I have a theory that might explain Hillary's huge lead....

[Thickasabrick]

Bear with me for a moment....many of my republican friends are registered as independents so they can have the option of what primary to vote in.

The republicans only hope of winning in 2008 is if Hillary gets the nom and they can get enough "Hillary Hate" going.

What if some of the people polled are actually republicans who are trying to influence things enough so that many independents won't even bother going to the primary as it will look like it would be a landslide anyway.

I know it's a little "out there", but I do not understand the huge lead she has right now and I think something is amiss.

[pnwmom]

1. I started out favoring two of the other candidates, but

the more I see and listen to HRC, the more I'm warming to her.

I think people like me are the reason her lead is growing. We see her run the gauntlet, as on Sunday's morning interviews, and she's doing very well.

She would make a formidable candidate against any of the candidates on the other side.

[Thickasabrick]

2. I really hope you are right....other than on here - I do not know

one democrat who would vote for her in the primaries. It's just weird.

[CreekDog]

5. I know plenty here in SF Bay Area

My mom, my aunt, my aunt in Philadelphia, cousin in New Jersey. Are they blog readers? Not by a longshot, but they ALWAYS vote, they send money to candidates they like and these folks are voting for Hillary --they've made up their mind and did so a long time ago.

The thing that bothers me is how out of touch many DU'ers are with the popularity of Hillary among the base Democratic vote.

At DU, support for Green Party candidates is overestimated, as is the popularity of Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich. Likewise, the popularity and support of Hillary is underestimated.

And this mirrors certain enclaves in Berkeley and San Francisco, although if you get out into the avenues, the neighboring counties outside SF and Berkeley which vote very, very Democratically, yet these areas are likely to support Hillary.

[Morereason]

71. It is the "Schwartzeneger factor". The same celebrity uninformed crap that brought us where we are

Sorry. Just my opinion. But I see it at my work. People who are aware but very vaguely. They don't have time or interest to "learn much about politics"... or history or other countries for that matter...

[IA_Seth]

82. It's the opposite here...

I don't know of any Iowan Hillary supporters on DU, but just about all of the 'regular joe' dems I talk to are split between Hillary and Obama. There are some strong supporters of Edwards as well, and his campaign is likely the most organized right now (which is the most important thing in a caucus state), but overall numbers-wise I say it's Hillary's caucus to lose.

Just my observation, other Iowans may disagree.

[superkia]

61. On hardball, all 4 people said that she ate them for breakfast on the suday shows.

They also pointed out that she said nothing the whole time. Its sounds like she was able to play the politics game and dodge and weave everything without really answering anything. One of them even compared her answers to Ahmadinejads answers, not really answers at all. This really worries me about her, doesn't seem presidential if you have to play the politics game in your answers. I want a president that is willing to answer any question directly so we know what their agendas are.

[CreekDog]

3. Wrong. Hillary is very popular among Democrats

That does not make her popular in the liberal blogsphere, however or at DU.

I know plenty of regular, party line Democrats, mostly family members, and nearly all of them, most more liberal than myself, have Hillary as their first choice and have liked her for years. Further, she is well liked among the longtime activists in the party which contain more women than men.

There you have it. Hillary is well liked among Democrats, especially among women and especially among black voters. That is the key to a big win in the primaries and Hillary has it right now and is unlikely to lose it. Her support is not fickle and certainly less likely to shift than both Edwards and Obama's whose supporters could be comfortable with either one. About the only candidate that could give Hillary voters pause is Al Gore, whom despite all the trash talking towards him, was very popular among Democrats and primary voters also.

[pnwmom]

4. Yes, Gore could still shake things up.

And young women really like Hillary, too -- including some who've never voted in the past.

This is an interesting race.

[Mythsaje]

6. So, in effect, what you're saying

is that she's very popular with what might be viewed as the least informed of the potential Democratic voters? The ones who aren't out here in the digital hinterlands discussing the merits of the various candidates and their policy positions on the issues?

Interesting.

[CreekDog]

7. No, that's not what I'm saying

You don't need to read blogs to be informed. Most of the people I mentioned as supporters of Hillary read newspapers every day, read political books, pay attention to the news, they just don't read and post on blogs.

How dare you assume that folks are uninformed because they aren't on blogs.

Who are you? I'd like to know so I can vote against you if I get the chance.

[Mythsaje]

8. LOL...

You're talking about people who are self-limiting the amount of information they're receiving. So, yes, in effect, they ARE the least informed. The corporate media is, at best, suspect, and, at worst, absolutely untrustworthy.

Who am I? That's no secret. And I'm not running for anything.

[CreekDog]

9. You're falsely calling people who don't 'blog' uninformed

False, false, false, false. They know there weren't WMD, opposed the Iraq War, participate in campaigns. They just aren't blogging --that doesn't make them uninformed.

Please demonstrate through evidence that these people are actually less informed, than say, YOU, who truly doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

[Mythsaje]

14. What you're saying is that, from your experience, the people

who are most avidly supporting Clinton over other candidates are getting their information from the corporate media and from books. The only way they could have "known" there were no WMDs through the corporate media was by reading between the lines and making assumptions...generally. A LOT of us knew that, and we were out here sharing information about it WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING. We had quotes from different sources, we had information regarding Saddam's previous use of WMDs, information as to the origins of those WMDs, statements from people such as Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, and Joe Wilson, among others.

These people, at the time, had...what? They based their opinions upon what information? There weren't any books about the subject out at the time. The corporate media was pounding the war drums and NOT giving out any information regarding the veracity of the administration's claims.

For some reason this has your back up, but the fact remains that WE have multiple sources of information and, because of this, are usually aware of what's going on weeks, if not months, before it ever even hits the mainstream press. If it ever really does. And let's not even get into how long it takes for some of this information to hit the bookshelves.

Are you really arguing that someone who gets their current information from the corporate media is in any way as knowledgable about some of this stuff as those of us who are out here digging for information that isn't available through corporate outlets every single day?

That's absurd.

Not only that, but we have access to insights that simply aren't available to those who aren't on-line. Not only those of commentators from every major newspaper in the U.S. and across the world (though we're generally restricted to those either published in English or translated FOR us), but the observations of conscientious and insightful members of the New Media as well. We see analysis that they will NEVER see. We argue the issues with other people and, over time, adapt our view based upon what we're learning on a daily basis. At least, some of us do.


I realize you don't like what I'm saying here, but I'm not sure how you can deny it without resorting to personal attacks that do nothing to strengthen your position. Of course we're more informed. We have access to information they do not, and have the opportunity to debate with others who are equally well informed on different matters.

Even here we're prone to differences of opinion on various matters. Having access to more information doesn't necessarily mean we're always correct in our stances. Any of us can be mistaken in our assumptions, no matter HOW much information we have.

That's one of the reasons SOME of us are out here...to see if there's information available that might modify the way we look at things.

[CreekDog]

15. Where do I start with you?

I was taking issue with your statement that Hillary voters were the least informed voters in the Democratic party. Her support is strongest in the base of the party. It was that statement that I took issue with because it's condesceding and wrong. The implied premise is even worse that only uninformed or lesser informed Democrats would support Hillary. Hey, don't expect to make any converts to other candidates with that as your talking points.

But how would someone know that there were no WMD's without blogs say, back in 2003? Easy, 1) the UN weapons inspectors 2) not being convinced by reports in the media that said there were WMD's but did not back it up with evidence, 3) books are produced by corporations generally, but that doesn't mean they are all incorrect 4) DU, Dailykos, etc. are all corporations.

All that aside, the people I'm talking about that either don't blog at all, or do so rarely and don't use it as their source of political information many times are older and are people whom you should be bowing to for their reliable support over the years of Democrats, liberal causes and political activism for liberal causes. They take a back seat to nobody in their activism, their financial support of our candidates and their shrewd judgement of candidates that come and go.

[Mythsaje]

47. And, what, precisely, has all that "support" gained us?

An out-of-control administration, a Republican majority in Congress for 13 years, Democrats in Congress who can't figure out whether they should fight for the truth or cower in fear from the threats from the Right, and a national dialogue that's been dragged so far in the wrong direction that "moderate" means "semi-sane right wing."

Anyone who relies on the corporate media for information is woefully out of touch with the realities of the situation...though, on further consideration, that explains a lot in the context of your original statement.

And I'm pretty much backing away from officially endorsing ANY candidate for the reason you describe. Because assholes take MY positions as a reason to oppose my candidates and that's pretty juvenile in my opinion.

I don't like Hillary because I don't like Hillary, not because of the attitudes of some of her supporters. I, at least, can separate them in my mind. From what I can tell, Hillary will do the very least of any of the mainstream Dem candidates to change those things that desperately need to be changed. She's status quo all the way.

She's very good at controlling her message through the corporate media and, as you say, that's what people are basing their opinions on. So be it.

At this point I expect her to be our next President. Good that it's a woman. Bad that it's Hillary. But it's better (somewhat) than the alternative.

[Honeycombe8]

56. Exactamundo. Look, I don't have a horse in this race (yet), BUT....

I know a few Hillary supporters and a few Edwards supporters. I myself lean towards Obama.

BUT to say that a person HAS TO BE a blogger to be informed is a stupid thing to say. An "uninformed" thing to say, actually. An argument can be made that all the time someone spends blogging is time spent in a narrowly-focused medium that takes a person away from real life.

I would say that Clinton's supporters MAY be somewhat uninformed in some areas, but MAY be MORE informed than bloggers in other areas. Most importantly, though, they are probably older and DON'T NEED TO BLOG TO LEARN ABOUT HER...THEY REMEMBER HER from 1991 onward. They've heard her speak from time to time in the last 7 years she's been in Congress. They know her, they know her family. I think that is why she has the numbers she does.

Let's not forget that the older the voter, the more likely he is to vote. This bodes well for Clinton.

ALSO...a lot of people don't vote for people by checking off a list of how the candidate feels about certain issues. They often vote by gut feeling of the candidate, general knowledge, and maybe what their position is on a couple of key issues.

Having bloggers on your side is great, if you're a candidate. But in the end, what makes the difference is the old fart who gets out of his easy chair and goes to the polling center on a bad rainy day to vote (as he done in every presidential election for 40 years), rather than the 20-something young adult who is too busy to "make it there" before closing time. I don't think the 20-something young adult knows more than the old fart. Old farts tend to know a thing or two from past experiences.

[FiveGoodMen]

54. Do you think they're informed about the fact that HRC said we might all need health insurance BEFORE

looking for a job?

[CTD]

63. I'll say it yet again - I have yet to meet a single living, breathing person who supports Hillary

And I know a lot of Dems. Most can't stand her - for many of the same reasons she is unpopular here on DU.

I agree that the polls lack credibility. How can someone liked by no one have this large of a lead?

[CreekDog]

65. There are people in this thread that like HIllary

Thus your statement that nobody likes Hillary is wrong and stupid (stupid because if you claim to read posts here and then after reading posts by people who like Hillary, you then say "nobody likes" Hillary, then you are being foolish, stupid, whatever.

[CTD]

84. But they are online personas not real people.

They could be bored kids trying to get a rise out of us or they could be trolling freepers for all I know. I haven't met them. They are not real to me. I simply have no way of knowing.

The real people I know - the real LIBERALS I know - can't stand Hillary.

[harun]

78. Same here and I live in a very liberal area (Philadelphia) (n/t)

[CreekDog]

10. Perhaps you didn't read MyDD today either

Quite progressive and still they lauded Hillary Clinton's appearances on today's talk shows.

Clinton has been gaining because she's turning out to be the sharper campaigner and so far is running a stronger campaign. That's what the primary helps display.

[Dawgs]

27. MyDD has been pushing Hillary for months - It's why I don't visit their site anymore.

[rinsd]

36. Bowers is an Edwards fan (nt)

[madfloridian]

39. Bowers is at Open Left.

.

[rinsd]

42. Oh that's right he left earlier this year right?

[sandnsea]

11. Media on her side

It's easy to see why she's leading. Who else can get all 5 spots on the Sunday shows. She's leading because she's being shoved down our throats - because to corporate America she'd be just as good as any Republican. Alan Greenspan already said it.

[Greyhound]

16. Bingo.

Not only is she the anointed nominee of our corporate masters, they have gone to extraordinary lengths to silence, distort, or distract, from the other candidates messages.

BTW, when did the voters that don't pay attention, don't dig, and accept whatever they are fed by the M$M, become our base?

[MissDeeds]

25. Absolutely

By the way the media is covering her, you'd think she was the only Dem in the race. It would be nice to occasionally hear about other candidates' views when Hillary position pieces air. Frankly, I'm tired of her being rammed down our throats.

[RC]

30. I second that BINGO!

None of the candidates excite me. Not one really represents the will of the people and at the same time is also strong enough to clean up the mess the criminals have made of this country. HRC is way too corporate to do much to reverse the slide into fascist dictatorship. She is a stop gap to allow them to catch their collective breath.

I see no one in the running to root for except as a not bu$h or not republican.

[Honeycombe8]

57. If Obama or Edwards had wanted to do the 5 spots, they could have. These shows...

are desperate for guests, and they love having the leading candidates on.

That Clinton went on 5 shows on Sunday, and the others did not, is, I would guess, one reason why she has the leading numbers.

[CreekDog]

66. Nobody who thinks supports a candidate you oppose

But people who think oppose the candidate you oppose.

Think quite highly of yourself doncha?

[opihimoimoi]

12. The Pubs ONLY hope is for Hilliary gettimg the nom??? WTF is that?? They don't have a Plan??

Other than going negative??? What courage, what absence of good planning??? The Pubs cling to what worked for them in the past...they live in the past...they even fight wars in the past....THEY are REACTORS...only proacting when they connive for more than a fair share...

[CreekDog]

13. Okay, now you have two Democrats right here in this thread of four posters

That would vote for HRC in the primaries.

Time to come up with a new hypothesis.

[Apollo11]

17. I have a different theory

First, Hillary has been getting more media attention than the other candidates.

Second, she is more famous and better-known than the other candidates.

Third - being the only woman candidate in the race helps her to stand out.

Fourth - Hillary has done great everytime I have seen her on TV.

Fifth - I am sorry to say that Obama and Edwards have failed to match expectations. They both have a lot of confidence and seem to enjoy speaking in public. But beyond that - neither has established himself as a potential President. Each of them is still repeating the same lines he has been saying since the start of the year. In both cases I am suspicious that they are telling us what they think we (grassroots democrats) want to hear. Who would promise to pull all US forces out of Iraq soonest - when most people understand that it's not realistic to get everyone home in 24 hours. And even if we could - we could not escape responsibility for the mess we would leave behind. A mess that we (the USA) are responsible for creating in the first place.

Right now I am still wishing Gore and leaning Edwards (giving him the benefit of the doubt).

But I am becoming more comfortable with Hillary with every day that passes.

Especially since Edwards endorsed her health-care plan, by saying "it's just like my plan".

CLINTON-CLARK could be a very strong ticket in 2008 B-)

[2rth2pwr]

23. "Edwards endorsed her health-care plan, by saying "it's just like my plan""

That was actually Elizabeth, and yes it sure sounds like an endorsement.

Another Dem here for Hillary.

[Tellurian]

26. Great analysis Apollo 11

with which I tend to agree. I would add to that, her campaign mgr is the best in the business, her husband. BC knows how to win and has the cred to prove it. He has ramped up Hillary's campaign to double time against her opponents as they seem to be left standing in amazement watching her go. At least it seems that way to me...

[Dawgs]

28. "Hillary has done great everytime I have seen her on TV."

You had my focus until the above quote.

If pandering, spinning, and not answering questions is great to you then I'm afraid for you and this country. If people are falling for her shit then we are in deep trouble.

[Apollo11]

33. She always stays on message.

Let's compare Hillary 2007 with for example John Kerry 2004.

I would say that Hillary is ten times more effective at getting her message across.

She combines being gracious and dignified with being strong and a real fighter.

She might be the only Democrat who could win a televised debate against Mitt Romney.

If people are falling for your anti-Hillary shit then we Dems are in deep trouble.

PS - For now I am still wishing Gore and leaning Edwards.

[NMDemDist2]

51. what you said n/t

[Honeycombe8]

59. You are very wise, Grasshopper.

I think you are correct in your theory. I'm not lovin' Clinton, but I agree with your theory, and I'm becoming more comfortable with her.

I had high expectations for Obama. They haven't panned out, but I still have hope.

But...despite Clinton being a female and standing out that way, having the name recognition, and all that other stuff....what is most important is that she seems to have the right stuff. She has performed admirably every time I've seen her on TV. She is a sharp politician who thinks quickly on her feet, is a cool cucumber, and has quite a lot of political savvy.

If she weren't impressive in these ways, her being a female and having name recognition would've worked against her.

Unlike you, I don't think she'd pick Clark as a running mate. He's not a politician, and this is no race for novices. Still, as a former Clark supporter, I'd be delighted...and I'd run, not walk, to the voting booth for that ticket.

[Eagle_Eye]

18. I going to vote for Hillary in the primary

And if she wins the nomination, I will vote for her for President.
I am going to vote for whoever is the Democrat is that is running for President.
There has been too much republican going on to suit me.

[wyldwolf]

19. another tinfoil hat theory. That's all we need.

[cobalt1999]

20. or, maybe, she's just the best candidate.

Occum's Razor and all.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Don't Confuse People With Facts

eom

[durrrty libby]

21. She is the most popular candidate. Deal with reality

[robcon]

24. All the polls did this, whutgives?????

How did all the polls (no outlying polls, no exceptions, no whistle-blowers, even from competitive Democrats' polls) manage to do the same corrupt thing? How did the Republicans learn to choose their hated Hillary, not some other Democrat? Why would any poll choose a different target audience, rather than just change the numbers after/during the processing of the info?

Any evidence? I didn't think so.

Your theory isn't "out there," it's ridiculous, and doesn't reflect someone who understands a conspiracy theory, much less someone who is able to uncover one.

[illinoisprogressive]

29. I've lurked at Freeperville and they have talked about doing this but,

not enough to skew the polls.
Between so many people having non traditional landlines and many participating this election were not so last, is what is skewing things.
I never voted in a primary. Never had a reason to. There are millions like me who never was excited about a candidate and so, just voted in the GE. This time I really want someone as president so I am involved. So many are like me.
Plus the young who are voting for first time.
We would not be polled.
And, tons of people do not have the traditional landlines anymore and so, are not polled either.

[durrrty libby]

35. Keep dreaming. It is good for creativity

[PatSeg]

46. I have a landline phone for my Internet service

but I never answer it. I let the machine pick it up. I don't think pollsters can get an accurate overview anymore, as most of the people I know either don't have a landline or rarely use it.

[Tellurian]

31. One would ask, why do you have so many Republican friends? You don't associate with Democrats?

Why are you here?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Shhhhuuushhh

He's undercover.

[Thickasabrick]

48. Because I'm not a political snob?

[Ninga]

34. I have polled 32 strong Dem's to date regarding their choice in the primary.

Only one, is for Hillary.

I hold elected office, and the people I polled include a past president of a union, a school board member, activists, 2 journalists, teachers, and some in sales.

The common thread with these people is that they follow politics, and could be considered among the base of the party.

Last week, I was in DC and when I talked to a very few people there, Hillary was not at the top of the list.

I read over and over at DU, posters who have had the very same experience.

I am not able to figure this out, but it seems to me, there are a lot of people having having the same experience when talking about the favorite in the primary.

I do not have an answer, but my experience is true and happened.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. I have polled 7 strong Dem's to date regarding their choice in the primary.

Five are for Hillary and two are undecided...


The Clinton supporters are a trial attorney, her husband, a magazine editor, a retired bookkeeper, and a landscaper.

The undecideds are a graphic designed and editor.

[Thickasabrick]

49. Thank you - I was hoping I wasn't the only one who was finding that

[CreekDog]

68. not a random sample

has all the statistical power of anecdote.

[Kelly Rupert]

37. So we have two options here, then.

First, it's that Democrats and Independents actually like her.

Second, it's that all the Republicans are secretly pretending to be Democrats on the polls so they can ensure the woman they most fear and hate takes a step closer to the Presidency, despite the fact that she's up in every single head-to-head contest. Also, all the pollers just happen to hit almost entirely Republicans and Republicans-in-Disguise, every single time.

I'm going with the first one there.

[oasis]

40. It is America's belief that Hillary has the "know how". That best explains her lead in the polls.

:patriot:

[rinsd]

41. This must be the new version of the "I don't know anyone who is for Hillary" meme.

Now its my Republican friends in an act of subterfuge are gaming all the poll showing her with 15 to 20 point leads.

The first meme was so much more believible.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. I Had A GOOPER Boss Who Said He Didn't Know Anybody Who Voted For Bill Clinton

eom

[sampsonblk]

43. They aren't that smart.

[Tesha]

45. Hillary will win the NH primary for precisely the reason cited in the Original Post.

> Bear with me for a moment....many of my republican friends are
> registered as independents so they can have the option of what
> primary to vote in.

Hillary will win the NH primary for precisely the reason cited
in the Original Post.

Here in NH, there's a huge swath of "undeclared" voters who,
under our laws, are free to take any party's ballot on
election day. Now these "undeclared" voters, for the most
part, aren't actually independents, they're just Republican
and Libertarian guys who dare not register as Republicans* for
fear that their wives would never have sex with them again.
So they reliably cross-over into the Democratic primary and
vote for the candidate most likely to be able to win the
primary but lose the general election.

This cycle, that's Hillary.

Also, the NH state Democratic Party big-wigs (who are DLC
through and through) are *CLEARLY* behind Hillary. So
there's another big cohort of Hillary primary voters.
Jeanne Shaheen's entry into the race for a U.S. Senate
seat will amplify this trend.

Tesha


*Right now, the Libertarian Party doesn't have "ballot status"
in NH so you can only register as a Republican or a Democrat
and the only primaries being run are the Republican and
Democratic primaries.

[burythehatchet]

50. I'll say it again - I do not know one person amonst my dozens of acquaintences

whose political leanings I would know. Not one. I don't live under a bridge. I have a checking account and a few credit cards. I pee indoors (most of the time).

[izzybeans]

52. ...I read that as "...a theory that might explain Hillary's huge head."

Democrats like her because many fawn over star power. That's my theory.

Me I count Bush + Clinton + Bush + Clinton as a bad equation for democracy in general, whatever her personal merits. If it is to be, then I'll cast my vote for her but not in the primaries, and I don't expect a whole lot in return. I expect fully that I would be severely disappointed otherwise.

Next we'll elect Jeb for 8 years after Hillary, which makes Chelsea Clinton of electable age right? Maybe we should just pass the executive back and forth between two families like a rotating monarchy; a unitarian tennis match. "Good shot young chap", sighed Monarch Bush the Lessor.

[jillan]

53. I don't know if I agree with your thoughts on Independents - but

I have no doubt that the Repubs are drooling over her.

She is their only chance.

Will see if Newt raises enough money, because he said he would run to beat Hillary if enough people fund him.
She is all they can talk about.

[calteacherguy]

55. .

:rofl:

[ecstatic]

58. I think the Hillary hate meme is an overstated online myth..

not reality based.

[Ethelk2044]

60. You just need to ask yourself do you know anyone who has been polled.

Out of all of the polls, has any of your friends been polled?

[CreekDog]

69. The chances of knowing someone who has been polled is very, very low

1000 voters in a country of 300 million? It's not suspicious if you don't know someone who has been polled. It would be suspicious if you knew many who have been polled.

[autorank]

62. Well, they'd have to deliberatel mislead pollsters...or maybe this...

Maybe the pre election polls are just getting it wrong, completely. Edwards winns nationally, better than anyone but is #3 in the party. I understand how it could work, I just don't believe that it does work that way. We'd be jumping up and down for a winner, while Clinton and Obama are not doing as well as Edwards. Strange.

[MLFerrell]

64. "I have a theory that might explain Hillary's huge lead...."

I've got a more concise one:

"Hillary's huge lead is due to the constant promotion of her as the 'inevitable' candidate by a corporate media that sees her as the most obsequious Democrat willing to enact their pro-corporatist, anti-American agenda."

I think that about does it.

[CreekDog]

70. Hillary's huge lead is caused by voters deciding they prefer to vote for her

instead of the other candidates.

But if it makes you feel smarter that the rest of us are all being duped and you are the smart one, well, if your self worth depends on feeling smarter than everyone who is voting for Hillary, well, logic won't convince you otherwise, so why try?

[onenote]

67. and are all the Democratic leaders that are endorsing her secretly hoping the reupbs win too

Gen. Wesley Clark
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schulz
Rep. Alcee Hastings
Rep. Alyson Schwartz
Gov. Tom Vilsack
Gov. Jon Corzine
Geraldine Ferraro
Gov. Martin O'Malley
Sen. Barbara Mikulski
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee
Rep. Richard Neal
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
Rep. Jim Langevin
Steven Spielberg
Rep. Kendrick Meek
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger
Rep. Henry Cuellar
Dr. Maya Angelou
Rep. Ruben Hinojosa
Rep. Jay Inslee
Rep. Albio Sires
Rep. Corrine Brown
Fmr. Mayor David Dinkins
Fmr. Sen. Richard Gephardt
Rep. Jane Harman
Rep. Ellen Tauscher
Fmr. Ambassador Joseph Wilson
Rep. Tammy Baldwin
Gov. Mike Beebe
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver
Sen Debbie Stabenow

[kucinich voter]

72. I have a theory that might explain Hillary's huge lead.

I also have a theory that might explain Hillary's huge lead: She hasn't gone up against "Fred Thompson yet."

[Vinca]

73. I'm almost physically ill at the thought of Hillary being our candidate.

The entire campaign will be digging dirt and all the issues will be lost. Republicans are promoting her more than Democrats are, so you have to figure they've got something big they're planning to spring.

[onenote]

75. if repubs are promoting her more than Democrats, why are so many Democratic leaders endorsing her?

[Perry Logan]

74. Time to get away from the computer for a while, people. Have some valerian tea.

[BigDDem]

76. "I know it's a little "out there",

No, that's WAY "out there"

Do you also believe that the "MSM" and "corporations" are what's
holding Kucinich at 2%?

[mod mom]

77. IF YOU SAW "AMERICAN BLACKOUT" you would know it is a rovian ploy that was

used against Cynthia McKinney. The rethugs even acknowledged it.

The Republicans know HRC is their only chance. Just look at how corporaate media, who has blindly sided w *, is now shoving her at us. NO THANKS!

[LynneSin]

79. I still believe the field is wide opened

I mean in 2004 we all thought Howard Dean was going to get the nomination.

And I've seen polls that have shown Biden and Edwards gaining ground in key states.

It'll be interesting to see how it turns out

[BigDDem]

81. "we all thought Howard Dean was going to get the nomination"

Wrong!

[urgk]

80. Doesn't sound impossible.

By the way, has everyone, Clinton supporter or not, read this Mother Jones article? --> http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html

It's either A) a smear I need to ignore, or B) a perfect reason not to vote for her come primary time. The thing is, I've yet to determine which.

[Hard_Work]

83. Funny, I read that as

I have a theory that might explain Hillary's huge

HEAD....

[bpeale]

85. who's she giving head to??? LOL

[Hard_Work]

86. LOL!

I said huge, not good. LOL.:evilgrin: