http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/...ics/9199185.htm

Dems Seen Favoring Sen. Clinton in '08

GENARO C. ARMAS

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Delegates to next week's Democratic National Convention already have an idea about 2008 if presidential candidate John Kerry should lose this fall: They would favor Hillary Rodham Clinton over John Edwards as their next standardbearer.

An Associated Press survey found that the first-term New York senator is the choice of more than a quarter of the delegates while Edwards, recently tapped by Kerry to be his running mate, was favored by some 17 percent.

Clinton - former first lady, best-selling author, Democratic star and the politician Republicans vilify for fund-raising appeals - often was a top pick of Democrats in opinion polls prior to the 2004 primaries. In November 2002, the favorite candidates were Al Gore and Clinton, with all others in single digits.

Kerry emerged from the primary process as the Democratic candidate, and Edwards was the last major candidate to bow out. Kerry's choice of Edwards to be the vice presidential nominee raised the profile of the freshman North Carolina senator and pushed his name to the top of the 2008 list, if Kerry falters.

Among the more than 3,000 delegates interviewed, or roughly 70 percent of the 4,300-plus who will attend the four-day event beginning Monday in Boston, most were reticent to offer a favorite, optimistic about Kerry's chances on Nov. 2. Some 36 percent said "none" when asked whom they would like to see as the party's candidate in 2008.

Clinton was favored by 26 percent overall and Edwards 17 percent. Among women, Clinton led Edwards 34 percent to 16 percent. The breakdown among men was Clinton 22 percent, Edwards 21 percent.

"It's time. A lot of people tell me, 'She's a sure loser.' It's time for us to try," said Jennifer O'Donnell, 43, a delegate from Cincinnati, Ohio. "Women have got to try for that seat ... we still don't have the access."

Ruth Mandel, director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University, said Clinton's showing among this year's delegates is testament to her strength and potential leadership.

"It's about the fact that finally, in the year 2004, when most active leaders of the party are asked to name leaders of the future, a woman is at the top of the list," Mandel said.

New York-based Democratic operative Hank Sheinkopf said Clinton has a jump on Edwards for 2008 despite the publicity Edwards has received in this year's campaign. "The field could be wide open, but Hillary has an edge coming in," Sheinkopf said.

Edwards will have some three months on the presidential campaign trail, time in the public eye as well as an opportunity to hone his skills.

Lachlan McIntosh, 31, of Summerville, S.C., called Edwards "an up-and-coming star of the Democratic Party."

"He understands ordinary Americans and their plight," said McIntosh, one of more than 530 Democrats attending the convention as delegates for Edwards. The North Carolina senator was planning to send a letter to his delegates asking them to vote for Kerry on the first convention ballot.

Told of the AP delegate survey, Edwards' spokesman Mark Kornblau said, "Very interesting." He declined to comment further, adding, "We're looking forward to accepting the (vice presidential) nomination."

Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines had a similar response. "Senator Clinton will be working hard in 2008 to re-elect John Kerry and John Edwards," Reines said.

In the AP survey, Clinton was more popular than Edwards among delegates who were white as well as those who were black or Hispanic. She also was the choice of those who said they were in a union.

Initially, the New York senator did not have a speaking role at the convention, a Kerry campaign decision that drew criticism from several Democratic women. Within days, an intense lobbying campaign by Clinton backers forced the presidential candidate to ask if she would speak and introduce her husband, former President Clinton, on the opening night. She accepted the invitation.

About 2.5 percent of the delegates favored one-time candidate Howard Dean, the former front-runner. Several others were favored by about 1 percent each: Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, who is keeping his long-shot candidacy alive; retired Gen. Wesley Clark; former Vice President Al Gore; and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

About 3 percent favored Kerry if he doesn't succeed this year. But several delegates tried to dismiss that notion.

"I have a definite preference (in 2008) - it's Kerry and Edwards," said Jim Alexander, 58, a Kerry delegate from Amarillo, Texas. "If they don't win this year, I hope by golly they try again."

Ok..I took this to mean the percentage of delegates they surveyed to see what candidate they would favor for 2008.
Is that what was inferred or did you mean he had delegates at THIS convention?

It's interesting that only 3% favor Kerry in 2008 if he doesn't win this time. Is that because he'll be seen as a loser, or because they're underwhelmed by him now?

Both.

Most likely the former. If they were underwhelmed by him they wouldn't have volunteered to be Kerry delegates in the first place. Remember the delegate slates are choosen before each primary is held. Thus, if Kerry wins a primary the slate of delegates pledged to him go to the convention. If say Dean had won the slate of delegates previously pledged to him would have gone in their place.

As far as Gore's low numbers, I wonder how many GOP delegates to the '64 convention would have wanted Nixon for the '68 nomination at that point.

Good point. I just worry about Gore's popularity because of all the damage done to him by the media and RW. Even Democrats buy a lot of the crap that's been put out. I know that when I did all my phone calling during the write-in effort, I got a lot of negative responses from Democrats. Of course, I also got a lot of positive responses, but it would take a major effort to undo the damage that's been done to him by the media, and some people would simply never come around. They'd rather just move on and start over with somebody new.

"Damage done by the media". Oh please! You act as if Al had no hand in his self-destruction. :unsure:

I will be watching with anticipation for Al to go on another pointless rant at this weeks Dem convention. This will not only show to the rest of the US the sour grapes Al, but it will also work against Kerry, as he will have to spend time to distance himself from Gores wild-eyed remarks. :spikey:

As a matter of fact, I heard that all speakers at the convention are being instructed to appear moderate. Why? Because they don't want them to appear too angry.

But ya see, IGotMail, the Dems. ARE angry, and that's just not something you and your kind will accept. And I'm sure as hell not getting into a debate with you about that. You know the history. We are on totally different sides of this issue, so just let's leave it alone, okay? I've appreciated your reasonable tone and seeming ability to be open-minded, but this is not a place to dis Gore. Not that he's a saint or anything, but he is not what you make him out to be, and I, for one, have no energy at this point to engage in arguments regarding this subject. If someone else wants to take that up, have at it.

Yo GotMail, there's no getting over the theft of our democratic form of government by your elction stealing Bush. It's called treason. Every previous generation of americans has fought and died for what Bush stole in 2000. Your disdain for democracy is disgusting.

I'm afraid that Al Gore will lose all popularity since he didn't run for 2004.

Does he have a legit chance in later years to make a good run again?

There is some concern about that, but I think if he were to actually announce that he were running again, there'd be a giant rush of relief and a huge movement to get him elected (again).

Nixon didn't lose popularity by not running in '64 after losing in '60. If Kerry loses, Gore can come back as the man that legitimately beat Bush in 2000.

Plus, Goldwater was more popular with the repubs than Kerry is now.