Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Slog Tracking Poll: Who Do You Want to Be the Democratic Nominee?


Could someone explain to me why people like Clinton?

Posted by Michael | November 13, 2007 9:06 AM

I voted for Clinton. But only once...

I swearz.

Posted by Mr. Poe | November 13, 2007 9:07 AM

@ 1, I voted for Edwards but would be happy with Clinton. Out of the entire field, I think she and maybe Biden are the most competent candidates, the ones who would be the best at executing the duties of the office. That's not to say I'm in full agreement with their politics, but after possibly the worst presidency in US history (and that's forgetting Bush's politics - he's simply an inept clod who valued loyalty much more than competency) I'd rather see the next president be a capable leader, not necessarily the one who I agree with the most (even though that's how I voted in the poll). That's reason enough to support Clinto.

Posted by Matt from Denver | November 13, 2007 9:20 AM

Mr Poe, I thought you were supporting Richardson?

Posted by arduous | November 13, 2007 9:38 AM

Yes, Michael. People like Clinton because they've heard of her. That's all. She is the brand of choice for Democrats who don't want to think about the election, because they are convinced she is the only candidate who can beat the GOP. I think these voters just want to win, and haven't given much thought to what will happen after that.

If we want health care and education reform, rather than four years of talk, we need to get behind Edwards or Obama (both on one ticket would break the back of the GOP, but don't tell anyone; it's a secret).

Just another dumb-ass opinion from a former Democrat who's fed up with lobbyists and lobbyist-lovers like Clinton.

Posted by S. P. Miskowski | November 13, 2007 9:41 AM

I got to vote dozens of times in the last Slog poll, and that made it worth while. But today I might only have time to vote once. Why even bother?

Well, maybe with luck later on I'll have time for some serious voting action.

Posted by elenchos | November 13, 2007 9:42 AM
I'd rather see the next president be a capable leader, not necessarily the one who I agree with the most

Why do you say that Clinton is the "most capable", anyway? Not that she isn't, but I'm not sure exactly why everyone seems to agree on that one.

If we were simply going by resume, I think Bill Richardson actually has the most respectable track record. But that ain't happening.

Posted by tsm | November 13, 2007 9:44 AM

I must agree wholeheartedly with S. P. Miskowski @5: Clinton is winning soley because people have good associations with her name. If you want more of the same, corporate loving government, by all means vote for her. The only "frontrunners" I see who want any real change at all is Edwards and Obama.

I just hope Edwards is in the race long enough so I can vote for him. I like him more than Obama simply because I'm sick of Obama's rhetoric. But when it comes to the primary, I'll vote for whichever one has any chance of beating Clinton.

Posted by Dianna | November 13, 2007 9:50 AM


I was. I went from Obama to Richardson to Hillary.

Watch me finish with Ron Paul. Watch!!1!

Posted by Mr. Poe | November 13, 2007 9:52 AM

I used to be a Democrat but since I think America is on it's last leg I am gong to support our doom. I am going to vote REPUBLICAN!!!! That is right, I am all for Hillary Clinton!!

Posted by Just Me | November 13, 2007 10:00 AM

I love how the anti-Hillary people take it upon themselves to explain to Michael why some of us like her so much. Thanks a lot, motherfuckers.

I support Hillary Clinton because (a) her combination of social liberalism and economic centrism (I am fiercely anti-communist and anti-socialist) mirror my own beliefs and (b) I believe that she has the intestinal fortitude and personal discipline to run a blistering campaign against the Republican marketing machine.

For two elections now we've endorsed boring milquetoast candidates when never said or did anything to offend anyone and watched while they had had their asses handed to them by Republican attack politics. I want a candidate who will punch harder than they are punched.

For those of you who somehow claim that Edwards or Obama is great but that Clinton is the devil: grow the fuck up. The three candidates have a gnat's ass difference between them on policy. Clinton hasn't apologized for her 2002 votes; that's the only major difference. I can see why someone would feel Kucinich was an honest to god "agent of change", but if you think Edwards is some kind of progressive rock star you are deluded.

Posted by Big Sven | November 13, 2007 10:03 AM

Edwards is the only candidate seriously addressing the poverty and economic inequality that's steadily getting worse. He may be annoying at times ("I'm just not there yet"), but he's got my vote. I'd much rather vote for someone I believe in rather than someone who people speciously say has the best chance of beating a Republican.

Posted by Original Andrew | November 13, 2007 10:09 AM

Who the fuck wants Edwards to be their president? I don't get it. Have you been listening to him? He's a tool.

Posted by Carollani | November 13, 2007 10:18 AM

Edwards is nothing special. When he's on TV, I think about having sex with him. When he's off TV, I think about having sex with whoever replaced him. Even HRC.

Posted by sex sex sex sex | November 13, 2007 10:19 AM

Thank you, Big Sven. It's nice to read something that I absolutely agree with. I watched the documentary So Goes the Nation over the week about the 2004 presidential campaign in Ohio. That should have an easy win for Kerry. It's amazing the mistakes he made (avoiding negative campaigning, coming off to the average voter as superficial and snobby). My primary interest is seeing a Democrat in office, and Clinton is the best candidate the Democrats have. If Guiliani wins, whose foreign policy advisors are to the right of Bush's, I shudder to think what kind of wars he will suck us into.

Posted by Peter | November 13, 2007 10:20 AM

@43 "The three candidates have a gnat's ass difference between them on policy."

I have to disagree: voting for the most disastrous foreign policy adventure in recent history is a pretty big difference.

That a vote for the Iraq war doesn't instantly disqualify a candidate for the presidency completely baffles me.

Posted by BobHall | November 13, 2007 10:24 AM

Wow. A lot of people read Slog.

Posted by Amelia | November 13, 2007 10:27 AM

If you live in Washington state, your vote for president doesn't matter. So just vote for Kucinich. You know you want to.

Posted by DOUG. | November 13, 2007 10:28 AM

Whoops, change @43 to @11.

Posted by BobHall | November 13, 2007 10:28 AM

I've been supporting Clinton but then I couldn't get to sleep at night worrying about what it would be like to have her as president. I switched to Edwards and do not feel any better about the situation but at least I'm not getting automatically sucked into every Clinton-hater's diatribe.

Posted by Katelyn | November 13, 2007 10:35 AM

does it not concern any of hillary's supporters that the sean hannitys and rush limbaughs of the world are creaming their panties at the thought of hillary as the nominee? it's not because they want her to win, it's because she's sketchy as fuck and has a closet full of skeletons that are already dancing, and we haven't even reached the first primary yet.

she is hands down the easiest dem to take down in the general election, period. don't drink the kool-aid, people! don't do it!!

Posted by brandon | November 13, 2007 10:37 AM

It does concern me Brandon, but any Democratic candidate will be villified by the right. They will portray Edwards as an ambulance chaser and Obama as inexperienced and who knows what else. With Hilary, they do have some ammunition, but I also think that some of the over-the-top negativity directed at her could actually make her appear reasonable in comparison, especially if she deals with it as well as she has been.

Posted by Peter | November 13, 2007 10:49 AM

brandon @ 21,

Electing H-Clin would be totally worth it if all of the Hannitys, Limbaughs, Coulters, Malkins, etc. committed mass suicide the day after.

Anything after that would be gravy.

Carollani @ 13,

What specifically about Edwards' policies bothers you?

I admit that I also don't want another pro-corporate, anti-progressive Clinton presidency, which is exactly what we're going to get as demonstrated by the miserable, failed Democratic Congress.

We need to wipe the slate clean and start over.

Posted by Original Andrew | November 13, 2007 10:52 AM

IIRC, looks like Kucinich is gaining ground thanks to votes that used to be Clinton's.

Posted by Anon | November 13, 2007 10:56 AM

23: It's just him. He's so smarmy and false that I just can't stomach him. I don't believe that he cares about people more than he cares about becoming the leader of the "free world."

I'm sure I'm making it sound like I haven't been listening to him, but I have. I've seen all the debates; I've watched the good and the bad, and he just gives me a bad feeling. You can tell when he's being authentic or not, and I just don't believe he's someone I want representing me and my country in the world.

Posted by Carollani | November 13, 2007 11:00 AM

Not that it matters, because the poll is bunk, but I switched to Kucinich from Edwards. It's a primary. I'm going to vote for the person who represents the policies and interests that I want the Democratic Party to stand for. Edwards is mostly faking it, and on actual policy is only marginally better than Hillary. Obama sounds good but is lacking on substance. All four current Senators couldn't bother to show up to vote and campaign for a filibuster against an attorney general who thinks waterboarding is A-OK. Richardson's got a good position on the war but is kind of a tool in general. Gravel's got some kooky ideas and is the biggest flake in the race.

That leaves Kucinich. But I'll happily vote for any of them next November.

Posted by Cascadian | November 13, 2007 11:08 AM

25: you have just eloquently summarized how i feel about hillary. flawlessly, i might add.

22: so far, the worst the right has dug up about obama is that his middle name is hussein and his last name rhymes with 'osama'. and edwards cares about his hair. with hillary, they have a whole arsenal of legitimate, non-superficial shit to throw at her, and it won't be pretty.

Posted by brandon | November 13, 2007 11:09 AM

@ 27, unless they have something new, then you're completely wrong about what they have to throw at HRC. They've thrown everything they've found at her already and none of it's sticking.

OTOH, they have Obama's inexperience and Edwards' ambulance-chasing to throw at them. That's going to resonate more deeply with middle voters than stale anti-Hillary crap.

TSM @ 7, my judgment of HRC is based upon her important position within her husband's White House and her Senate leadership. That experience is invaluable. But you're right about Richardson, I should have mentioned him as being equally qualified.

Posted by Matt from Denver | November 13, 2007 11:18 AM

I chose Sen. Obama. Heard on KUOW (NPR) today that President Gore just accepted a salaried job at a California tech firm.

Sen. Clinton will make a fine VP.

But, frankly, they're all good candidates this year (kind of surprising), even if Cong. Kucinich has no chance.

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 13, 2007 11:19 AM

you really think people will be more turned off by "ambulance chaser" than "abuse of executive privelege", "planting questions at press conferences", and "questionable campaign finance sources", to name but a few? the mere fact that she scores higher negatives than any of the other candidates - even amongst dems - should be a bright, glowing red flag.

and we haven't even reached the general election yet. they're just getting warmed up.

Posted by brandon | November 13, 2007 11:27 AM

Here's why there's no way I'm voting for Clinton:

There's been a Bush or Clinton in the White House since I was 7 years old and I now have a 7 year old kid.

It's time for something different because this country is supposed to be a democracy.

Posted by Mike of Renton | November 13, 2007 11:30 AM

@ 31, then vote for Giuliani next November.

@ 30, you're seriously stacking ambulance chaser against concepts too abstract for most middle voters to comprehend? Yes, I think that, plus Edwards' plastic persona, will turn off more voters than anything negative about HRC will.

Posted by Matt from Denver | November 13, 2007 11:37 AM

brandon @ 30,

Please don't base your vote on what the right wing noise machine might say. As we saw with the Swift Boaters, when in doubt they'll just make shit up--they have no shame, and Americans are extremely gullible. It's going to be horrific no matter which Dem is nominated and the media will play along.

Vote for the candidate whose proposals are closest to your ideals.

Posted by Original Andrew | November 13, 2007 11:59 AM

Yes yes yes, vote for who you think will be best. Yeah, and just remember that Diebold will make sure those votes all go to the GOP candidate in November. (Me thinks that Rove learned his leason in 2006 and that is why he is out of the picture. It is harder to commit massive voter fraud if the spotlight is on you. Much easier to work on that if you are "spending time with your family")

2008 is going to be the ugliest election we have ever seen. VERY ugly especially after election day in November.

Posted by Just Me | November 13, 2007 12:58 PM

Could someone explain to me WHY they would vote for OSAMA Obama? No Nig-Nogs for me! I don't vote for people cuz their balckety balck black! Do you think Oprah's gonna reward you with a car or soemthing?

Posted by IMAdrgQ | November 13, 2007 1:12 PM

It seems reasonable to me that voting is partly about compromise. You are not just voting for one person, you are voting against another. Sure, I might not agree with Hilary Clinton on everything, but I would sure prefer her to Giuliani or Romney. Throwing your vote away on third party candidate is essentially a vote for the Republicans.

Posted by Peter | November 13, 2007 1:26 PM

i'm going to pick up where @11 left off and explain why i'm voting for clinton. first off, i'll get it out of the way before anyone tries to write off my answer--i've watched every single debate and have carefully listened to every candidate, and while i appreciate some ideas others have presented, i still support hillary.

she's an exceptional politician. it all really comes down to that.

as much as i'm a warm-hearted sensitive person who wants us all to hug each other and discuss our differences and share a cup of coffee and hold hands and sing songs, that's just not how things get done. and as much as i hate the war and demonstrated against it before it started, and would love to see it over and all our troops home now, i know that's not how reality works.

in order to get things done politically, you have to have a fierce command of politics. the war is politics, overhauling healthcare is politics, etc. hillary has incredible plans (yes, i've actually read most of them) and has a proven track record in the senate and her time as first lady, etc., of working across the aisle to get shit done. you can focus on the healthcare debacle, or admit that it was over a decade ago and she was just getting started, and her healthcare plan shows how much she learned from that episode.

we don't need someone who makes good speeches (although hillary's speeches are pretty good) or can pander to the progressive community. we need someone who can look at the complicated pile of shit that we've been dumped in, gather together the best team of allies and foes, and work through this to make some progress.

and yes, she can win. this election is about the importance of a great candidate winning. that is so, so, so, so important. we can't afford to not win. we can't afford to continue to ignore the advice of scientists and other experts, etc.

when i look at the field of candidates, honestly, hillary is the only one who clearly has a history of being able to trudge through bs and come out of it more successful and competent, has an exquisite set of plans that aren't flawless, but are excellent steps in the right direction, and she can win.

as much as i'd like to see a new name in the white house, i think that's really petty and irrelevant. bill o'reilly and those people will give it to whomever the democrats nominate, so the argument that they're itching to give it to hillary is irrelevant.

honestly, as a rather personally progressive individual, i think hillary's goals are very much aligned with mine. i think she's a solid goal-oriented politician, and she's a realist who understands that her job as a representative isn't to represent herself and all the progressives who think like her, but to represent everybody. so she tends to look politically like a moderate, and that's why she's effective, that's why she'll win.

god, that was a long comment :)

Posted by kim | November 13, 2007 1:31 PM

yeah, long and full of spin.

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 13, 2007 1:44 PM

33 - right wing noise machine???? so this includes arianna huffington? andrew sullivan? gullible indeed.

this stuff is all part of the official record, it's not something people are making up. now i challenge YOU not to believe everything the pro-hillary / "vast right wing conspiracy" set throw at you !

Posted by brandon | November 13, 2007 1:46 PM

Hey Stranger, thanks for the polls.

It would be nice to know how many people "voting" in the poll (851 so far) actually plan on going to the Democratic Party caucus on Feb. 7th at 10 am, the only place where there "vote" counts.

Posted by Cleve | November 13, 2007 2:10 PM

Cleve, didn't we shift over to a primary and isn't it on February 19th?

Posted by Sigourney Beaver | November 13, 2007 2:14 PM

After the comments from Obama about any thing in foreign policy, I hope there is no way he gets the nod. He is great for internal politics, so make him the VP. He is definately not president material. He is inexperienced and completely clueless about diplomacy.

As for Edwards.....yeah, just what we need: another rich white dude.
Plus that dude ABANDONED Kerry in 2004 when shit wasn't looking good. WTF. and now you all want to vote for him??? You want to vote for the douchebag that did nothing to help the Dems win 2004??? Wow.

Not only that, but what a populist fucker. (insert full sarcasm) Cause all of us in Washington State know easy it is to get populist ideas through voting (even in a Dem heavy state). I mean, because ALL democrats want what Edwards does (and have a track record of sticking together to get issues passed), and there is such a HUGE Dem majority in congress that his bullshit ideas could get through.....


"Change"? My ass people. You want "change", but no way you can get it with any Dem candidate until we have a bigger majority in congress. What we need most right now is a good diplomat. And HRC is the best candidate for that. Hands down.

Posted by Original Monique | November 13, 2007 2:22 PM

I think I've decided that I'm voting for Kucinich in the primary. Not that I want him to be the nominee, but as @26 said, it's a primary, so I'm voting for the person who most aligns with my views on policy.

My 86 year old grandma lives in Des Moines so always gets to go to all of these amazing campaign events (I'm jealous). She never goes to the caucus however, and usually tells the Democrats who call her to "just pick someone, I'll vote for whoever you pick in November." Though I'm voting for Kucinich in the primary, I agree with my grandma. I will happily cast my vote for HRC, Edwards, or Obama come November.

Posted by Julie | November 13, 2007 2:30 PM

Sigourney: Yes and no.

On the Democratic side, no; the 2/19 primary does not count for naming delegates to the Democratic National Convention, where the nominee is actually chosen. Instead, the primary is merely a "beauty contest" (And its p.r. impact is minimal because it comes after most delegates are chosen by 2/5, plus west coast poll returns come to late to make the media cycle back east).

So, the only place where your vote "counts" in terms of getting more delegates for your favorite (Obama, Clinton, Edwards etc.) is at the caucus on Feb. 7th.

On the Republican side, yes; I think half the delegates are based on the caucus process that starts 2/7 but half are based on the results of the primary election on 2/19.

On the Republican side,

Posted by Cleve | November 13, 2007 2:48 PM

@40 - I thought it was February 8th ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 13, 2007 2:50 PM

Will, apologies, I got the date wrong. It's not 2/7 and it's not 2/8.

The Democratic Precinct Caucuses will be on SATURDAY, FEB. 9TH.

Posted by Cleve | November 13, 2007 3:03 PM

People simply can't trust anything that comes out of Billary's mouth.

Another case in point today:

"Student describes how she became a Clinton plant"

"The college student who was told what question to ask at one of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign events said "voters have the right to know what happened" and she wasn't the only one who was planted."

Nice. And we are supposed to trust a candidate like this?

Sorry folks... if Clinton becomes the Dems candidate you are destined for another political defeat come election day.

Then who will you blame?

Posted by Reality Check | November 13, 2007 3:33 PM

Hillary voted to authorize the war. She voted against the Levin amendment that would require Bush to wait for more U.N. inspections. She did not read the National Intelligence Estimate before she voted to authorize the war.

Yet, "This is George Bush's war."

So should we elect her president? Christ, she should be tried for war crimes alongside with Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc.

Posted by BobHall | November 13, 2007 4:46 PM

Brandon @39, you can substitute "mainstream media" for "right wing noise machine" in the comment you were replying to. And I hate to shatter the utopia you're living in, but yes, that includes Sullivan and HuffPo. (Sullivan ran that silly non-story about whether Hillary tipped the waitress into the ground last week, trying to prove Hillary is somehow a Bad Person.) In fact, LOL at your ironic choice of examples -- are you even aware that both Andrew and Arianna were prominent Republicans until not very long ago?

Brandon, since you presumably want a Democrat to win the next election, has it occurred to you to wonder why you seem to think the Democrats need to put up a spotless, perfect, knight-in-shining-armor candidate to even have a ghost of a chance of beating the Republican? The eventual Republican nominee, rest assured, will have done or said things every bit as supposedly dubious as Hillary ever has, if not a great deal worse. Do you ever wonder why, in the popular mindset, this sort of stuff sticks to Hillary, but not to the Republican? Why all these stories "prove" that the Democrat cannot be trusted, but the Republican is a guy you'd want to have a beer with, or a guy you'd want with you on the subway at 3 am (the current mainstream media spin on Giuliani), etc.?

So many liberals seem to accept holding Democrats to a higher standard than Republicans as a fact of life, without even being aware of it. Obviously you subconsciously know, despite sneering at conspiracy theories, that the Republican won't be attacked by the media, however deservedly, for doing the sort of things Hillary has (supposedly) done. But doesn't that bother you at all?

Giuliani will be adored no matter what kind of fantasies he spews about his role in 9/11, and Chris Matthews will keep saying things like "Everybody likes you, Governor Huckabee. We're waiting for those poll numbers to reflect it. Everybody around here seems to like you, and we'll see what that's worth" (can you imagine anyone in the mainstream media saying that about Gore, Kerry, Hillary Clinton?), and meanwhile you've ALREADY (twelve months out!) written off Hillary. Do you think that's just random bad luck, or fate, or political sophistication, or something?

I'm not saying we (Democrats) shouldn't put forward the best candidate we can -- but if you buy into (and/or participate in) the media's character assassination of Hillary now, rest assured they will do it to your preferred candidate next, in the general election.

Posted by David | November 13, 2007 5:14 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).