What states would Giuliani lose that Bush won? What states that Bush lost might Giuliani win? I don't see how any Democrat can "easily" beat Giuliani, with the possible exception of Edwards, who might flip Florida, Virginia, and /or North Carolina. Otherwise, it's going to be a fight -- one in which the Dem ought to be favored, but a fight all the same.

I also don't see how the cast of lunatics Giuliani has surrounded himself with would be a liability, seeing as nobody outside of political junkies knows who they are, and the media by and large refuse to discuss them or their views in the way they deserve. In my experience most people, when they hear someone talk about "neocons," think the person doing the talking is akin ot an Illuminati conspiracy theorist or some such. How is that going to change in a year? Is Time magazine going to dump Bill Kristol as a columnist, is the Post going to dump Krauthammer, is Fox News going to stop vociferously pimping their views, and so on? These people, whom the prospect of going against you are "salivating" over, have supporters who are equally crazed, in positions where they can, and have, influenced the national discourse. How exactly do you plan on making them a liability to a Giuliani candidacy?

Crooked cops, crooked lawyers, crooked judges, crooked politicians, crooked doctors, crooked scientists, crooked clergymen -- but no crooked journalists. An amazing record for an amazing class of people.

Right now Romney is polling worse than Rudy in general election match-ups.

Hillary will crash and burn in the general. The Republicans aren't anywhere near as gentlemanly as the two squires Obama and Edwards.

Trust me, if the nominee for the GOP is Giuliani, a lot of Republicans will vote third party too.

And there is a conservative third party: the Constitution Party.  And it is well on the way to 40+ state ballot access! 

So if it is "he'll kill the Arabs and that's good enough for me" (you mean that isn't his official slogan?) Giuliani vs. Clinton, you can rest assured that I will cancel out your third part vote. 

"You say I'm a dreamer.  We're two of a kind.  Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"

Steve, never salivate over the idea of our nominee beating the absolute worst Republican.
Especially if we nominate Clinton, this race will be volatile, close and there is a 50-50 chance we lose.
Accordingly, and not that it matters, I'm rooting for the best Republican although I'm not sure who that is (other than Ron Paul).
But not for Rudy, who is by far the most dangerous.
Probably Romney.

Uh-huh. Glad to know the political writers have already "decided" how voters are going to behave next year.

Everyone in a non-Iowa primary, don't listen to this crap. Go to YOUR primary and vote for YOUR candidate. Let our votes fall how they may. There's no reason to follow the Conventional Wisdom about the first four primaries "deciding" everything or how wise any of these writers are.

Out here in the hinterlands where our votes are apparently meaningless, I am finding no excitement or passion for Hillary. Zero. Zip. Nada.

How unusual that you, Mr. Clemons, have somehow found this excitement.

You know, I am disgusted with this attitude, Destor. If you think that the candidates are all the same, and it wouldn't make any difference if a dem or a repub won, then you haven't been paying much attention for the last seven years. "I'm going to vote for Nader because Gore and Bush are just alike," or the 04 canard that "it was Kerry's coronation not a contest, why bother to vote?" Well, it would have been different with a democrat in the White House, and NO, they're not "all alike" as we have tragically learned.

The republican party has been toxic to this country and the thought of allowing them to once again win the White House is so selfish and self-defeating that words cannot express how despicable I find this to be. There happens to be more at stake here than foreign policy changes - the economy is in shambles, we're so in debt that our grandchildren will not be able to pay off the debt, health care is in crisis, the infrastructure is failing, the disparity between rich and poor is growing at a rate faster than even third world nations and the Supreme Court is packed with corrupted reactionaries.

What's really inevitable is that without a unified party going into the 08 elections, the repubs will win, and we cannot survive as a nation another four minutes of those people much less another four years.

Destor, I agree with you.

A Hillary/Guiliani  contest is going to likely result in the GOP winning back the white house.  The truth is that Hillary only has strong support within the base of the Democratic party and even within that base there are a lot of Democrats who are opposed to her being the nominee.

For the first time in 30 years I am hearing staunch Democrats who have voted straight Democratic ticket their entire lives say they will not vote for Hillary, even if she is the nominee. No matter what these polls say, she is simply very polarizing either folks like her or they do not trust one thing she says. I was very surprised when both a friend and neighbor said they were thinking of voting for Guiliani or Romney if Hillary gets the nomination. Of course, this is a result of these 'inevitability' polls. Individuals who do not want Hillary are already looking for alternatives. 

I asked them why they would vote for Guiliani, I could understand Romney, and they said they see Guiliani as much more moderate on the social issues. I agreed that was probably so but I also noted that the religious right is demanding that he make a judicial appointment that will overturn Roe v. Wade...that gave them pause.  Particularly, one woman who had made the agonizing decision  to abort at 27 weeks when she was told following an aminocentesis that the trisome 13 defect her baby had was incompatible with life.  The other woman said that she liked Romney.  I reminded her that Romney wants to double the size of Gitmo and take us to war with Iran just like Bush.  She countered that Hillary was no different when it came to war issues, as her stances are pretty much analogous to Bush's and she brought up her Kyl-Lieberman vote.  I could not argue that point. Additionally, both of them brought up universal health care also saying that if Hillary was the nominee they beleived her second shot at it would be worse than the first time as she does not appear to learn from mistakes. They both were apprehensive about a health care system in limbo for the next 5 years after Hillary got through making a mess of it again.

Bottomline Destor, I think these polls are nothing but a scam to crown Hillary with the nomination but then she will lose in the general to whomever the GOP nominee is since lots of Democrats will stay home and many more Republicans will come out to make sure she is not the President right along with a large number of Democratic voters as well.

I guess ordinary Americans just do not have the access or money to impact Clinton's nomination. I feel certain that Hillary will go down in history as the most uncompromising President in US history should she win due to votes being siphoned off by an Independent candidate.

What I am hearing and witnessing about the strength of opposition to Hillary is very distressing and counter to all the polls. There are lies, damn lies and then there are polls.

I see you are echoing Rahm's Hardball spin that foreign policy doesn't matter (in other words we're neo-cons too).

I figure a $2.4 trillion war plus the Iran War Hillary won't stop will pretty well destroy any domestic policy initiatives too.

I cannot vote for Hillary. I will not vote for more war.

I didn't say it didn't matter, I said there is more at stake here than foreign policy. Frankly, I find this attitude so incredibly selfish as to defy common sense. You'd rather have a republican like Giuliani in the White House than Clinton - well, keep a good thought, you might get what you wish for.

Give me some credit, BevD. I never said that Clinton and Giuliani were the same. Never even said that I wouldn't prefer Clinton to Giuliani. I'm saying something quite different than that. I'm saying:

I wont vote for Hillary Clinton if she can't prove that she'll represent my point of view, to a reasonable extent.

That doesn't mean I think she's the same as Giuliani. Just that I'll vote for the person I find most acceptable. It might be Hillary, for all I know. But she doesn't get my vote automatically just because she has a D by her name and the party insiders acting like she's a lock does not help her case with me.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

What??!! Obama does not agree with Hillary's position on Iran. Is Iran suddenly a domestic policy issue, Bev? You are apparently equating all of our foreign policy with Iraq.

Hillary agrees with Bill's adventures in the Balkans--done without Congressional approval, I might add. Bill failed to get that approval on the 60th day under the War Powers Act. Bill robbed the DOD budget to fund his adventure without Congressional approval until funding was finally approved in 2000, shortly before Bill rode out of town.

I want a debate in this country about starting military action to prevent genocide. Is this charge only to belong to America? If this is what Bill was doing, what happened with Rwanda? What are the damned rules? I want Congressional debate and authorization AHEAD OF TIME.

There is simply no foreign policy agreement, Bev, between these two candidates. And I simply will not TRUST Hillary, who voted for the Iraq mess, to get us out of it. If you do, fine.

Obama said EXACTLY the same thing - he would negotiate with Iran and nothing is off the table - why is that only "troubling" when Clinton says it, and not Obama? Obama also has said that he will not give a timetable for troop withdrawal in Iraq. Clinton published her position paper on foreign policy in "Foreign Affairs" and you can certainly read it.

Secondly, what does her husband's position on the Balkans (which was a NATO policing action and not covered by the war powers act and of course financed by NATO) have to do with any of this other than as a strawman argument? She's perfectly capable of running her own show.

I don't have a candidate. I have an issue. WAR!! I compromised on the waffler Kerry last time and 4 years and a $1 trillion later, we're in the same war for NOTHING. I'll find some candidate who opposes the war to vote for. I will not vote for a candidate who is still voting to fund it let alone one who votes for Lieberman amendments to start ANOTHER war.

You say that Clinton would beat Giuliani because of how narrowly he is defining his candidacy. I don't agree with that idea because Giuliani is running for the Republican nomination now, and in the primaries, Republicans always run hard to the right. Once the general campaign starts, they begin moving their rhetoric to the middle. I believe a nominee Giuliani would do the same, and a gullible electorate would fall for it as always, narrowing the race to nail biting closeness, witness the vote spread/post convention comparisons from past elections. If you want to try and analyze various match races between candidates, you have to try and come up with figures based on their likely general campaign positions.

Kerry didn't win, did he?,

Yes, he did.

Peace,
Paul

BevD,

I'm working as hard as I can for Edward's campaign and hope he's nominated, but no matter who the dem. candidate is I'll vote for the dem - we can't afford another four years of repubs and I hope I'm not too selfish to put aside campaign crapola and work for the good of the country.

The first and only primary candidate I ever voted for that won a nomination was John Kerry.  I supported Kerry because he was the most intimately opposed to Bush-Cheney and the Iran-Contra comeback crew, having spearheaded the Senate Iran-Contra investigation and having had a major role in bringing down the BCCI.  That said, I've already gotten used to voting for whichever Democratic candidate won the nod.  Third-party "statement campaigns" only seem as serious as the third parties themselves -- which never end up serious enough to consider seeding themselves at the local levels as the major parties.  Local politics all too often seems to be beneath the "third-party" movements, yet third-party entusiasts seem most prone to characterize Democrats in particular as "elitist."  Go figure.

Do you think that maybe people like Rosenberg have a motive behind the constant repetition that she's "polarizing" and "unelectable" when all the polls say the opposite of that?

That is quite the provacative question.  Would you like to discuss it further?

The Party of Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Bill Clinton never really represented the non-liberal left of center. Roosevelt ran against Hoover on the basis that Hoover did not balance the budget. His coalition was the racist-segregationists of the South and the urban enthics of the North. The Depression brought this group together and the Civil Rights movement blew it apart.

What really separates Democrats and Republicans is that Democratic officeholders are more willing to stray from orthodoxy for the benefit of individuals. The radicalism of the Depression when poverty was a national fear, which perhaps was channeled into the New Left in the 1960s. has largely gone back to its origins on the fringe of American politics.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

This is absolutely false. Obama, Clinton and Edwards have statistically the same reject numbers = Obama at 39, Clinton at 41 and Edwards at 43.

Hmmm, What is absolutely false that you are rebutting? What are you citing, what does reject refer to and  what does 'statistically the same' mean?  Before you simply cited the poll numbers but when you counter you throw in 'statistically the same'?

You think the polls are a scam and you base that on a conversation with two neighbors.

No, the conversation with my neighbors affirmed the view I already held that the polls were a scam. I believed the polls are a scam because one of the primary pollsters is Mark Penn a Clinton crony and the margin of error and methodology is seldom provided not to mention the pre-determinded database for responses.

. Does it occur to you that you and your neighbors hate Clinton because eight years of the unhinged right wing fruitcake attacks have affected you.

No. We all supported HRC in the 90's and frequently defended her against those 'unhinged rightwing fruitcake' attacks. We knew there was a 'vast rightwing conspiracy' even though the first time Hillary uttered the phrase was in defense of Bills sexual tryst with Lewinsky. Several of us still have our Hillary for President buttons from 92 as a matter of fact. We are not 'hillaryhaters'.

 She is left of center of every single policy, including foreign policy of which she holds the same exact position as Barack Obama.

No she is not left of center, she is right of center and she has the lowest  liberal ratings overall whereas. Obama's is the highest. 

Barack Obama of Illinois had the most liberal voting record in 2006. He was more liberal than 86 percent of the Senate. Chris Dodd of Connecticut was close behind - achieving a mark of 84 percent more liberal. Joe Biden of Delaware rated 77.5 percent. Hillary Clinton of New York had the lowest overall liberal score in 2006, clocking in 70.2 percent.

Clinton's liberal streak is most evident on social votes where her 80 percent score in 2006 ranks only behind Dodd's 93 percent. She ranks least liberal among the four Democratic senators running for president on economic (63 percent) and foreign (62 percent) issues.

including foreign policy of which she holds the exact same position as Obama.

No, she does not. Hillary supporters always attempt to blur the distinctions. There are CLEAR DIFFERENCES. Hillary did not call Barack's positions on foreign policy 'naive and irresponsible' because she agreed with him.  Hillary is not even opposed to this war. She has supported the war and only will say that it was mismanagement. To her the war is acceptable just poorly executed. In contrast, Obama is opposed to the war has been from the start and believes the entire strategy of using military force with Iraq was poor judgment from it's conception. His judgment is opposed to dumb wars, wars on the wrong battlefield, wars without exit plans and wars without a plan to secure the peace all of which underlie the debacle Iraq has become.

Additionally, Hillary is relying on the foreign policy 'experienced' experts that  were WRONG, like her, about going to war in Iraq, i.e. Albright/Cohen/Clark /Berger. She is relying on their terrible judgment still which is why she voted for the Kyl-Lei, bill. In contrast, Obama's foreign policy advisors got it RIGHT, like him, the first time, i.e. Brzezenski/Daalder/R.Clarke/Rice...so not only was Obama's judgment right the first time but he is not relying on the conventional wisdom that got it wrong the first time. Hillary though does not learn from her mistakes...she simply 'stays the course' even when it has been proven wrong and then AFTER she quips "if I had known then what we know nw'...well we do know now and she still is getting it wrong. Worst of all she will probably trot out that same tired 'if I had known then what we know now' when Bush attacks Iran in defense of her 'diplomacy' vote for Kyl-Lieberman. 

Here is how Clemons describes Hillary the eqivocator on Foreign Policy:

"The Hillary we see today -- running hard right (if that is what one can call Bush's foreign policy) on a number of national security issues -- may not be the same Hillary we see in the Oval office. She may be ready to launch a new effort that helps reorder America's place in the world. Privately, I think she wants to do that. .

That said, thus far in her campaign, she is demonstrating a disturbing trend towards incrementalism and continuity of Bush administration policies that she should cease.

This is a "discontinuous moment" in American history in which it's highly dangerous to American interests to plot tomorrow's course by what one did yesterday. There are no easy patterns or templates for the time we are in. America may be slipping from being a globally recognized, earth-sprawling hegemon to something that looks like just another great power -- well, perhaps not just any great power, a big one with great assets -- but that slippage has real costs."

At a moment like this, you really need someone with very good judgment. For all I know, there may be a secret Hillary Clinton that has good judgment. But that Clinton is a secret, hidden beneath a lot of extremely conventional statements and positions that don't show much judgment at all. If those statements (most recently on Cuba) reflect Clinton's real views, I don't much care for them. I suppose I might try banking on a secret Clinton, but I see no reason to take her existence on faith. Moreover, if Clinton is, as Clemons suggests, hiding her real interests for electoral reasons, that is itself a big problem: while I recognize that no candidate will ever tell us every single thing that s/he thinks about everything, I also think that actively concealing one's real views to get votes is antidemocratic and wrong, and should not be rewarded if at all possible.

Here's Brzezinski on Obama:

MR. BRZEZINSKI: I think Obama is clearly more effective and has the upper hand. He has a sense of what is historically relevant and what is needed from the United States in relationship to the world. He recognizes that the challenges, a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America’s role in the world.

The senator from New York talks in very conventional terms and I don’t think the country needs to go back to what we had eight years ago. I think there is a need for a fundamental rethinking of how we conduct world affairs and Obama seems to me to have both the guts and the intelligence to address that issue and to change the nature of America’s relationship with the world.

MR. HUNT: And how about the other argument that whether you – the issue of talking to bad guys, the Iranians, North Koreans, and Hugo Chavez, do you believe that direct talks with unsavory characters rewards bad behavior or is just simply realpolitik?

MR. BRZEZINKSI: I can’t understand people who claim that that is the case because what it in effect means that you only talk to people who agree with you. We negotiated with the Soviets throughout the years of the Cold War when there was always the possibility of a nuclear war with them. We negotiated with the Chinese. More recently, we have negotiated with the North Koreans. So what’s the hang-up about negotiating with the Syrians or with the Iranians and so forth?

What Condi Rice says on this subject, mainly that we can’t negotiate with them because they don’t agree with us, is sheer nonsense. It’s really the reputation, the abandonment of intelligent diplomacy.

MR. HUNT: Dr. Brzezinksi, let me ask you a final question. You’ve made quite clear that you prefer Barack Obama in 2008. Are you talking to him about foreign policy right now, does he consult with you?

MR. BRZEZINSKI: Oh, I don’t think I would call myself a person that he consults with. I have known him, I’ve talked to him, but he talks to a lot of people and I’m sure that a lot of people are closer to him than I am. But I do feel fundamentally very deeply that we have gotten ourselves into a jam and that if America is to prosper and if our leadership is to be respected and trusted again, we really need a dramatic new departure. And I sort of sense that Senator Obama has that grasp, that fundamental understanding.

MR. HUNT: And therefore is ready, despite a lack of experience, to be president of the United States?

MR. BRZEZINSKI: Well, what kind of experience that was really relevant did Governor Clinton had before he became president? Being a former First Lady doesn’t prepare you to be president. President Truman didn’t have much experience before he came to office. Neither did John Kennedy. It’s basically a fundamental grasp of what is the nature of our era that is essential here, that is at stake"

While this post rebuts the polarization you contend does not exist extremely well,  I will still assert that yes Hillary is polarizing, she is well known to be polarizing and her supercilious response to Rolph in IA was clear and convincing evidence of that part of her character. All Rolph wanted was an answer, based on her K-L vote as to how we could trust her, she attacked Rolph and never EVER answered him, despite claiming to have heard the question 3 times previously.  A person who was considerate of divergent views and self-assured enough to handle opposition would have answered with lots of clarity and been very straightforward rather than dismissive. Killing the messenger is the oldest political trick in the book.

Yes, 'your girl' is INDEED polarizing and lots of us know it.

Yes, Bev, blame the Democrats who voted for Gore and Kerry. I was dutiful, Bev, and voted for both--as I've voted for Dems throughout my life (single exception was a Dem under indictment where I voted for the honest Republican).

No more. I'm tired of candidates whose history is so scoured that it's meaningless. Those who drop issues like a hot rock when it's HARD to support the issue. Has Hillary been an outspoken advocate for universal healthcare since her mess in 1993-94? No, she has not. Now, when it's easy, she rides in with a banner supporting the issue again.

That's not leadership, Bev. And if the Dems want to support candidates who don't support issues when it's HARD to do, then I simply will not support them with my vote. The 2008 general will be the first time I won't vote Dem for President. I'll either write-in a name or skip that part of the ballot.

Don't like it, Bev? Tough. I consider what you're doing a sell-out. Like that? I didn't think you would. Well, I don't like being told I'm somehow giving the election to the Republicans--the Dems have been doing that for decades and I have had enough of it.

The real strawman is Obama's claim that he was against the war from the begining. There was not much danger of Illinois going to war in Iraq. Since arriving in the Senate there votes, along with Edward's, have largely been the same.

Second read Hillary's speech before the vote. She makes it clear that she understands from the Clinton Administration that Hussein is a very bad actor who it was American policy to displace. Howver, her vote was to both get leverage over Saddem to perhaps get him to leave without a war or to get the full backing of the International community. He vote was reasonable, her speech was excellent and Bush abviously would have taken us to war regardless of the vote.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

This is where ethics goes into mush. The Yes vote didn't mean war because Hillary made signing statements telling us that. And I suppose the majority of Congressional Democrats voting Nay were just not willing for that leverage?

This argument is pathetic. And the argument is even more pathetic in claiming that anyone against the war has to also be against the funding. Bill Clinton certainly provided a roadmap on how to get around it with moving DOD money around to fund his Balkans adventure. Bush could always fund this war--something Congress folk don't want to admit. And are you actually suggesting that Congress not fund armoring Humvees or providing body armor plates? That's what is in that early funding, you know.

We are where we're at in Iraq because of Congress folk like Hillary, not because of folks like Pelosi and Obama. Yet again, we, the voters, don't want to hold these folk accountable and responsible. Instead, we want to reward them with higher office.

Yep, makes sense to me. That's sarcasm, BTW.

Why doesn't anybody show the polls where Obama or Edwards is up against the GOP candidates (not Hillary)? They do just as well as Hillary.

I wish the media would be more fair with their reporting.

Coonsey's View
Political Blog and Forum
HTTP://WWW.FREEWEBS.COM/COONSEY/

"...and a gullible electorate would fall for it as always..."

That because the media always portrays a crazy rightwinger's centrist pander as a "principled move to the center," whereas with a Democrat it's always a flip-flop, evidence that the Dem is uncomfortable in their own skin, doesn't know who they are, etc., ad nauseum.

What if we lived in a genuinely oppressive country? One with a two party system? Say, Woody Allen's "the horrible and the miserable". Would we be better off not voting? Or, giving voice to a third option that had no chance nor power to effect change? Ah, the sad truths of William Styron.

Good guys and bad guys is so much more fun.
(Hey! Where'd all the heros go anyway?)

Kevin Russell Cook

We are not voting for the Republican but we are not voting for Hillary either. I will not vote for war. Period.

Well, the party of Gore, needed those votes in 2000. Hillary is betting she doesn't need them in 2008. She may be wrong.

I'm honestly impressed by your reply above.

But, it well may come down to a bad choice vs. a really horrible one? The Regan Dems didn't bolt for a non-entity. They reasoned Regan as a better choice and a likely possibility.

You won't be grappling with just your alternatives, but with the whole country's. And, it will come down to just two.

By the way, HRC is at or near the bottom of my yellow dog Democratic preferences.

Kevin Russell Cook

Only Hillary supporters believe their foreign policy stances are the same. They each have advisors who do not have the same foreign policy stances either. Hilliary wants voters to believe she advocates the same policies as Barack and she doesn't.

It would be very helpful if you could cite a source for  what you believe are 'virtually the same' foreign policy positions. I'll be waiting. In the meantime here is a video chronology of how Hillary has no stance:

A  video overview. 

In April 2002 Hillary said:

I think it is a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people. You don't make peace with your friends -- you have to do the hard work of dealing with people you don't agree with," said Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

In August 2007 this

shows her new  positions opposing Barack.

Then she was against nukes before she was for them

Which accounts for why  Obama is having challenge getting traction is because Hillary supporters, Josh included, are the ones saying their candidate has the same position as Obama to muddy the waters. The same way that Bill Clinton came out saying Obama had voted the same on issues on the war subsequent to the AUMF, when it was Hillary who had shifted her position as her vote was analogous to all the 123 Congresspeople who voted AGAINST the war.

The real truth Daniel is that you can say Hillary's position is virtually the same as anyone's because on any given day at any given point in time Hillary will change her stance to say whatever is politicallly expedient.

Bottomline it is disingenuous for you to assert that Hillary and Obama's position on foreign policy is the same because you have no clue what HRClinton's position ACTUALLY is.

However Obama is clear.

I know Charles Krauthammer is not very popular here but he has a point in today's WP:

In 2007 we have, by any reasonable historical standard, a fine Republican field: One of the great big-city mayors of the past century; a former governor of extraordinary executive talent; a war hero, highly principled and deeply schooled in national security

What can be said about Democratic leading candidates that match Republican leading candidates credentials?

The adjectives in front of the candidates are not a matter of record but opinion. Giuliani can't claim "great" as any kind of objective statement, ditto, "extraordinary talent", ditto "highly principled".

So let's re-phrase the list:

A former big-city mayor, a former governor, and a former war hero.

A senator, a senator with White House experience, and a senator.

Then again, we could attach the encomiums:

A senator from a big state with years of dedication to political causes, beginning in high school, a senator from a big state with years of experiencing organizing communites, and a senator from the old south with years of experience litigating.