Hmm, I’m the polar opposite, replacing “Hillary” and “Obama” in the above but I’m willing to consider Republicans and I think it could be claimed that Obama is running mostly on the “Black” platform. As for spousal influence, it’s known that a first lady has the ear (and sometimes other body parts, too) of the President.
I’ve done an analysis of the choices made so far and, of the 35 respondents, I’m quite surprised to see that, in our extremely informal and inadequately sampled poll, contrary to the OP’s information, Hillary is, in fact, the second choice candidate for president. Color me shocked.
Note 1: I went with Boblibdem’s heart on this one, otherwise it would have been 16 votes for Obama and 6 votes for Edwards for first choice, 9 votes for Edwards and 6 votes for Obama for second choice
Note 2: I eliminated Gore from all the choices, since he’s not in the race, and moved the next choice up, so, for Gonzomax Kucinich became his second choice and for DrDeth, Hillary became his first with no second choice.
First Choice
15 for Obama
7 for Hillary
6 for Edwards
4 for Richardson
2 for Kucinich
Second Choice
12 for Hillary
8 for Edwards
7 for Obama
2 for Kucinich
1 for Richardson
1 for Dodd
1 for Biden
1 for Huckabee
Edwards first, Obama second, Hillary third.
First choice is Obama - Please Og let this come true!
Second choice is Edwards.
Please Og, it’s me again, don’t let Hillary get in…please.
Heheh. Here’s to hoping Og hears your plea. Maybe we should offer up a human sacrifice or something…you know, for the kids.
I’ll be voting in the NH primary in a little over two weeks. I’ve been solid for Obama for months, Edwards is second. Hillary is dropping fast on my list. I’d vote for Biden or Richardson before I’d vote for her.
Obama, has been #1 since the GitGo;#2 Edwards, well, my right down the road neighbor here, so have had the chance to see him at length, and admire his policies;
#3; Clinton, with some odd feelings on not wanting her as higher on my list. Probably due to wanting a huge sea change with the next election, and no ghosts to possibly haunt it.
Mrs. Nott and I both back Edwards first.
If Edwards fails, she picks Obama, contrary to stereotype, and I pick Hillary.
On purely issues, we’d both go Kucinich, but he’s out of serious consideration, dammit.
We’re in Indiana, so our votes don’t count (we don’t vote until early May.) We can only “vote” with a checkbook.
What’s the “Black” platform upon which it ‘could be claimed’ that Barack is running? Unless I’m missing something, I certainly don’t see him cow-towing to African Americans and slighting other groups. Also, from what I’ve read, he’s not benefitting as much as would be expected from the (Jeez I hate this term) Black community, since Hillary seems to have an inordinate percentage of that group mesmerized…at least until they come to the realization that getting Hillary is not the same as getting Bill.
Yeesh! That should have been kowtowing. Yes, it is past my bedtime. Why do you ask? 
Why? I don’t understand the reasoning behind this. Why wouldn’t she be anyone’s second choice? For the record, I prefer Obama, then Hillary.
That was in response to the “Husband” remark. Hillary being defined by her husband makes as much sense as Obama being defined by his race. Is there another black candidate for the US Presidency in 2008?
Hillary has very high negatives, as I imagine you know. I believe the thinking is that there are Hillary voters and then there are anti-Hillary voters, and that the Democratic anti-Hillary voters are currently divided into several camps (among her Democratic opponents).
I have heard it said by pundits that Hillary hopes the Edwards campaign survives Iowa, because if it does, Edwards and Obama will continue to split that anti-Hillary vote.
The idea, I guess, is that anybody who doesn’t have negative feelings about Hillary is already in her camp.
This thread is making me question that assumption, though.
Hm. I think that’s a little silly. I don’t think you have to love her or hate her, I think many people see that she’s a very intelligent woman who would probably make a good president, but who would be very divisive and therefor not necessarily the best choice for the country as a whole. Or whatever. So, she’d be good, but X would be better.
Two months ago, in my “Single Transferable Vote Thread” (which is still open) I ranked Biden first, then Dodd, then Obama. I put Clinton ninth, behind 6 other Democrats, John McCain, & a possible third-party run by Sam Nunn. The rest of that list is in flux as I think about the job; but I still woud tend to choose the handful of other Democrat contenders over Hillary, & Hillary over any of the Republican so-called contenders (except maybe McCain by the time of the general election, & probably even him).
I don’t object to her being a woman, nor a moderate. If Kathleen Sibelius or Christie Whitman ran, I’d seriously consider either one. I don’t think she’d be a bad president. I object to her due to the feeling that the Clintons are trying to subtly defy a long-standing tradition of a US president only serving two terms at most. If Bubba didn’t exist, & it were just Hillary Rodham, she might be a good candidate. But if Bubba didn’t exist, & she were just Hillary Rodham, she’d be slightly ahead of Edwards on experience, & maybe ahead of Richardson on temperament, but would she be a contender overall?
It bugs me that this country won’t consider a female president except as a spouse of a still-vital former president. It bugs me that she’s not so much breaking the glass ceiling as extending Bubba’s tenure.
Exactly. Look at how they treat McCain (not that I’m defending McCain as progressive; he’s not); he’s one of them on policy, but a lot of the GOP opinion-makers have shunned him over his campaign-finance bill. Yeah, it’s a lousy, loophole-ridden mess that may be worse than nothing, but I think they hate it, & him, because he had the temerity to restrict the power of at least some persons’ money in politics.
If Bubba didn’t exist, Hillary wouldn’t have any relevant experience at all, and would probably be one of an endless number of no-name attorneys in either Chicago or New Haven.
This bothers me too. It would bother me more if the woman in question possessed the qualities and vision this country absolutely needs right now to get us out of the mess we’re in, internationally, domestically, militarily and economically, rather than someone who feels the role is due her because of her relationship to, and experiences with, a former president. I don’t know if Obama would end up being a much better president than any of the other democratic candidates, but I believe he believes he will, just as I believe he understands that it’s not about him, but the country, as well as possessing an honest, albeit possibly a bit naive, desire to bring the country together. Hillary, on the other hand, in my estimation, feels she deserves the job, not because of what she’ll do, but because of who she is and, I believe, as a bit of payback for putting up with Bill’s peccadilloes. But this is not a monarchic coronation with a rite (nor right) of succession, nor is it a reward for endurance.
I don’t believe Hillary will make a good president. Oh, she’ll be better than any of the knuckle-draggers and schizophrenics on the republican side, with the possible exception of Ron Paul, but that’s not saying much. I think she’ll be bad for the country, so bad that her being a woman is simply not enough of a reason to give her the chance.
I’m sorry, but I’ve heard Hillary’s speeches, heard her on talk shows, and watched her fumfer her way through Q&As. She makes me nervous, and there’s too much riding on what this country does in the next ten years to take the chance on someone who, in my estimation, is chasing some power-trip high. Fortunately, thank goodness, we have a say.
That too.
This thread is getting a bit verbose for a “poll”.
One quick comment about Hillary…I doubt she intends to let Bill be anything more than a great asset to help in dealing with foreign political leaders.
And yes, she did get a lot of experience being Bill’s wife. And this is a bad thing?
However, she has proven to be a very dynamic leader who has learned how to play with the boys and win. I don’t doubt her abilities in the slightest and feel she could easily step into the position of President and kick ass if need be to get things done.
Besides, there isn’t a scrap of dirt in Hillary’s background that has not already been turned into mud and flung by the Republicans…I think that is their biggest fear about her…they ain’t got nothing left to dig up. That is what scares them the most. If anybody is Republican bullet proof, Hillary is it.
Reading over my post above, I just realized I still haven’t exactly made up my mind after all…let’s just say Obama and Hillary are about equal right now and most certainly one of them will get my vote this January. Hmm…much to think about in the next very few weeks.
I think Hillary would probably be a competent, uninspired president. While she isn’t my first choice, I think competence is underrated.
By way of justifying my verbosity, I just wanted to explain why, despite my impression that HRC would be competent but uninspired (thanks jsgoddess!), she falls below several other Dems for me on my hypothetical caucus plan.