I am shocked to see how well Giuliani is polling v. ANY Democratic candidate.

WTF?

The average Merikan thinks he's the hero of 9-11!!!

lies enough publicly and have denied at least an attempt at justice so the public could really see, the danger of this dictatorial state being handed over to someone like Giuliani is real. That is the failure of this congress we finally were able to take over. And I can assure you, the door of freedom will be shut with no more cracks of which lie opportunity to reverse the end of this country as we knew it.

Even with the Iraq war, the top leading Democratic candidates are all over the board. guilianai has said that we will stay in Iraq

Our candidates have said, maybe yes, maybe no

People do not like fence sitters anymore. They would prefer someone they disagree with, but knows where he stands on the issues, than someone that is all over the board

We had better realize that pretty darn quick

And with any parsing, any votes for republican ideas, any votes for extension of power or for continuing torture or surveillance on Americans, it just solidifies the idea that republicans are doing the right thing in many Americans minds.

about the leading Democratic candidates

Hillary has been all over the board about Iraq, and her positions seem to fluctuate everyday

We haven't learned a damned thing from the past 7 years. People do not like it unless you have a direct clear message

giuliani has said in no uncertain terms, we will stay in Iraq, no "socialized medicine", judges like scalia and thomas, etc., etc.

What have our leading candidates said? We should leave Iraq, but maybe we need to keep some troops there. We should have socialized medicine, but maybe we need to have it controlled by the private sector, and I haven't heard hardly anything about who they would appoint as Supreme Court justices, which is the ONLY reason I am voting Democratic in 2008

Unless the Democratic candidates start to deliver a consise, clear message, that distinguishes themselves from the republicans, I am afraid 2008 will be a disappointment

republican candidates stand. There is plenty of ambiguity where the leading Democrats stand, especially on Iraq

Probably, the most direct of the three leading Democrats is Edwards, but even he hasn't been consistent on Iraq, which WAS the reason the Democrats won in 2006

The leading Democrats are trying to be all things to all people, and that isn't going to cut it.

They had better get a clear, DEFINITE MESSAGE, letting us know what they are going to do, and how they distinguish themselves from the republicans, or we are screwed

He said he supports choice and gay rights while promising to appoint justices like Scalia and Thomas who are ostensibly hostile to those rights... And he told Tony Perkins of Focus On The Family that he would support a anti-gay marriage amendment if any state passed a pro one..

He's just as two faced as any successful pol but with a mean streak to boot...

and that is exactly what he would do. There is no doubt in my mind that when someone says he will appoint federalist society judges, who believe in limited civil rights, no right of priviacy, you will get exactly what he said.

If you don't believe he would appoint federalist society judges, then I have some swamp land to sell you in Arizonia

He message is very clear, ours isn't. It is the same crap that has been occurring for the last seven years.

Just look at 2006, the Democrat leaders said when they won, they would not give bush a free pass, but that is pretty much what they have been doing. It would have been better for them not to say anything, they to have to eat their words

bush or the republicans equate Democrats with traitors, or supporting a policy that gave rise to hitler, and they do nothing, however, when our critisim get too harsh, we appologize. We are not even consistent on that

Tom Peters wrote a book called "In Search Of Excellence" some time ago. In that book he related a story about two companies who estimated a job. One said it would take twice as long to do as the other. The company who estimated the shorter time, did not meet that time estimate, and even though it was shorter than the company that said it would take twice as long, the customers were more pleased with the service from the one which took longer, because it met their expectations

judges like scalia and thomas

It doesn't matter what he did in the past, it is what he will do NOW

admonition--Watch Guilliani.

Some call it Cult of Personality--I call it Image--you call
it what you will.

First, let me say--Guilliani as President scares me. I fear he
will be Bush on Steroids. Too authoritarian for my comfort.

That said, I can look objectively and clearly understand why
he is doing well even against Democrats.

First, most Americans consider us in a war with a long war
against terrorism. (Remember, the great majority of Americans
do not read Newspapers. The Only news they get if any is what
they get on Television. Therefore, they do not in any way view
candidates through the same prism as Activists. They do not
have the same information for making judgements.

Being at war and fearing terrorism is one of the ways they view
candidates.

Guilliani has the IMAGE. Appears to be a strong tough leader
who is not going to take anyone messing with him. Presence,
when he enters a room people are aware he has entered. So far
he has maintained the most pleaant part of his personality.
Engaging smile and his persoaliity draws people to him. In other
words Rudy comes off as a strong leader. That TV Image is
a pwerful tool. Close your eyes and stand Rudy next to anyone
of our candidates. Pretend you are Joe or Jane Sixpack. How
do you think they respond???

After the first wave of commercials the backlash would start.

Middle America doesn't have a clue about Rudy yet. He's got too many known skeletons to stand up to scrutiny. I HOPE he's their nom.

Well, "The Hill is a strong woman,Rudy just dresses like one."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8

as a presidential candidate (altho he's well known in a more limited way). 3rd - He IS well known in a more limited way, so he has more name recognition than many of the Dem. candidates. 4th - He has done well in the debates. 5th - Some Repubs think he, as a moderate, has a better chance of beating a Democratic candidate.

the difference between DLC and Moderate Republican. Not much--
therefore some Democrats could easily vote for GUilliani, I fear.

The moderate Repubs are not the ones that have caused all these horrific problems. Moderate Dems are better, of course. But you're right...someone just a little left of center is not that different from someone just a little right of center. And those two groups comprise most Americans, although they are not the loudest.

one Bush hating Democrat that a Giuliani presidency would be fine with them. Bush has been so awful, no one could possible be worse.

Thing is Giuliani could very well be worse than Bush, but driving that home is a tough sell following 7 years of Chucklenuts.

Mz Pip
:dem:

I hope.

As a moderate, it is clear to me. I wouldn't vote for Ghouliani if they paid me. Well....maybe if they paid me enough money so that I could get set up for life in another country! One that has guaranteed reasonable health care!

He has done a real good job on building and promoting himself as a big hero of 9/11. There is also the ABH (anyone but Hillary) to consider in these poll numbers.

Take down myth & the man will follow:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2195612&mesg_id=2195612

and that brings in a whole bunch of women votes.

Every poll I see has any democratic beating the pants off rudi.

Here are the numbers.

He was further ahead. The spread has dropped over time. I imagine, he'll end up behind our candidates by December. The numbers for Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are fairly recent. The numbers for Richardson are about a month old and the numbers for the others are several months old. Here's Ghoulini's lead.


Clinton 2
Obama 2
Edwards 1
Richardson 3
Biden 16
Kucinich 12
Dodd 15
Gravel NA

I'm not sure if I wouldn't prefer facing Rudy the most in the GE out of the top Repugs. He's got a ton of weaknesses. He'll probably depress the fundamentalist vote with his moderate social agenda. He's been moderate in the past on immigration so he'll have trouble tying in to their current boogie man. However, I don't think that immigration is going to gain them as much traction as the social conservative issues or terror scares did in the past. The only advantage he might have is if they somehow gin up a terrorist attack during the GE. The media has created a myth around his performance during 9/11 even though it only consisted of actually showing up.

They suck. It suggests that we just need to educate the people on his real record.

Here's the problem as I see it. Clinton has baggage and lots of it. Giuliani has some but not near what Clinton has and all of his is in the past, as far as I know. Recently their have again been instances in the media of questionable campaign contributions. This can come up with Giuliani as well, maybe, but with Clinton it is a repeat of what happened in the past and brings back to mind all the many scandals of the Clinton Admin.

I believe we would be MUCH better off with Edwards or Obama as the nominee because with Clinton all we'd be seeing and hearing are campaign commercials about scandal.

polls seem to discredit it pretty well though. The counter argument is that her negatives will go lower not higher since they are already factored in, and RW myths will be less credible as she campaigns and people know more about what she is really like.

and Conservative southerners voting for Guilliani seems iffy to me, although I haven't seen polls on that. If those two groups stay home, Rudy can't win.

Giulliani is also a terrible speaker when not rehearsed, stuttering and stammering. He'll do badly in the debates (although so did Bush in 2004).

The people we need to educate are Democrats and independents who still have this "hero of 9/11" belief about Giulliani.

he is a goner. He is an authoritarian, bush lite neocon.

If my memory serves me right, no candidate has lost the nomination
after winning both Iowa & NH. But then again this is 2008. And there
is always that "first time" thing.

Just what they love.

Bernie Kerik is under federal and local investigation for links to mob-linked firm(s).
New York Times is giving attention to story, about once every 2 weeks.
Giuliani stood by him; is his kid's godfather. x( :puke: Times said Giuliani know about Kerik's potential mob links :puke: earlier than he let on.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/03/us/politics/03kerik.html