Hillary Rodham Clinton is choice of Democrats...

[Guest Downhome]

Read on, and shiver in fright...

 

WASHINGTON (Dec. 22) - John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman have the most support among Democrats when asked about the field of likely 2004 candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, a poll suggests.

 

But Hillary Rodham Clinton would lead if she were to enter the field.

 

Among the current field of likely candidates, Democrats put Sens. Kerry of Massachusetts and Lieberman of Connecticut at 16 percent followed by Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri at 10 percent, with others in single digits. Twenty-four percent said they were unsure.

 

In an expanded field that included Clinton, the New York senator was the choice of 30 percent of registered Democrats in a Time/CNN poll released Saturday. Clinton aides have said consistently that she does not plan to run in 2004.

 

Trailing Clinton with 13 percent each were Kerry and Lieberman with others in single digits.

 

Previous polls of Democrats had put Al Gore, the 2000 Democratic nominee, at the top among potential 2004 candidates. When Clinton was included in those early polls, she was not far behind. Gore announced last weekend he would not run in 2004.

 

Such early polls are largely a measure of the public's familiarity with potential candidates.

 

Among the field of likely candidates, Kerry has formed an exploratory committee, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean says he is running and others say they will announce their intentions soon.

 

In hypothetical matchups against President Bush, Lieberman trailed 54-40 and Kerry was behind 55-40, according to registered voters surveyed.

 

The telephone survey of 1,006 adults, 18 and older, was conducted Tuesday and Wednesday, and had an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points, larger for subgroups.

 

...oh God, this is going to be interesting.

 

Sincerely,

...Downehome...

[Guest J*ingus]

Clinton aides have said consistently that she does not plan to run in 2004.

I think that's the most important part of the article.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

We've come a looooooong way, but we won't have a woman president for another twenty years.

[Guest Vyce]

Kotz is right.

 

She won't win anyway, because she's essentially a socialist, although she doesn't call herself that, and thus she would pretty much never have a shot at getting into office no matter how disliked Bush is.

 

But the real fact of the matter is that she's a woman. I don't care what registered / unregistered Democrat says they'll vote for her, this country will not vote a woman into that office for a few more DECADES, if even then.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

The sad part is that it could be another 25 years for a woman president, but it's another 50 for a black man.

[Guest red_file]

I'm always curious as to how people come up with these time tables. Why twenty five and fifty years? Any specific rationale?

 

I actually think a minority has a better chance of becoming president than a woman does. For some reason that's never been explained to my satisfaction, many women don't like the idea of other women holding political office and don't vote for them. Then you have men threatened by women gaining power, and it's not surprising that women are having trouble getting political clout.

 

I wonder when the first homosexual president will be elected. Or if we'll ever elect a handicapped person again.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

It's just a guess based on current social tolerance and its rate of increase.

 

Homosexual President = 75 years.

Handicapped = Could be the next one.

 

EDIT: I didn't mean any of the front-runners were handicapped, I meant that the country wouldn't have a problem with it.

[Guest DrTom]

Hillary wouldn't win. She would have gotten smeared in the New York Senatorial race had Giuliani decided to run against her. If he opposes her next time, she'll be a one-termer.

 

Since hadicapping when certain people will be elected seems to be in vogue...

 

Black: 30-50 years

Woman: 60-80 years

Homosexual: 60-80 years

 

I think a Black man is more electable than a woman at this point. The problem with a female candidate is the "office" of First Lady. It's become so important to the culture and the celebrity of the office that the idea of a "First Man" or "First Husband" would rub people the wrong way. I think a woman would do best with her husband as VP, and the ceremonial post of the first spouse being effectively abandoned.

[Guest bob_barron]

I once again apologise on behalf of my state for electing her.

 

I campaigned on behalf of Lazio

[Guest Downhome]

I personally feel that a woman (Clinton), a black (Powell), and a handicap could all be elected at any given time at this point in our Country, IF dealt with correctly.

 

A homosexual however, I never can see becoming elected in the next 100 years, if even then.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

I doubt our country will be mature enough any time soon to elect a homosexual president. Think about it, most people under 30, even in the Bay Area and other homosexual-friendly areas, use "gay" as synonym for "stupid" or "lame". It's that kind of subtle stuff that insures me that even if all the blatant "God hates fags" homophobes didn't vote in an election (and unfortunately, extremists like that always make sure to vote) that a homosexual (male or female) couldn't get voted into the Presidency.

 

As a frame of reference for other major political offices though, how many gay congressmen have their been? It shames me to say that the only gay person I know of to hold a major political office is Harvey Milk, and you what happened to him

 

Oh yea, how about posting on topic for a change? Why does it matter if she's top choice if she's not running? That's why I don't understand any of these stupid "let's talk about a poll as if it's fact" articles. As for who is (or probably is) running, I don't know who John Kerry is but I wouldn't vote for Joseph Lieberman (because of his past support of music censorship, if nothing else) and I definitely don't see a Jew winning the Presidency. WASPs rule, yo.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Condolezza Rice's name is being mentioned in 2008. Don't know if she has any interest, but that would be 2 out of 3.

 

Kotzen: I hope you wouldn't vote for Hilary Clinton, because you wanna see a female president?

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

If she runs and there isn't a 3rd Party, im not voting. I'm not voting for her or Bush.

 

I would write in Mickey Mouse or something stupid before Id vote for either of them.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

You all know who I am voting for next election so there is no point. I will say however that the last thing we need is another clinton in office. I'd rather see any other dem. run but a clinton. Fuckin socialists

 

--Rob

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Yeah. That hummer totally cancelled out that 8 years of peace and prosperity. I won't vote for Hillary, though. I'm rather looking forward to throwing my vote away on a third party.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

Yeah. That hummer totally cancelled out that 8 years of peace and prosperity. I won't vote for Hillary, though. I'm rather looking forward to throwing my vote away on a third party.

8 years of peace? If that bastard was in office for 9/11 we would all be dead. He didn't do a damn thing about the bombing of U.S.S Cole or the bombing of our embassies in africa. He was also involved in the chinagate scandel in giving away our nuclear secrets. He signed the NAFAT and GATT treaties. Clinton was a jackass, plain and simple. He did not do one thing good during his time in office. I saw gore on curry's show a few weeks back and he was talking about 9/11. He said the second he saw the plane hit, he knew it was bin laden. Now you tell me, if he knew it was bin laden automatically, then he must have been a huge threat. If he was that big a threat why didn't the clinton administration do something about it and spare us that disaster? FUCK CLINTON

 

--Rob

[Guest nikowwf]

Bush or hillary? moron or crook....

 

hell, im moving to japan... =)

 

niko

[Guest bob_barron]

Are you gonna vote for Buchanan in 2004 Rob?

[Guest bob_barron]

EDIT: Double post sorry

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Kotzen: I hope you wouldn't vote for Hilary Clinton, because you wanna see a female president?

Oh no, I don't think she'd be a good president anyway, at least not for this time period's values and sensibilities. Right now we don't need a liberal in the White House, there, I said it. Who we have now is probably the best one we could have had given the global situation. Times like these call for someone of strength and (almost blinding) convictions. Bush fits this bill perfectly. By November of 2004 things will a lot different to be sure, so he might not be the person for the job then, so all I can do is wait until it's time to vote and take everything into account.

 

 

But to answer the question, I'd like to see a female president before I croak, but this country won't elect one for a while.

[The Dames 0]

I saw gore on curry's show a few weeks back and he was talking about 9/11. He said the second he saw the plane hit, he knew it was bin laden. Now you tell me, if he knew it was bin laden automatically, then he must have been a huge threat. If he was that big a threat why didn't the clinton administration do something about it and spare us that disaster? FUCK CLINTON

 

--Rob

Coming from a man who believed he invented the Internet, I'm sure that Gore probably said that to come across as an intelligent, omnipotent man. To be fair and call a spade a spade however, the new Bush administration didn't do anything about Bin Laden until 9/11 occurred either.

 

Dames

[Guest HartFan86]

Nothing against Hiliary, but she won't be the first female president. No way.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

Are you gonna vote for Buchanan in 2004 Rob?

f he runs I will. I know his politics like I know my own. I have read all of his books and I know exactly what he stands for. I do not agree on everything he says but I believe that our country would be better defensivly and economically if he was in office. I don't believe it's wasting a vote, the more votes a person gets each time, the money generated to run the next time should increase.

 

--Rob

[Guest So what? I liked bubble boy]

Woman president in the United States, Not while I'm alive, if woman aren't suppose to be the head of the church (house), how is a woman going to be ahead of our nation. Well know were in the dumps when that happens.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

There's your first problem. You're applying religious values to government. What would you do if we did elect a woman president in your lifetime, eh?

 

I think Sola is on TSM now (SmarkTalk posters know what I'm talking about).

[Guest HecateRose]

So what? I liked Bubble Boy, that is one of the worst arguements I have ever heard. Considering there are plenty of religions that allow women to have significant positions within their "churches." Besides, it is highly possible that there is a woman who could do the job well. I do believe it will take some time before that happens, but I believe it would be a sign of progress versus a sign that we're are "in the dumps," considering that it would show that our nation has become more accepting of change, and the possibility that a woman could lead the country as well if not better than a man. I believe diverse points of view could be very beneficial to our nation. In my opinion, the arguement that since women don't have leadership positions in all religions that a woman could not be a good president is just abysmal and close-minded to say the least.

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

*Removed due to major putting words into someones mouth*

[Guest J*ingus]

SW?ILBB, that's one of the worst fucking arguments I've ever heard in my entire goddamn life. Get lost if that kind of backwards archconservate uberfundamentalist misogynistic patriarchal bullshit is all you're gonna bring to the plate here.

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

And Jingus jumps in with a mega chat based bitch slap!

[Guest Gamengiri2002]

I'm going to jump on the Bubble Boy crucifixion express on this one. For one, as HecateRose pointed out oh so succinctly, there are already many prominent church positions held by women. For another it is entirely possible that a woman may be best suited for the job at this juncture in our nation's history. I'm not saying it will happen for the next five, ten, maybe fifteen years, but it will one day happen. And I for one welcome it, not on a shallow equal rights platform, but out of a truthful assertion that male influence might fail to ever pull us out of this economic and pseudo-machoistic trance we are in. I am of the mind that males and females, in most instances go about control and persuasion very differently. I would be remiss if I didn't admit to a curiousity of how female sensibilities would steer us as a nation.

 

George Carlin, the man himself, said that feminists are right about one thing: "Men are ignorant, stubborn, macho, superficial dolts who have screwed this country up and strangled every drop of decency and prosperity out of our rotten little culture."

 

Perhaps it is time for a change after all.