General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJohn Kerry, John Edwards, or Joe Lieberman?
Which of these three recent Democratic nominees for president/vice president is most disliked at DU these days?
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)MelungeonWoman
(502 posts)JI7
(89,252 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)right-wing Neoconservative ideologue and he is self-righteously smug about it. That would make him considerably more dangerous and more obnoxious.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)I could've sworn he was who everyone was telling him to take.
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)Imagine a world where the first foreign policy voice in President Gore's ear after 9/11 was Joe Lieberman.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Cheney and Rumsfeld were doing a lot more than just whispering.
Raine
(30,540 posts)Skittles
(153,169 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Still hard to believe he and Gore were a ticket together.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)that to me was the defining moment
oberliner
(58,724 posts)But that's another story!
Skittles
(153,169 posts)yes INDEED
I remember thinking Lieberman had the personality of a wet towel
JHB
(37,161 posts)By RICHARD PEREZ-PENA
Published: November 20, 2000
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the Democratic candidate for vice president, said today that Florida election officials should reconsider their rejection of hundreds of military ballots from overseas, even if they might not comply with the law.
Mr. Lieberman's comments, a retreat from the position the Democrats had taken since Friday, came after they were stung by Republican charges that they had made a concerted effort to disenfranchise members of the military. While Republicans painted their opponents as being willing to use any means to manipulate vote totals in the extraordinary, tense and prolonged Florida count, Democrats complained that they were losing a nasty public relations battle for simply insisting on following the law as it has been applied in the past.
''My own point of view, if I was there, I would give the benefit of the doubt to ballots coming in from military personnel, generally,'' Mr. Lieberman said on NBC's ''Meet the Press.'' Of the local canvassing boards, he said, ''If they have the capacity, I'd urge them to go back and take another look, because again, Al Gore and I don't want to ever be part of anything that would put an extra burden on the military personnel abroad.''
The Republicans didn't give any such benefit of the doubt to challenging the same sorts of ballots in Democratic-favoring areas.
pjt7
(1,293 posts)-
B Calm
(28,762 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)still get a free pass from democrats if he had been president today and did what he did? Would he get support from democrats simply to keep republicans from taking power? Would people have demanded he leave office? Or would people simply not care about his personal life if he were a good president? It used to be that democrats would seperate a person's job and personal life. As long as you were a good president people left a person's personal life to their family to deal with. Now we have become morality police just like the republicans. On a personal level what Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and Anthony Weiner did were reprehensible. But does that mean they can't be good public servents?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I think that was more the concern with Edwards.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)John Edwards crisscrossing the country speaking out against the one percent to the 99% wasn't something TPTB were about to tolerate from a presidential candidate.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Kerry's made a damn fool of himself and Edwards has done even worse than that, but both of 'em still harbor real progressive ideas and approaches. Scumbag Joe's climbed so far up John McCain's ass that he can taste the senator's lunch.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)liskddksil
(2,753 posts)Joe Lieberman is clearly the bottom of my list.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)True, Edwards made an ass out of himself in his personal family life, but at least he didn't sell out the party.
Kerry, albeit with his flaws, is still respectable in my opinion.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It wasn't just his personal life - what about the use of campaign funds to cover up his indiscretions?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)What Edwards did, although inexcusable, happens all the time on a bi-partisan basis. Campaign funds in general are typically giant slush funds for any number of purposes, proper or not.
But you don't usually come across a candidate eight years removed from the VP nomination of one party giving an address for the nominee of the other party.
On a strictly emotional level, that angers me way more than what Edwards did.
liskddksil
(2,753 posts)As unethical as it might have been.
JHB
(37,161 posts)...life would go on.
Lieberman prominently supported the people who used 9/11 as a springboard to launch their pet project to impose their own blinkered vision of how the Middle East "should" be. (Remember the bit trumpeting their bold vision and action-taking while sneering at the plodding "reality based community"?)
Not much of a contest, and Kerry isn't even in the same city, much less same ballpark.
eissa
(4,238 posts)The other two aren't traitors.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)markiv
(1,489 posts)i never liked Edwards, a 2 faced asshat, whose words were contradicted completely by his short voting record - but he's made himelf irrelevant so he's last
Lieberman, who appeared on Pierce Morgan with WOLFOWITZ pushing for war just a few days ago
and Kerry as first, as the face of this disaster