Jackson Free Press

While Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Rudolph Giuliani are their party's top picks for the 2008 presidential nominations, both remain highly polarizing figures, according to a national poll released Friday. Forty percent of Democrats polled said they favored Clinton, the New York senator, for the party's nomination while 18 percent opted for Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the loser of the 2004 presidential race.

Fourteen percent wanted former Sen. John Edwards, Kerry's 2004 running mate, according to the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.

Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, was favored by 25 percent of Republican voters for the 2008 GOP nomination with Sen. John McCain of Arizona at 20 percent and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 10 percent. [...]

While 72 percent of Democrats said they would like the former first lady to run for the White House in 2008, 76 percent of Republicans said they did not. Conversely, 71 percent of Republicans said Giuliani should run while 64 percent of Democrats said he should not.

Previous Comments

ID

87009

Comment

Do I really have to start thinking about this now? I'm still trying to decide between the Commander-in-Chaps and The Other TV Guy.

Author

GDIModerate

Date

2005-05-06T15:04:45-06:00

ID

87010

Comment

I thought it would distract you from the local circusóand remind everything that politics on the national stage is just as ludicrous as right here in Jacktown. I can think of no race I'd dread more than Clinton vs. Giuliani. Interestingly, they're not very different politically: She's a New Dem, he's a progressive Republican. I can't imagine that the religious right would stand for it, not when they have Jeb Bush waiting in the wings to do any dumbass thing they say.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-06T15:09:26-06:00

ID

87011

Comment

Oh yeah... I can see Bush 3rd now. Why don't we just award an inherited monarchy to an entire verbally challenged family? At least McCain (20% on the poll) would liven things up.

Author

GDIModerate

Date

2005-05-06T15:15:21-06:00

ID

87012

Comment

I don't agree with McCain on everything, but I do respect him for being independent-minded. More than I can say for either Bush boy. The country is certifiably insane if it elects another Bush or, IMHO, another Clinton, at least until Chelsea proves her mettle. Hillary's not my girl prez.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-06T15:18:55-06:00

ID

87013

Comment

Agreed (I would even be leery of Chelsea's mettle after those parents). In fact I shudder at the thought of any candidate potentials mentioned in the article, GOPer or democRat.

Author

GDIModerate

Date

2005-05-06T15:21:50-06:00

ID

87014

Comment

Hillary's not my girl prez. Which woman do you think could be a viable major party candidate and President? Who is out there who you could support and who would stand a reasonable chance of winning? Just curious.

Author

Proud To Be Right

Date

2005-05-06T15:24:56-06:00

ID

87015

Comment

With you all around. They all suck, and poor Chelsea will likely be scarred for life because her daddy (almost) boffed the intern under the same roof. Grody. Obama. Obama. Obama. At least until proven otherwise. He is SO presidential, though. When I see him on C-SPAN in committee meetings, I just want to reach out and hug him, his potential is so amazing.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-06T15:26:02-06:00

ID

87016

Comment

I've seen the hype/hysteria and the "presence" to which you refer. but, being a cynic, I'll wait and see.

Author

GDIModerate

Date

2005-05-06T15:29:08-06:00

ID

87017

Comment

Which woman do you think could be a viable major party candidate and President? Who is out there who you could support and who would stand a reasonable chance of winning? Just curious. Good question. I'll have to think about it. Too bad the Rove machine destroyed Ann Richards. She coulda been a contender. And I used to think Christie Todd Whitman would be the first woman prez. But, no. She mucked that up. But that's all in the past. And I like some of them California grrls, but I don't see any of them standing a "reasonable chance." Too bad Condi Rice as an oil tanker has after her and is so mired in Bush muckety-muck, which ain't gonna survive him; wish she'd been more independent. But I doubt she'll ever be able to get past being the Secretary of Bush Apologia. So let me ponder. Who am I missing, all?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-06T15:31:43-06:00

ID

87018

Comment

Yeah, I know, GDI. But everyone needs someone to root for. ;-) Beyond hype, he seems so damn smart. And unapologetic for being a bona fide progressive and for caring for people. We just need more of that. Liberals and progressives have allowed themselves to be painted as a second-rate citizens (and patriots) for too long now. (And that includes HRC, in my view. I hate New Dems.)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-05-06T15:33:26-06:00

ID

87019

Comment

Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi are two women politicians on the national stage. Probably too liberal to win the nomination, but I liked voting for them when i lived in CA.

Author

kate

Date

2005-05-06T17:51:14-06:00

ID

87020

Comment

I thought Frist was the front-runner for the Repubs in 2008.

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-05-06T21:23:07-06:00

ID

87021

Comment

I expect Giuliani-Clinton to be a 2006 matchup rather than a 2008 matchup; conventional wisdom says that Giuliani will challenge Hillary for her seat, and if that happens the loser (whichever candidate it happens to be) will probably be out of the running. But that could just be because I'm not fond of either candidate and would like to take solace in the idea that at least one of them will drop out of the race. Agreed on Obama. Wish there was a chance he'd run in 2008, but he's already sworn he's serving out his first term before he even considers national office. Russ Feingold would be my #1 draft pick for 2008, though Joe Biden is also pretty awesome. Some folks are high on Edwards, but I never liked the guy. Kerry, IMHO, isn't viable in 2008; he was a great candidate in 2004, but that's the only chance he gets. I've always liked Lieberman (he's a DLCer but an honest one), but he'll be too old by 2008 and would never win the nomination anyway. Bayh would be a threat in the south, and Richardson in the midwest. And Wesley Clark could be potent with a little more seasoning. Both Al Gore and Jeb Bush have announced they're not running in 2008. On the Republican side, I find Giuliani distasteful despite his moderate status. McCain I'd actually consider voting for if he remains independent--a Feingold-McCain matchup would be heavenly. Rice is damaged goods right now, but I expect all this to blow over like Iran-Contra; I can easily see her as a viable contender by 2008. Bill Frist is the scariest viable candidate on the table right now, IMHO--a viable "moderate" who believes that God hid the dinosaur bones and AIDS can be transmitted by sweat. Almost equally scary is George Allen, who has already been described by some as "Reaganesque." Santorum is unelectable, and it looks like he'll be trounced in 2006 anyway (his opponent, a former governor's son, is already leading by 14 points). The real Republican dark horse, though, just might be Mitt Romney of Massachussetts. I'm dreading forward to a Clinton-Frist race, but I hope I'm wrong. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-05-06T22:54:56-06:00

ID

87022

Comment

they all have high name id. nobody that'll be in the thick of things is making waves in the general public right now, so these polls ALWAYS skew towards people that the average joe knows. I say there's no way in hell EITHER get the nomination.

Author

jp!

Date

2005-05-06T23:38:28-06:00

ID

87023

Comment

obama oshmama! nice guy with a record of doing ...not much. all i have to say is the dems better not go with another new englander. that's suicide.

Author

jp!

Date

2005-05-06T23:40:25-06:00

ID

87024

Comment

JP, Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review and served in both the Illinois and U.S. senate--not a bad start. His record is already much better than that of John Edwards, who stood a viable chance of beating Kerry for the 2004 nomination. But even he admits that a term in the Senate is probably necessary before he starts running for the presidency. He's my top pick for either 2012 or 2016, and if he ran now, I'd vote for him. I think the Dems very nearly beat the post-9/11 Bush with a stiff, gloomy senator from Massachusetts, so a New Englander is fair game. Half of Kerry's problem was that he figured the fact that Edwards was from the south would help him. But it didn't, and I don't think Edwards' being a southerner would have helped him much if he were top-ticket, either. Geography is less important than demeanor; Connecticut's Joe Lieberman would be a much bigger draw in the south than Tennessee's native son Al Gore or Askansas' native daughter Hillary Clinton, for example. One name I forgot to mention on the Republicans' side was Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel, who I think stands a better chance than most folks realize of ending up either top-ticket or bottom-ticket--and he's an anti-Iraq war moderate to boot. I hope you're right about Hillary Clinton. She could probably beat Bill Frist, but my God, that would be a depressing race to watch. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-05-07T00:32:42-06:00

ID

87025

Comment

he went to law school and served in the state legislature. so far ray maybus is ahead of him. as for serving as a senator, he was JUST sworn in 4 months ago, so i would HARDLY say his record was better than john edwards. more importantly, Edwards was elected in a state that is NOT known for electing democratic senators (and over an incumbent, no less). no mean feat. Obama was elected in one of the few states that could manage electing a black senator. I like Obama a lot and i think we'd all be better served w/ senate leadership from him right now. as for the 'we almost beat 'em' with Kerry. I just have to disagree. no offense to my friends from new england, but this nation has elected TWO new england democrats in the last century. I have to tell you, Kerry is no JFK or FDR! what it comes down to is this: moderates from ANY other region are more easily accepted nationally over moderates (or liberals) from new england. quite simply, if you can repeatedly get elected in Ohio or Missouri, you have a better chance of being someone that the different regions can 'relate to'. with some noteworthy execptions (above), you just rarely EVER get that. as for hillary? no way in hell. there is NO WAY she wins if she gets the nomination. she is a mobilizer to the other side where she is utterly HATED. last year i saw more write ups about a Hillary run in 08 than i did in ANY moderate or liberal magazines or papers. know why? they WANT her. i'll say this to anyone. she will lose. have doubts? ask yourself this. name ANY woman...heck, in the world...that has more hatred directed towards her. who? who? nobody. certainly no one in politics. Lieberman couldn't get elected president of a bar mitzvah. he's bland AND from new england. he never got beyond, what? 4th place? MY take on the primaries: if democrats want to win, the do their 08 primaries in these states first: New Hampshire & Iowa (you have to), Ohio, Penn., and Florida. why? those are the states you HAVE to win, so those states should have a stronger/earlier say in the primary process. go with somone we know will do well there...and know it from the start.

Author

jp!

Date

2005-05-07T01:24:00-06:00

ID

87026

Comment

You're confusing Lieberman's lack of success in the party primaries with lack of success in a national election. He's the Democratic Party's answer to Arlen Specter--a senior senator with massive crossover appeal. But just as Specter's agnosticism and refusal to kowtow to the religious right pushed him to single-digit polling in the '96 primaries, Lieberman's conservative tone and piety pushed him to single-digit polling in the '04 primaries. But if you think his kindness and (very sincere) God-talk wouldn't score him points in states like Florida and Ohio in a general election, you're kidding yourself. Think Jimmy Carter, but with gravitas. I'm not sure I'd rather see Lieberman president than a more liberal candidate, but he was probably the most likely choice to beat Bush and in retrospect I and a lot of other Democrats kind of wish we'd backed him, given what we ended up with. I agree that Lieberman stands no real chance of winning the '08 primaries, and I didn't believe he stood a real chance of winning the '04 primaries, either. As far as Obama goes: That's an easy comparison. Edwards was a trial lawyer who went straight to politics; Obama is former editor of Harvard Law Review and an experienced state senator. And he would have four years of U.S. senate experience in 2008--nearly as much experience as a national politician as the six years Edwards had in 2004. Next. The primary system isn't going to get rebooted, though it probably should. Kerry got 48% of the vote against a sitting wartime president, and he did it with an admittedly difficult personality that most potential New England candidates do not share. To take that and extrapolate that New England Democrats don't get elected on national tickets is crazy. Re Hillary-hate: Well, ask yourself this. Name ANY man who has had more hatred directed towards him than George W. Bush--more marches, more bird-flipping, more angry music. Then meditate on the fact that he won a second term with 51% of the vote. Polarizing figures can sometimes use that status to their advantage. I don't think Hillary is an appealing candidate, but I think she'll probably win if the Republicans run a sufficiently dreadful candidate against her. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-05-07T02:04:37-06:00

ID

87027

Comment

(Carter has gravitas now, obviously; I was referring to '96. I also wouldn't describe Kerry as a dreadful candidate, though JP is missing a golden opportunity if he doesn't point out that I praise Kerry for almost beating Bush and then in the same breath point out that Bush is one of the most hated people on Earth and still won with 51%. The two points aren't exactly contradictory, but they don't play well together. Cheers, TH)

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-05-07T04:03:22-06:00

ID

87028

Comment

(Actually, Carter had gravitas in '96, too. I meant to say '76, when he, you know, actually ran for president.)

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-05-07T04:03:54-06:00

ID

87029

Comment

"ask yourself this. name ANY woman...heck, in the world...that has more hatred directed towards her. who? who? nobody. certainly no one in politics." -jp! Well, I'd say Condi Rice has my vote as the more hated woman... I'd rather see ball-buster Hillary than bunker-buster Condi Rice. But that's just me. I'm tired of war and the excuses and regime that enabled it; Condi's one of the main talking heads behind it all and honestly seems to support it all. She makes me cringe but I do love it when she wears that Matrix wardrobe and she certainly doesn't seem to take sh!t... ;-) Well, come to think of it, I'd love to see them run as a team. ;-) I actually like the Clintons now more than any time in history. Buddha save us all if Frist even goes near the Oval Office unless it's to empty garbage cans. That man's a loony and ranks right up there with Falwell and the American Family Association in the zealot category. He'd make Bush seem like a weak pawn for the fundies. Hell, I'd take Lott over Frist any day. That took a lot of will to type and I think I need to go shower -- I feel dirty after that thought.

Author

kaust

Date

2005-05-07T06:35:01-06:00

ID

87030

Comment

If you are talking about presidential hopefuls, why not one of the two members of Congress whose vote most resembled the way I voted (according to the American Conservative Union score card -- at least in one year): Both Connecticut Republicans (Christopher Shays and Nancy Johnson -- that covers both genders). If they're anything like me, they'd not be given to hysteria. Only one problem though -- they'd have to resign from the Republican Party and run as independents. I have no idea about their charisma though.

Author

Philip

Date

2005-05-07T12:15:05-06:00

ID

87031

Comment

Knol: Buddha save us all if Frist even goes near the Oval Office unless it's to empty garbage cans. That man's a loony and ranks right up there with Falwell and the American Family Association in the zealot category. He'd make Bush seem like a weak pawn for the fundies. Philip: I've got an even WORSE nighmare for you, though fortunately he's no longer electable -- Former congressman John Cooksey of Monroe (whose district covered most of NE and Central La). A few weeks after 9/11, he said about profiling "If someone is wearing a daiper on his head and a fan belt wrapped around that daiper on his head, then he should expect to be questioned". He ran for the senate last year and lost, making the senate race a two WOMAN race. Speaking of which I don't think Sen. Mary Landrieu (who won reelection in that race) would be all that bad.

Author

Philip

Date

2005-05-07T12:23:21-06:00

ID

87032

Comment

I remember thinking in 2002 that Landrieu belongs on a national ticket. She is very charismatic, and ran a runoff race in red state Louisiana against a good candidate after it was targeted by national Republican money for a month, in a year when not that many Democrats won. Shays actually isn't all that conservative, and he has been willing to criticize President Bush when he went too far in the past. I wouldn't mind seeing a McCain/Shays ticket. I have to admit that part of me wants to see a Condoleezza Rice run for the presidency. This is partly my eye for the patently absurd--imagine, for a moment, that the first African-American president and the first woman to serve as president both happened to be a Republican... But I also like the fact that she graduated from high school early and spent so many years earning college credits, because that's basically what I did. I think she's one of the few real intellectual heavyweights in the Bush administration, though I agree that I'd be unable to vote for her because she seems to enjoy bombing people entirely too much. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-05-07T13:47:53-06:00

ID

87033

Comment

Louisiana isn't that red. it is actually more 'in play' than most think. and i have to say...TH, maybe you believe in Joe-Mentum (and if you don't know what THAT is you don't know Lieberman!)...but i'm just not buying. as for the hillary thing: Bush was hated, but that was fringe. let's be honest. the number that hated him weren't nearly as large as with hillary and on the OTHER side there's not the same level of enthusiastic support as w/ Bush. wish it wasn't true, but it is. ...and as for condi, just because YOU hare her more--knol--doesn't mean the PEOPLE hate her more! :)

Author

jp!

Date

2005-05-07T17:57:34-06:00

ID

87034

Comment

I don't believe in "Joe-mentum" (because that applies to his luck in the primaries and I never believed he'd do well there), but I think he'd be a potent candidate in a general election. He radiates kindness and warmth in the same way Reagan did; the difference is that Lieberman isn't an actor. Re Hillary: I think that if she were to reposition herself as a presidential contender, mainstream attitudes about her would change enough to put her above Frist. But I can think of a few Republicans I'd vote for over Hillary. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-05-07T18:19:30-06:00

ID

87035

Comment

Tom: I think that last statement about Hillary and her electability is an uncharacteristic lapse into inaccuracy for you, no disrespect intended. We just saw Kerry, a very qualified if boring candidate, fail to unseat one of the least intelligent, least qualified, least accomplished, least popular, and least successful presidents in modern history. Kerry's loss is, of course, attributed to many factors, the most obvious being the "war on terrah" and "moral values." The Dems had a shining opportunity to knock Dubya off and they flubbed it by presenting a super-wealthy, super-liberal, super-elitist New Englander who married into a Republican Senator's fortune. . . and whose wife lacked the sense to keep her mouth shut long enough to win a presidential election. Teresa H-K was every Republican's wet dream . . every goddamn day she had something stupider to say, and every day that earned Dubya votes. If the dems are not brain dead this time, they will put forth someone who is *not* completely offensive to Middle America. And if Kerry was distasteful to them, then what is Hillary? Kerry wore the camo outfits and carried the dead geese and the shotgun in trying to court Mid-America, and where did it get him? He was a laughingstock in those states. It will have to be someone more like Gephardt or Wesley Clark. Hillary would be a disaster; every republican ought to be praying that she is the one. She is certainly smart enough to realize that; let's hope that her ego permits her to step aside this time.

Author

buckallred

Date

2005-05-07T21:38:06-06:00

ID

87036

Comment

CLARK!! not only would hillary be a disaster, i don't think she can pull it off. same with giuliani...so i think that'll turn out to be a moot point. ...which is what i said in my first post. how's life treating you buck?

Author

jp!

Date

2005-05-07T22:46:32-06:00

ID

87037

Comment

Buck, I am not excited about the possibility of Hillary, but I think she still stands a realistic chance of getting elected if she isn't running against a particularly good Republican. I like Wes Clark, but he seemed a little wide-eyed and spacy in 2004. He needs seasoning. By 2008 he may be ready. The post-9/11 Giuliani can win the presidency; the pre-9/11 Giuliani wouldn't stand a chance. The $64,000 question is how well will Giuliani's wax job hold up. A run against Hillary in 2006 could settle this question; obviously if he wins the Senate seat at that point, he's in a really good position to try and take the White House. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-05-07T23:30:12-06:00

ID

87038

Comment

But I should add that Hillary ranks below John Edwards on my list of prospective Democratic candidates, and knowing how un-fond I am of Edwards as a candidate, I think that should tell you something. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-05-07T23:31:09-06:00

ID

87039

Comment

oh, giuliani can possibly win the presidency. unfortunately for him, he cannot win the nomination. the religious right won't have him.

Author

jp!

Date

2005-05-08T01:01:00-06:00

ID

87040

Comment

I must chime in on this one... As far as a woman in the White House: I'm all about Barbara Boxer. She is by far one of the few Democratic Senators who has consistently stood for progressive values, demanding truth and fair play in government. Did you see Sen. Boxer with Condi Rice in her confirmation hearing? You go, girl! Obama: I also LOVE me some Barack Obama. I've read the transcript of his speech from last year's DNC at least 100 times. I loved the mention he got on a Will & Grace episode as well. Grace's line: "Speakin' of butts, had another sex dream last night. This time I was in the shower with Barack Obama. Oh-bama, he was ba-rocking my world." For 2008, while I am a Kerry gal, I think it's time he retire his dancin shoes on this one. If it didn't happen in 2004, I don't see it happening in 2008. Joe Lieberman needs to go ahead and switch parties, since he basically has anyway. I like Clark, but don't think he has the momentum (and even less charisma than Kerry). I'd be interested to see where Edwards is in terms of making a run in '08.

Author

kp

Date

2005-05-10T04:52:40-06:00

ID

87041

Comment

Also, I saw this poll discussed on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, and the graphic on screen (as well as said aloud by George S.) gave Haley Barbour 1% of the vote on the Republican side. Made my stomach turn.

Author

kp

Date

2005-05-10T05:02:04-06:00

ID

87042

Comment

Oh, I'd love to see Barbour run--because he'd guarantee a Democratic victory. He comes across as a televangelist type and has the views to match, which is just what the Republicans need right now. If the objective of the Republicans is to put a Democrat in the White House, that is. I don't know where all the Democratic distaste for Lieberman comes from. Yes, he supported the Iraq war on principle, but he also said it was bungled--exactly the same position as Kerry. I think a lot of the issue with Lieberman is that he talks like somebody who could be a conservative, and I think that's exactly why he'd be a threat in a general election. But he'll never be nominated; the 2000 VP spot will remain his closest brush with the presidency. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-05-10T12:34:48-06:00

ID

87043

Comment

Oh, this is just hilarious: http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/06/bizarre_sex_habits_of_the_extreme_rightwing.php Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-05-10T12:42:19-06:00

ID

87044

Comment

OH! Uh. WHAT?!? Gives a whole new meaning to the nickname "GOPettes." And I swear I only lived in rural GA after puberty...

Author

GDIModerate

Date

2005-05-10T13:08:16-06:00