Who Makes the Stronger Democratic Prez Candidate? Feinstein or Clinton?

This is not a thread for Hillary or Dianne bashing. I am not offering these two as the only choices for our Party's nomination.

I am asking here only this: which of these two have more national appeal? Please refrain from gratutious digs at either here. Thanks for your cooperation.

While my politics certainly align more closely with that of Senator Barbara Boxer here in my beloved Golden State, I feel (perhaps wrongly) that Senator Dianne Feinstein would have a greater appeal to the national electorate than would Senator Hillary Clinton.

If Feinstein somehow chose to enter the Primaries, how would DU'ers rate her national appeal against that of Hillary's?

Ask yourself why the GOP loves the thought of her candidacy. Really.

They're scared to death that she'll win because of their wives voting for her behind their backs.

:eyes:

Most people who say that "she's unelectable" are scared shitless she WILL get elected. That's why the GOP is doing everything in their power to keep her from running...beause they fear that she'll win, and it's amazing how many people here fall for their fear mongering propaganda when it comes to this brilliant Democrat lady.

That won't work.


Been a spate of these threads lately. Everytime some Dem Senator or Representative says something great or fights a bill or sponsors a bill or whatever, there's always some bandwagon calling for that person to run for President in '08.


:eyes:

Smart lady, loyal Democrat, crafty politician, charismatic speaker, won't back down from the right wing, and she fights for the rights of the entire Democratic Party, not just the left or right side of it!

these days: Feinstein is 72 (will be 74 in 08), same thing for Murtha.

Cant we consider people who are reasonnably young (in their 50s or 60s, eventually 40s if they have the experience for the job?).

I'm afraid I keep getting her name confused with Feingold.

My apologies. I would not have taken a position on a poll between Feinstein and Clinton.

... I also opened this thread because I thought it was 'Feingold v Clinton'.

No matter, Feingold is THE GUY, regardless of any poll!

Hillary is better known, has money, organization and Bill. The downside to Hillary is the Republican Right Wing Wackos would come out of the woodwork to oppose her. But imagine the AM radio talk show folks the day after the election if Hillary won. It'd be worth listening.

Don't know Diane Feinstein that well, in fairness.

now I like Russ Feingold but don't know if he has chance because of his religion. If Clinton doesn't come out against the war soon I'm not sure I can vote for her.

"...if he has chance because of his religion"? He doesn't belong to a cult does he?

How much is up for debate. People vote for stupid reasons, and they won't vote for someone for stupid reasons too.

I mean, come ON, we haven't even had a female president or vice president yet and it is 2005.

being our VP, surely we can consider voting for a man who has a long distinguished senate career - and who says Bush is not our king? I mean, he won points with me this week because of his strong words. I don't think it would be a problem if he were to run... Kennedy was Catholic, Nixon was Quaker - their faiths were supposed to hold them back too.

but we should also be aware of weaknesses our nominee may have in the general election. There is also no harm in analyzing how our candidate will get slimed and whether that slime will stick. We know that senators have a tougher time getting elected and that northern nominees haven't done very well for dems. Can our nominee overcome that? Sure, but it is info worth considering.

As far as I am concerned, the only 08 possible that doesn't deserve serious consideration is Hillary.

The perception is that a Jewish candidate would be able to run and his/her religion would not be a problem. However, the reality is that a Jewish candidate, even someone like Feingold, would face a battle. The religious right would not want a Jew as the leader of a Christian nation (in their eyes). To them, it would be like a man running the NOW (of course, that they'd approve of). The far left would wail and gnash their teeth that we shouldn't have someone who would be more loyal to Israel than the US. It would be very similar to those that said Kennedy would take orders from the Vatican. It might not be a major factor, but it would come into play. However, I don't think this should prevent him from running, possibly even winning the nomination.

I agree that people in general are stupid and would need to hear how he was an independent from Israel. But he is smart, he can talk and walk and chew gum at teh same time and he says Bush is not King. I think he deserves a chance for Pres or VP at the least.

Freedom to believe in the g*d of your choice was one of the many things people came here for in the first place a two, three hundred years ago. Amazing we still don't allow that freedom fully, isn't it?

I am not sure even a Christian who is not Evangelical can get elected. I like what I have heard from him but is he electable? To win we need to bring in some that voted for Shrub over our side.

If the candidate cannot be Kerry, let it be Hillary. With Hillary we get 2 for the price of 1... I would sure like to see the big dog back in the WH

I am still eligible to vote in the US and I wouldn't vote for either of them - I'd spoil my ballot or vote green or something.

I hate the way Feinstein ends almost every sentence up like she's asking a question.

NEITHER!!!!!

in any way possible, so by pitting her against some comparitively virtual unknown from off the radar screen it makes Hillary look even worse. Thing is, Hillary is probably the most popular Democrat among Democrats everywhere but here.

You want a fifty state loss? Nominate one of these two.

Hillary is a stronger progressive (if you would like to stretch the definition of the word a bit) by a rather large margin (60.7 vs. 39.2). However, I agree with many people on this thread that she has a lot of political liabilities AND her ascendency reinforces the DLCs influence in party politics AND reinforces the tendency in recent American politics for us to try to form political dynasties.

Feinstein is rather conservative, being the only non-DLCer I have in the bottom ten Democrats progressive-wise. Her policies would not be to the liking of many on this board (about 80% of us, I would say). To be honest, she is only one Senator better than Leiberman (35%) on my personal scale (I calculate these things every wuarter and post it here, not that anyone cares).

I only wanted to reply to MrSlayer's post to give a shout-out to a fellow death/thrash metal fan (I heard a rumor you were, btw). The rest of the post is supposed to be a stand-alone. I would choose neither, either, because I am not into false dichotomies.

And I greet you as a fellow headbanger.

While Hillary is probably better than Feinstein I just can't see either of them getting anything but destroyed in a general election. Setting aside the massive hate for Hillary I can't see the country voting for a woman first and foremost, the populous just isn't ready for it. And then Fienstein being a Jewish woman is the double whammy. This is also why I can't see Feingold being elected either. The country is too racist and sexist for any of this to happen.

but I see a big enough loss nevertheless.

No to either. Feinstein's gun control position will be an instant killer.

That and the fact that she seems as bad as Lieberman on most issues.

How does 46 sound?

The northeast (but no PA), CA...and maybe one other state on the west coast...

Fake Dem neocon sellouts. One directly profits from the war and the other one's husband socializes with the bastard whose son started it.

Corporate peas in a pot if you ask me.

:rant:

I would prefer to vote for a PRO-Working Class Democrat.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

In EVERY case, "Barriers to Trade" and "Restrictions on Corporations" were created to protect something valuable!

Why don't you start with her right in the Senate where she serves? Tell us what her track record is on voting on all the issues. Wait, I'll do it for you. Out of 100 Senators, she has the 9th highest score when it comes to voting progressively, even higher than Kucinich. Yeah she sounds like some Republican. :eyes:

Not a problem for me except on matters that concern the nation. Maybe she should have run for a State Senate seat instead of New York's U.S. Senate office.

Because then we get into her "record" in terms of which legislations she actually sponsors, or co-sponsors. How do those issues impact me and my community?

like flag burning and the war in iraq, neither are of small consequences.

the flag is symbolic for a much bigger issue, the first amendment of the Constitution is constantly being challenged if not simply ignored.

Our Constitution is in absolute tatters as i write this, no thanks to Reagan, Poppy Bush, Bill Clinton and now the Bush Crime Family and Company.

(to date, not one single public uttering from either Bill or Hillary Clinton on the domestic spying - apparently for good reason, it appears that BC authorized warrant-less wire tapping involved in the Aldridge Aimes case and WACO among other snooping events. Hillary is silent either because she agrees with the policy, or because her partner in crime violated the Constitution too and so her "hands are tied" - but that makes her at the minimum complacent in my opinion.)

The war in Iraq is a major fucking issue of global proportions, an utterly evil enterprise, illegally engaged, cultivating and culminating in crimes against humanity.

sooo, soooo very progressive.

I remember DiFi when she was mayor of that fair city in Northern California. I wasn't impressed with her then, I am less impressed now.

"Sophie's Choice".... I'm with Sophie: Neither choice is preferable, thank you. We might as well have another Republican in the WH.

Let me guess... You had a "thing" for Margeret Thatcher.... right?

TC

for a candidate . . . because every single political incumbent is in some way compromised to the point that they can not tell the whole truth about everything . . . from 9/11 to depleted uranium and white phosphorus to the bankruptcy bill to the death penalty to religion in politics, every incumbent is hamstrung by their own political considerations and their corporate backers in some area or other . . . and most in many areas . . .

I strongly believe that we need a non-politician for our candidate . . . and the two names that most intrigue me are Bill Moyers and Robert Redford . . . Moyers because he isn't afraid to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . . . and Redford because he's a committed environmentalist and progressive with huge name recognition who is generally well liked and respected by the American public . . . I'm sure there are others who would be equally good candidates . . .

and I think the public would welcome a non-politician who's willing to stand up and say "Okay, here's the truth about what's happening in this country today -- the truth that no politician is willing to tell you. It's ugly, but once we acknowledge it, we can start to fix it." . . .

DINO Feinstein makes me sick. She's one of the biggest corporate suckups in the party. I was disgusted by her "some in my party want to get rid of the patriot act. I'm not one of them".

And frankly I don't care if you don't want me to bash her. I will. I will bash them both because they deserve it...

And no, I don't believe insincere cries by her now. I don't believe her or trust her one bit.

This is courtesy of project vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
_____________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 67 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.
_________________________________


2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Peace Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the Peace Action 88 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Peace Action 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Peace Action 13 percent in 2004.
______________________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Friends Committee on National Legislation 50 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the Friends Committee on National Legislation 50 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Friends Committee on National Legislation 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Friends Committee on National Legislation 0 percent in 2004.
____________________________________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004.
__________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 22 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 100 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 15 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 35 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 17 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 33 percent in 2004.
_________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 110 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 85 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the National Education Association 90 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Education Association 25 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Education Association 35 percent in 2003-2004.
______________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004..

2003-2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 75 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 13 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 25 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 89 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 7 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 14 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 25 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 67 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Family Research Council 67 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Family Research Council 67 percent in 2004.
____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 83 percent in 2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Feinstein supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 4 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 72 percent in 2004.

Di Fi would do better than Mrs. Clinton. Clinton is too polarizing. You think 2000 was stolen? You think 2004 stolen? Lets run Clinton and see what happens with the voting machines. The repugs will hack so many machines... voter turnout will be 115%

I do not want Hillary to run, however. On a superficial level: her voice sounds very grating when she gives a speech.

contemplating such a scenario. Sorry, I know you didn't want any "gratuitous attacks," but sheesh.

Diane Frankenstein for Senator let alone president.

Feingold, I'm starting to take notice of. At least he speaks up.

I love Bill and Hill, but don't know if a female could even get elected. But she is qualified and she can kick some ass!!

I just saw them speak at the Florida Democratic Party convention and they have it all over the on the radar competitors - Feinstein, Boxer, Clinton, Warner (who also spoke but was not very motivational).

Kerry and Gore could still run and Kerry probably will. If so I would still back and work for them.

Neither Feinstein, Boxer, nor Clinton could win outside of the northeast and California though and it's not because they are women but because they come across as too liberal and too northeastern for the southern and southwestern states.

That's why I think an Edwards - Obama ticket would work wonders and take votes all over the country.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

Happy Holidays!


:patriot:

Dianne Feinstein has an very good voting record in the Senate, I would give it a B+.
Boxer has an flat A.

So, in my heart Feinstein's occasional "centrist" language annoys, and her rare "centrist" voting drives me nuts. In my mind, I know that she supports what I care about nearly all the time.

But I think sometimes she is still running for CA governor of 1990. She is always trying to sound more conservative than she is. But she is an interesting, articulate and very smart lady.

She is 100% pro death penalty
She also supported a total gun ban in the city of San Francisco back in the 1980's

All other considerations aside, I think Feinstein, could she get to the presidency, would do an excellent job. But I don't think she is the best candidate --and that matters too.

As for Hillary, I am not convinced that she is even a good candidate. Excellent senator I believe, but that's another matter.

Is there some rule prohibiting the other Clinton from running again? That guy seemed to know how to run a campaign and a presidency. ;o)

Do you count this as a positive?

Between a quarter and a third of registered Dems own guns, maybe even more than that. In my state (NC), a majority of Dems and indies own guns. Add in the gun-owning Independents and moderate Repubs, and you think Feinstein would be a viable candidate?

Her ridiculous 1994 Federal gun ban helped cost the party the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, in 2000 by causing Gore to lose Tennessee and WV, and in 2004 by tipping several pro-gun states in the West and South against the Kerry/Edwards ticket.

I suppose if you want to scare gun-owning Dems and fence-sitters into sitting out the election or voting for someone else, Feinstein might be a good candidate, but not otherwise...

But Feinstein would have a far better chance of winning a national elextion.

The VAST majority of voters have already made up their minds about Clinton. She's not likely to get many votes from those people who wouldn't automatically vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is anyway. And she'll ENSURE that every Clinton-hater in the country goes to the polls for the opportunity to vote against her.

Has helped her poll numbers immensely.

And a link too, please.

I haven't seen Clinton's numbers for the '08 nomination go up significantly in the last year. Maybe in the NY Senate race, but that's a whole different kettle of fish. They've definitely gone down in some polls, like the Strategic Vision state polls (but those are suspect in my opinion).
http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/results.htm

But polls this early are only about name recognition anyway. Gore, Kerry and Edwards, in varying order, always come in next. Most people haven't heard of or don't know much about the other possible candidates.

Clinton has essentially 100% name recognition, and almost everybody already have an opinion about her. I'd go so far as to say most have already decided whether they'd be willing to vote for her or not. So that means 60-70% (depending on the poll) want someone else. They just don't know who yet.

Do this poll in the world of Democrats outside this forum and Hillary would not only beat Feinstein by about 98 to 2, but she'd cream the rest of the heap, too!

Ann Coulter?

Wy do you think that any of DU would vote for her?

Maybe you haven't been here long enough to see that Hillary takes more of a beating than most any neocon puke does.

BTW, welcome to DU

but if one of them were our candidate in 08, she'd probably get my vote.

Of the two, Clinton has the better chance - but NEITHER can win against almost any Republican white male.

It's a sad fact that the US is not ready (will they ever be?) for a Woman in the WH. This is evidenced by the savage attacks on successful women in government - AND in business. Carly Fiorna from HP was savaged and pushed out of HP. Hillary was accused of all kinds of crimes. Boxer and Fienstien are treated with disrespect - far worse than men - by the right.

The political game the GOP is playing in the media and in the election arena has rules. If we want to change them, first we have to win some elections.

Either of these Senators would make excellent Presidents. Neither should run for President, however. Trashing Feinstein would be perceived as far less acceptable by the electorate, just because Feinstein has not been made a whipping post for men (of both parties) afraid of women who wield power and religious fanatics who think that women should not be in power anyway.