Straw Poll - President

[dallasmsl]

Okay, it is WAY to early for this but what the heck.

Whom would you vote for in the following poll?:

Hilary Clinton
Russ Feingold
John Kerry
John Edwards
Joe Lieberman
Libertarian Candidate
Green Party Candidate

[dallasmsl]

Wow! I find this amazing that out of all the members in this group that only eight have voted in this straw poll. But, even more than that, that Hilary is winning! OMG!

[glammaman2000]

...given that;compared to what we have now;I'd vote for a garden slug.

[Corwin]

This poll is so limited. You forgot Mark Warner, ex gov of Virginia. McCain is running on the Republican side, as is Frist and Santorum. There are probably a few other candidates out there too. They're kinda like cockroaches at this point, hiding in every corner trying to decide whether to run across the room.

Hillary isn't that bad, and certainly would be better than what we have now.

I had a nice conversation at a social event with Russ Feingold recently. Well, I later learned that was who it was. He wasn't wearing a name tag, but when he mentioned meeting "Rick Santorum on the floor of the Senate", I figured out he was a Senator. He DID look familiar, but, uhm, well.... He's very nice, but not the tallest person in the room (by a long shot).

[dallasmsl]

Thanks for the feedback guys! I didn't make the poll too detailed as I just wanted to get a feel for things. Like two others, I voted for Feingold. I really can't see how anyone who is gay would vote for a woman who doesn't like gays and who also voted for, and has no regrets for voting for, giving GWB the authority to go to war even AFTER she knew that he had no real reason to attack Iraq! Unlike last election, I will not vote for the Democratic Candidate if I really don't believe in them - and that would be Hilary. Did you know that she was born a Republican and then was in her Colleges' Young Republican Club. It wasn't until after she met William J. Clinton did she become a Democrat.

I guess when you boil it down, I just don't trust and she's done nothing to gain my trust. Whereas, Russ Feingold has done just that! He voted against GWB, against the Patriot Act, and has pushed for censure and investigation of the Bush administration. But this is just my opinion and everyone has one. Any others?

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by dallasmsl

Thanks for the feedback guys! I didn't make the poll too detailed as I just wanted to get a feel for things. Like two others, I voted for Feingold. I really can't see how anyone who is gay would vote for a woman who doesn't like gays

Hillary likes gays. Her public position just isn't as progressive as some other people's, which is not surprising. Like her husband, she takes a centrist position on issues publically.

About a month ago, leaders in the Senate (it might have even been the DSCC) met with the LGBT-powers-that-be in DC (e.g. HRC, Stonewall, NGLTF, NCTE, etc). Senator Clinton was there, and there was a very active give and take with her about LGBT issues with some agreement and some disagreement. Yes, most of these groups wish she would take a greater leadership role, but, as with most things in politics, there is a lot of give and take and a lot of compromising on all sides.

Not being in New York, I don't really pay much attention to the on-goings of New York politics. (Un)Fortunately, I have friends that are deeply involved in the cat-fights that are New York (city) politics. If I remember correctly, they tell me that Hillary's campaign is less-than-forthcoming with them, primarily because they want more leadership from her and she is unwilling to give it. There is also the whole marriage equality issue, which, in my pompous opinion, has more to do with her moving to the center for a Presidential run than her personal opinions on the issue.

Whenever I think about New York politics, the sequence from 1776 comes to mind:

Lewis Morris: [as John Hancock is about to swat a fly] Mr. Secretary, New York abstains, courteously.
[Hancock raises his fly swatter at Morris, then draws back]
John Hancock: Mr. Morris,
[pause, then shouts]
John Hancock: WHAT IN HELL GOES ON IN NEW YORK?
Lewis Morris: I'm sorry Mr. President, but the simple fact is that our legislature has never sent us explicit instructions on anything!
John Hancock: NEVER?
[slams fly swatter onto his desk]
John Hancock: That's impossible!
Lewis Morris: Mr. President, have you ever been present at a meeting of the New York legislature?
[Hancock shakes his head "No"]
Lewis Morris: They speak very fast and very loud, and nobody listens to anybody else, with the result that nothing ever gets done.

It just goes to show that things really haven't changed much in 230 years.

Originally Posted by dallasmsl

and who also voted for, and has no regrets for voting for, giving GWB the authority to go to war even AFTER she knew that he had no real reason to attack Iraq!

I won't comment on the regrets thing, but you will find very few Democrats who did not vote for going to war. Yes, they knew the guy from Texas was lying, but they also knew that the American people didn't know he was lying and/or didn't believe he was lying. Many still don't. One of the key words that keeps coming up in politics these days is messaging. Democrats are having a very hard time coming up with messages that make good sound bites and convince Americans to believe them. "Saddam is bad" is a lot easier to digest than reams of reports on WMDs and explaining that.

Originally Posted by dallasmsl

Unlike last election, I will not vote for the Democratic Candidate if I really don't believe in them - and that would be Hilary. Did you know that she was born a Republican and then was in her Colleges' Young Republican Club. It wasn't until after she met William J. Clinton did she become a Democrat.

Well, it was when she was in college, her freshman year in fact, when her views were challenged and she became a democrat. Ya, she met Bill Clinton at about the same time, but the correlation here does not imply causation. In fact, from letters written to people from her during college, and her friends at the time, her changing viewpoint occurred before meeting WJC. The college experience is meant to challenge people's views, and in Hillary's case, it appears that it did.

As for voting or not voting, I know that people say lots of things prior to election day. In the end, do you think the country is a better place under the rule of GWB and the right wing than it was under Clinton? Do you think the country would go in a different direction given the only realistic choice of a Democrat or a Republican, and which direction do you choose?

Originally Posted by dallasmsl

I guess when you boil it down, I just don't trust and she's done nothing to gain my trust. Whereas, Russ Feingold has done just that! He voted against GWB, against the Patriot Act, and has pushed for censure and investigation of the Bush administration.

What you are really saying is that you want politicians to take a stand for what they know is true or believe is true, and that most politicians don't do that. You're right. Unfortunately, taking that stand doesn't tend to win elections. Howard Dean lost Iowa because people became afraid that he was too divisive and they wanted someone safer like John Kerry -- someone who wouldn't make waves and whose positions were more palatable to other Americans.

Since things have not changed in 230 years, here's another quote from the musical 1776:
[During the vote on independence]
Dr. Lyman Hall: Mr. President, Georgia seems to be split right down the middle on this issue - the people are against it, and I'm for it.
[laughter]
Dr. Lyman Hall: However, I'm afraid I'm not quite certain whether representing the people means relying on their judgment or on my own. In all fairness, until I can figure that out, I'd better lean a little on their side. Georgia says nay.

The question Dr. Hall asks has never been answered in this country's history.

Originally Posted by dallasmsl

But this is just my opinion and everyone has one. Any others?

I try not to have opinions. They're dangerous.

[glammaman2000]

...some very intelligent discussions in the NYC Council.The reason nothing ever gets done is that the PEOPLE of NY can never agree on anything(not always a bad thing).If you REALLY want to watch paint dry,check out our STATE Legislature!(Voted"Least Effective in the Nation"!Imagine the competition for THAT title!)

[Corwin]

Stanley Fish has a blog in New York Times Select (premium service) today talking about Hillary. He laments the attitude expressed here by dallasmsl. Here is an excerpt from that blog:

And then I pop the question and with it the name that has gone unmentioned. ?What about Hillary Clinton?? ?Oh, she voted for the war, and I don?t trust her,? is the reply. ... Mrs. Clinton both has a plan ? she?s not called a policy wonk for nothing ? and is a plan. She has an organization, a war chest and a record of accomplishment in the Senate that includes bipartisan cooperation of the kind everyone claims to want. And by working hard and paying attention, she?s won over many voters in upstate New York where her name was once a fighting word.

There's lots more, but you should read it on the Times site rather than me posting the full thing here (damn copyright thingees).

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by glammaman2000

...some very intelligent discussions in the NYC Council.The reason nothing ever gets done is that the PEOPLE of NY can never agree on anything(not always a bad thing).If you REALLY want to watch paint dry,check out our STATE Legislature!(Voted"Least Effective in the Nation"!Imagine the competition for THAT title!)

Pennsylvania hasn't changed much in 230 years either. Most of our politicians are still like Judge Wilson, and when asked, "Where is New Jersey?" we'll still answer "Somewhere between Pennsylvania and New York."

(Oh, and I am so John Adams).

[dallasmsl]

Thanks guys for the excellent discussions on the current state of politics. I wish more people from this forum would get involved and provide their opinions as well.

Dave

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by dallasmsl

Thanks guys for the excellent discussions on the current state of politics. I wish more people from this forum would get involved and provide their opinions as well.

Dave

Self-serving plug: The National Stonewall Democrats Convention is in Pittsburgh this year from June 2-4. We (note first person here) have organized a lot of trainings for people to become experienced with grassroots politics, including how to work on campaigns and win elections. The Keynote speaker is Howard Dean, Chairman of the DNC and former Governor of Vermont. Other keynotes are pending. We are also teaming with another national group to 'put what you learn into practice' for an event all day Sunday.

More information on our website: http://www.stonewalldemocrats.org

[dallasmsl]

As you see, Hillary Clinton easily beat out Russ Feingold. Perhaps I'll run another post in a few weeks or so. If any clear candidates appear from the Libertarian, Green, or Republican parties, I'll put their names in as well. Until then, please look at the front runners again and keep abreast of what is happening with our nation.