Slog: News & Arts

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

1
Mr. Poe is an admitted cheater...

I still stand by my word that I only did that once. And it was good. Like steak.

Posted by Mr. Poe | December 20, 2007 8:53 AM
2

Thank god(or the FSM) you didn't include Al Gore.

Posted by Albert G | December 20, 2007 9:04 AM
3

The soon-to-be more interesting question could be: who is _______ going to pick as their running mate?

Posted by Clarkj | December 20, 2007 9:13 AM
4

If it is possible it might be more revealing to have people pick their first and second choices in a poll.

Posted by tiptoe tommy | December 20, 2007 9:17 AM
5

I am saddened Barack is polling so high. I will vote for him if he is the nominee, but I hope that doesn't happen. Anyone who travels around with an ex-gay preacher who wants to "cure" me does not have my vote.

Posted by Geez Louise | December 20, 2007 9:26 AM
6

Hey, what about a similar poll for the Republican candidates? I'd be interested in seeing who Slog readers pick - if they pick someone likely to loose to a Democrat next November, or someone who they'd be most willing to live under as President should the Democrats cough up the ball and lose the election.

Posted by James | December 20, 2007 9:31 AM
7

I was half tempted to vote for Dodd. He seemed to be the only Senator that had any balls to stand up to the FISA bill last week that gave immunity to phone companies. Then I remembered what a blathering douche he is on some other issues. Plus the fact he'll never get out of single digits. But still, props on the whole FISA thing.

At this point I'm rooting for either Obama or Hillary, I don't even care all that much which one. I'd just like to see us break the 200 year cycle of white male presidents. This seems like a good year to do it. And either of them would be a capable president. Not perfect, to be sure, but either is acceptable.

Posted by SDA in SEA | December 20, 2007 9:32 AM
8

Honestly, I think Obama is less polarizing than Hillary. Republicans I talk to seem to think that every Democrat and their entire family tree has their faces buried in Clinton's holy muff or something. They never talk about Obama.

Posted by The CHZA | December 20, 2007 9:44 AM
9

This is the third Stranger poll of Democratic presidential nominees I have participated in. First I chose Obama. Then I chose Hillary. Now I am choosing Edwards.

I love being a fickle Dem!

Posted by binkley | December 20, 2007 10:00 AM
10

I normally vote Obama, but this time I picked Dodd, because of how much ass he kicked for us last week.

Posted by K | December 20, 2007 10:04 AM
11

@8
I think the Democrats underestimate the Hillary hate out there. I've heard the same Republicans who excoriated Sean Penn, etc. for "I'm moving to France if Bush is re-elected" say the exact same thing about Hillary. She'll give us to the UN, she'll bring about socialism, outlaw (conservative) free speech, etc. I truly don't think she can take the battleground states.
Conversely, those same hyper-partisan Republicans think Obama's kinda neat, or a nice guy. [shrug]

Posted by torrentprime | December 20, 2007 10:14 AM
12

I'd probably be OK with any of the three frontrunners. Maybe I should caucus as a Republican and try to get the most batshit candidate possible nominated. (Keyes in 2008!)

Posted by tsm | December 20, 2007 10:15 AM
13

@11 - I don't think the Hillary-obsessed crowd isn't as big as their volume would make you think. And, well, all this talk about how Hillary is hated ignores the fact that she'll be running against someone with his own problems. (The Hillary-haters in my family don't like Giuliani either, for example.)

I still lean Obama, mind you.

Posted by tsm | December 20, 2007 10:19 AM
14

er, make that "crowd is as big"

Posted by tsm | December 20, 2007 10:20 AM
15

Oh, Gravel. Why can't you get yourself into debates anymore?

Posted by Anon | December 20, 2007 10:23 AM
16

I too am leaning towards Obama but voted for Dodd due to his stand on FISA this week.

By the way, millions of Americans live overseas. If you know one, tell them to register to vote at: http://www.votefromabroad.org/

Posted by Kevin Lyda | December 20, 2007 10:31 AM
17

Edwards or Obama (or even better Edwards/Obama) all the way, baby!

That said, part of me is really apprehensive that the Dems are gonna win the White House in 2008, and then this whole psychotic Bush-created house of cards is gonna come down in 2009, and of course the Dems will get blamed for Great Depression II: The Thunder Down Under.

The behavior of those idiotic dildos in Congress certainly isn't helping either.

Posted by Original Andrew | December 20, 2007 10:34 AM
18

I still just don't think that Obama will be good enough to be Pres. I think he'll make a great VP, where he can focus on domestic issues, something that he is good at. Don't let that guy have control of the military or foriegn policy, not his forte. In fact, I think that he is very ill-equipt to handle those issues at all.

Even Obama as Secretary of State, now that would be great. Once he gets his chops, and proves he is not a moron on international issues, then we can see him as president.

BTW: I voted Clinton and have since they start of these. No other candidate looks better to deal with the international issues that are priority for the pres than Clinton.

Obama/Dodd/Edwards: Not good enough internationally.

Posted by Original Monique | December 20, 2007 10:39 AM
19

Obama, with Dodd, Richardson, or Edwards as VP.

But I'd settle for Gore if he ran.

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 20, 2007 10:45 AM
20

NOTA?

Obama's all message and no meat, bad for America.

Posted by mjg | December 20, 2007 10:56 AM
21

@20 - this is a poll for Dems. If you want Red Bushies, go vote in Red China, with the rest of your America-hating comrades.

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 20, 2007 11:22 AM
22

I think you forgot to add Gore this time.

Posted by Cato | December 20, 2007 12:33 PM
23

WHY do people think Hillary is going to be so damn good at foriegn policy? She voted to let Bush (George W Bush) to use force at his personal whim.

Seriously, you want to trust that sort of judgement with the "football" that carries the codes for our nukes?

Hillary has ALREADY BEEN TESTED and SHE FAILED!!!! I will even push it further and predict that if she does become President we will attack Iran while she is in the White House. She is "neocon- lite" which is interestingly enough what her husband was.

Posted by Wake Up !! | December 20, 2007 12:48 PM
24

republicans want hillary because they already know why they hate her and how to foam about it. it's like regimented in a rule book somewhere... muscle-hate memory. automajikal.

that's the key to republicans. they have to have an Other to hate.

it's like guitar hero. they know pattern by heart to get the video crowd totally rolling.

YOU ROCK!

Barack just confuses them.

obama is psychobilly freakout on expert...... DOES NOT COMPUTE... DOES NOT COMPUTE>>>>

YOU SUCK

hillary is Heart-Shaped Box on easy. everyone knows it and there isn't much mystery to it.

Posted by guitarmageddon muthafukas | December 20, 2007 1:05 PM
25

Bob Cesca has a good piece on Obama on the Huffington Post...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/barack-obama-for-presiden_b_77564.html

I'll vote for Kucinich in the Primary, but I know realistically it will either be The Hill Or Barack Hussein. Given a choice between those two, I'd rather have Barack Hussein, but I'd still vote for The Hill over any of the lunatics on the R side.

Posted by Mike in MO | December 20, 2007 1:19 PM
26

@ 24,


You have the greatest Slog handle of all time.

Posted by Original Andrew | December 20, 2007 1:24 PM
27

Richardson is the only one running with executive experience. I want a president who can get things done, not spout opinions endlessly and get mired down in personality battles. Someone who will tackle the issues not tell me about how the other guy didn't do it right.

Posted by Cale | December 20, 2007 1:49 PM
28

@24: I agree. For all the talk of Obama's lack of experience, I'd go so far to say Hillary is the more vulnerable candidate. If she wins the nom, the RNC tactic will be to pull out every single foible from the Clinton years. They'll start with Gennifer, Paula, and Monica. They'll blame Clinton for 9/11 and the subprime crisis. As much as the DNC will try to use her husband as a selling point, the RNC will try even harder to say what a bad thing that is. With Hillary, the RNC will have TWO people's political careers to use as attack fodder.

So far my dream cabinet is Gore on Interior, Pelosi on State.

Posted by K | December 20, 2007 2:11 PM
29

Am I the only one who's suddenly convinced now, at the end of 2007, that the Dems will somehow find a way to lose and lose big in 2008?

Posted by Peter | December 20, 2007 5:43 PM
30

@29
Peter, somewhere between the seventeenth and thirtieth legislative defeat of the Democrats in this Congress, I became absolutely positive that the Ds will fuck up 2008.

Posted by torrentprime | December 20, 2007 5:57 PM
31

@21 - I tried to vote, but the Chinese keep disenfranchising me. But I stay for the food. No amount of disenfranchisement can keep me away from dry diced szechuan chicken.

Like the Washington caucus really matters. Just a bunch of meth-addled, counter-culture preverts in flannel shirts!

Posted by mjg | December 21, 2007 5:20 AM

Comments Closed

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