them have a chance in hell of getting out of single digits.

Thank FSM that Kerry officially bailed out of the race. That would have been a nightmare. Please, can we send him to Easter Island or someplace for the final month of the election, so he doesn't say anything stupid and fuck thinks up for the Ds in the last week?

Posted by SDA in SEA | January 26, 2007 12:10 PM

I voted for Hillary because I think she's the toughest, smartest and has the best organization, and is therefore the most electable.
I love Kucinich's positions, but he's not electable and I really doubt he could push forward his positions even if he got in.
Barack will be great in 4-8 years. He's
too vulnerable to the "experience" question currently.
I suggest Jim Webb as VP. Great speaker
with cred for right-leaning voters.

Posted by butterw | January 26, 2007 12:23 PM

Follow-on to previous post:

Love Gore too. He will automatically
become president in 8-12 years when
consequences of global climate change
start hitting middle america in the pocketbook. Before then, alas, he's

Let's plan for 20+ years of Dem Presidents. Hillary/Obama/Gore.

Posted by butterw | January 26, 2007 12:28 PM

uh, no...i like al gore but no 80 yr old needs to be president...(no offence to all the Stranger Wrinkly Readers)

Posted by michael strangeways | January 26, 2007 1:11 PM

No clue who is the "best choice" but I sure as fuck know who would be the worst and that would be Dodd. Hes not even a viable VP choice. Not to mention a massive old infected tool.

Posted by Jim | January 26, 2007 2:01 PM

Too late, but is if all right for me to be freeping this poll? I know Kos gets angry with the whole thing. But I figure free hits for The Stranger, and it's not scientific anyway, so why not?

Posted by stephen | January 26, 2007 8:03 PM

Hillary 1st, Obama 2nd. Just because shes the only one I think that can set a precidense and show man that woman can be effective and great leaders as well. She's not just a secretary or a lawyer anymore. She can outthink a foreign diplomat, and stand by our people just as much as Man could.
Oh no we say...."Can't let woman go to combat, We are afraid she will get raped" blah blah blah. Piss off. She's the one that could help get us off this Mach Man dick War chest beating Ego thing that men have.
Maybe then we will actually do something quaint an women like......Like save the freaking planet for one. She will clean the clutter around the house and get our priotities off war and guns and , a little more focused on helping mankind keep from destroying itself in Her own house so too speak. Obamas cool but savor him to follow up after this woman. Men are getting boring as leaders as its there Ego that matters. She has no big ego. She's humble and thats what we need. No more chest thumpers please. The only problem is she's surrounded by so many men. Can she handle it. Well lets see. Give a go. Besides its not the President who really runs the country. Its a Network of Advisor.Right now theres to many Chiefs beating the War Drum in Tent.
Woman Shaman is needed to advise chief council.
No more War. Make babies. She says.
Big Man chief say "No. must fight enemy. He steal Horses."
Woman say"Calm down , come over here I'll make you feel better, relax."
Big Man chief"Feel better now. War stupid. Love and science better. Save Planet. Make peace."
Woman "Now I take over, You now my Bitch"
Man"here we go again."

Posted by sputnik | January 27, 2007 11:40 AM

SDA in Sea: news flash...all polls are meaningless. Even the most scientifically conducted polls. They are all meant for amusement. Finally, the term "straw poll" implies even less legitimacy.

I feel better now.

Posted by Mike in MO | January 27, 2007 11:47 AM

Assuming Obama's popularity holds up and no hidden scandals arise, I think Gore-Obama will be the Dem ticket to beat.

Posted by Joseph Wheeler | January 27, 2007 12:06 PM

Yeah. Gore/Obama is our best ticket. It offers balance in terms of age, experience, and race. It offers genuine hope for unwinding the mess that Bush has made. It offers redemption for the stolen election of 2000.

Posted by westsider | January 27, 2007 12:33 PM

Glitch report - I voted on Thursday and couldn't vote again but now I suddenly can.

Posted by Matt from Denver | January 27, 2007 12:35 PM

Gore/Obama? Great idea that won't happen. Gore won't run.

I think the Democrats best candidate thus far is Bill Richardson. Senators don't generally get elected President (a few exceptions, but very few). Why? They are one voice in 100 and don't really run anything other than their own campaigns and committees. Governors are more attractive candidates because they have a track record of running a large office.

Richardson was a Congressman, an energy secretary, and the U.S. Ambassador to the UN. He's also a go to person when it comes to delicate matters like negotiating with North Korea or the Sudan. He's got more experience than the rest and he's probably smarter than the bunch. Add to that fact that he's generally considered an amiable guy and would be the nation's first Hispanic president. All pluses in my book.

Posted by B.D. | January 27, 2007 1:02 PM

Nah, Gore and Obama for a combined ticket to win. It's time.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 27, 2007 1:42 PM

Hillary? Are you people serious? Do you ACTUALLY think the country who voted in GWB twice is going to vote for a woman??? You're out of your freakin mind. That goes double for a black man. Idiots...

Posted by Andrew | January 27, 2007 1:52 PM

If Clinton wins the Democratic primaries, it will be a political disaster. She is loathed by the Democratic party base, who will not turn out for her, and she is loathed by the right, who will go into absolute hyper-mode to destroy her. Her centrist triangulation on Iraq makes me want to hurl my lunch. In more conservative states, she will have a devastating effect on candidates down ballot. Lastly, do we really need another political dynasty? Aren't the Kennedys and Bushes enough? Can we please have some new blood?

Posted by samdinista | January 27, 2007 2:57 PM

Gore hasn't eliminated the prospect of making a run of it in 2008 and that means he's still considering it. He's far and away got the best resume, way, way better than Edwards, Clinton or Obama: elected to the House four times, the Senate twice, Vice President twice, and won the popular vote for President in 2000, early opponent of the Iraq mess (in Sept. 2002, he said "The chaos in the aftermath of a military victory in Iraq... could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam."). Plus, what was stiff and dorky in 2000 is cool and smart today. This Rolling Stone article is a good summary for would-be Gore-lovers.

Obama, whatever magical charisma he may possess, does not have the experience to be President and, frankly, we don't know enough about him to trust how he will perform. I don't think he really thinks he can be president yet, but putting himself out there lays the groundwork for a future run or for a VP nod.

I like Richardson, but unfortunately he doesn't have the charisma required to beat out his Democratic opponents. He can be President Gore's Secretary of State.

Posted by Joseph Wheeler | January 27, 2007 3:36 PM

Every time I think that we lost out by not getting Gore for president, I remember that he chose that piece of shit Lieberman as his Veep candidate. Factor in Tipper's music censorship fetish in the 80s and you can extrapolate a creepy, nanny-state administration.

I like Gore the man but Gore's judgement of character kind of disturbs me.

Posted by Peter | January 27, 2007 5:08 PM

Great point, Peter.

Posted by him | January 28, 2007 2:10 AM

@58 Well, you're wrong about Gore saying he's not running. In a Reuters interview on January 15, 2007 Gore said that he would not run for President.

Your point about Richardson may be correct. I need to see him in action on the trail before I decide. Charisma, like it or not, is very important in the fall campaign. It's an area that the party primary voters tend to ignore.

Posted by B.D. | January 28, 2007 6:02 AM

Maybe its just wishful thinking about Gore, but all candidates say they're not running until they announce they're running. And he's run before and almost won so he must have the fire in his belly.

I'm probably wrong. But I just think he is so much better than any other candidate out there right now and he's also the most electable.

Posted by Joseph Wheeler | January 28, 2007 8:40 AM

Hillary Clinton said she wasn't running until she said she was running, so don't hold Al Gore to a separate standard.

Still looking forward to Gore/Obama 2008.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 28, 2007 12:04 PM

Richardson is really the right candidate. As people have said above, Obama doesn't have the experience, and, sadly enough, nor does Edwards. One term in the Senate doth not a President make, and we'd be doing something as bad as the Republicans in 2000 -- picking someone who says the right things but doesn't have the intellectual horsepower or political acumen to achieve our goals.

Of the remainder, Clark, Gravel and Vilsack would be good in an alternate universe, but don't have the presence in the national media. Kucinich is a nutball, who seems like he enjoys being a sideshow act. Chris Dodd is useless, and Joe Biden is a megalomaniacal prick.

Clinton and Richardson are the best bets, and of the two, Richardson seems to be the best hope for the Democrats in the long run. The Wen-Ho Lee inquiry is a big blot on his record, but that pales in comparison to the Whitewater / Lewinsky memories that a Clinton run would dredge up again. Richardson has more foreign policy experience than the Republican frontrunners (save for McCain) put together. He's been a governor, and it would help with the Hispanic vote, which has been hemmorhaging from the Democrats faster than the African-American bloc.

Posted by bma | January 28, 2007 12:56 PM

I picked Gore for this poll, next choice is probably Richardson.

Posted by Dave Gibney | January 28, 2007 1:08 PM

I love the Straw. Thanks Eli.

I love having the decision put in my face like this, making me take a good hard look at the current "lineup" and making me realize that my gut is telling me that Gore is much more electable than the still 2 young Obama or the icy polarizer Clinton.

And that that's really all that matters because any Dem would be 10,000 times better than any Rep that could possibly emerge from the primaries.

Enough time has passed for Gore to no longer be so tinged as the loozer. So if he runs, I'm voting for him. If not, then I guess I throw my straw to Obama and hold by breath that swing voters are ready for him. (please Ohio please)

Posted by More straw please | January 28, 2007 1:11 PM

This many people are falling for Obama? Seriously, folks...

Posted by laterite | January 28, 2007 1:21 PM

Hey, Sputnik: what the hell is that, with the Big Chief injun talk? That's nasty. Don't do it.

Posted by Fnarf | January 28, 2007 5:09 PM

Gorebama '08

Posted by otla | January 28, 2007 5:59 PM

Will in Seattle @ 63. Hillary Clinton said she wasn't running in the 2004 campaign. And of course she wasn't. She was always more coy this time around.

Posted by Stephen | January 28, 2007 8:21 PM

What happened to "none of the above"?

Posted by Whacky | January 28, 2007 11:30 PM

Richardson rocks.

Posted by Dave Coffman | January 29, 2007 4:00 AM

The problem with the "not enough experience" argument against Obama is that he won't have any more in four or eight--or 32--years. He's a Senator. Senators do not have access to meaningful experience of the kind that is useful or popular for Presidential candidates. They don't run anything, and all they ever get to do is talk, which leads ALL SENATORS, without exception as near as I can tell, to develop that stentorial style of pontification that is so off-putting to ordinary people. See Kerry, John - 2004.

So unlike most people here I think Obama's best and probably only shot is 2008, before he gets further infected with Senatorialism. Hillary's already too far gone; she is an astoundingly inept public speaker, which is going to be a problem when the campaign gets into gear. I watched her on C-SPAN last night in Iowa or Colorado or some damn place, and she opened up her speech by giving notice that she's "in it to win it". That's cringe-worthy anti-sense.

Posted by Fnarf | January 29, 2007 9:12 AM

I don't understand the "lack of experience" mantra that people are spouting. What "experience" did Clinton have? He was a govenor for 12 years. BFD. He was govenor of Arkansas, no less, not really the forefront of new and interesting political ideas. Arkansas, as far as I know, is still a pretty back-ward a** f*** place with crappy eduction and low incomes.

Bush #1 actually had lots of experience in real positions of power. He was the damn VP for 8 years. Did that make him any more competent? Yeah, didn't think so.

Then we have Regan..govenor of California for 8 years. Wow. That is AMAZING presidential qualifications. Riiight.

And of course, we have our current failure, Bush #2. He was govenor of Texas for 5 years. Once again...BFD. How is that relavent to being president? ITS NOT. "Experience" is something that people always say they want, but when they have gotten it (as in Bush #1) they sure as hell have re-elected him. The only thing that has a bearing on these elections is what your positions are, and how much money you have to talk about them ad-nauseum. Throw in a smiley face, christianity, and a "down to earth" quality and you have yourself a winner.

Posted by Monique | January 29, 2007 10:32 AM

Uhh, Monique, are you describing George Junior in that last sentence?? 'Cause he is a loser. And governor of a state like Cali is actually huge experience. That state is like its own country in terms of GDP, population, complex issues, etc.

Glitch in poll: I voted twice from the same computer. Go Mike Gravel, whoever you are!!

Posted by him | January 29, 2007 10:59 AM

John Edwards will be the nominee.

He'll win Iowa, as he's popular with working-class, anti-war Democrats of the Midwest. He'll then win Nevada (or come in 2nd, as Richardson will likely stake his campaign there, campaigning full time while the rest of the field is in IA), as it's a union stronghold (a union which LOVES Edwards, by the way). Then it's on to New Hampshire. Edwards will be top 3 for sure, or maybe he wins it, who knows, but then it's on to South Carolina, the first primary state that has actual, honest-to-gosh black folks in it. Edwards, being from NC and also having been born in SC, has a definate edge. I think Edwards wins it.

It's all a matter of who knocks who out early, and how much a factor Hillary's money is and what Obama's message will be (likely to sound something like Edwards').

I think Washington will eschew Edwards like in '04. WA likes NE liberals, not Southern baptists who talk about poverty.

Posted by Will | January 29, 2007 11:12 AM

Fnarf @74:

Agreed that 10 years in the Senate is not what Obama needs. But a successful run as Gov of Illinois: now you're talking.

Regardless, the term "experience" is somewhat just a stand in for getting some wear-in on that baby face of his. As Dan has said, Presidents these days are elected on their TV face (please go home Mr. Richardson) - and Obama 2007 looks like he just graduated from College.

Posted by Barak Gaster | January 29, 2007 12:43 PM

I am impressed that Gore is doing as well as he is. And he has made no definate decision not to run.

But, I like Obama but the experience issue could be a problem. We are in the middle of an 8 year nightmare of "on the job training" with the Bush family retard. I do not see Obama being as inept but the idea of someone with some sort of a tie to executive power in the White House IS appealing right now.

Posted by Andrew | January 29, 2007 2:07 PM

Fun fact - I've read recently that Obama is a closet cigarette-smoker, something that would disappoint a big chunk of his current fan-base.

Posted by MarkyMark | January 29, 2007 5:18 PM

anyone who would base their vote for president on whether or not someone smokes cigarettes deserves whatever president they get.

Posted by anthony | January 29, 2007 5:22 PM

I hear Bush doesn't drink anymore. Look how that worked.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 30, 2007 12:30 AM

dfapj njaog ujhd veyis dnyuip wghkbt encarwv

Posted by yndochb mcfzw | February 17, 2007 4:58 AM

dfapj njaog ujhd veyis dnyuip wghkbt encarwv

Posted by yndochb mcfzw | February 17, 2007 4:58 AM

dfapj njaog ujhd veyis dnyuip wghkbt encarwv

Posted by yndochb mcfzw | February 17, 2007 4:59 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).