If Bush wins

[quinnox]

in 2004, due to a weak candidate such as Dean getting nominated, I see one silver lining. It means Hillary Clinton can run for president in 2008 in a wide open field. I think she has a good shot at becoming the first woman president ever.

Now, I am not saying Dean will win, or that one of the other candidates won't be nominated who could beat Bush like a Kerry or Clark or Edwards, just that if the worse happens there is still a bright spot to be found in the gloom.

[Syrinx]

1. I think Dean has a better shot at being elected, than Hilary

[ulysses]

2. and if Bush loses to Dean

what silver lining will you find?

[UrbScotty]

5. There can't ber a silver lining.

Becasuse there would be no cloud, there can't be a silver lining.

[Davis_X_Machina]

3. Clinton would be a far weaker candidate in 2008

...than Dean in 2004, or would be in 2008 if he lost a close race.

Some day someone is going to explain why Sen. Clinton is thought to be a magic bullet against Republicans.

[Concerned American]

6. I'm with you Davis

I do think that out of the electorates, Dean is the only one with the fortitude needed to make an impact on this party and I don't get the obsessions everyone has with the Clintons.

[diplomats]

9. Because she'd be able to give as good as she got

Half the battle for any Dem presidential candidate is being able to fight off the GOP smear machine.

[diplomats]

11. Because she'd be able to give as good as she got

Half the battle for any Dem presidential candidate is being able to fight off the GOP smear machine.

[Jack Rabbit]

34. Somebody should also explain . . .

. . . why Dean would be a weak candidate.

I think Dean, Clark and Kerry each stand about an equally good chance of defeating Bush.

[Concerned American]

4. Silver Lining?

How is that a silver lining? It just means that once again the Democrats will loose another Presidential Election. The DNC needs to get their heads out of their rear and find a candidate who will not engage in partisan politics the way that ALL of the current candidates are. Is it really that hard to find someone who will stand up for what they believe in?

[janekat]

7. Clark isn't engaging in that - he's running a positive campaign

n/t

[Concerned American]

8. Clark doesn't know what he believes.

Clark is still trying to decide what he believes in. He had said in the past that he chose to run as a democrat because the Republicans didn't return his phone call. That tells me that he could care less what he stands for as long as it gets him to the position of power that he desires.

[diplomats]

13. I see you've bought the GOP spin

The people who related that phone call "story" were two Repubs, one with close ties to Rove.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Concerned American]

15. I didn't buy into a spin

To look at it a different way, Why did Clark mention a couple of weeks agon that he would let the public know what he stands for over the course of the next 4 weeks. I think it is because he is trying to figure out what he believes in so as to not upset the Democratic base. Also, he has been reported as supporting Bush and the war on Iraq as early as last year. And why have people continuously forgotten that Clinton had shot some missles into Iraq to take the heat of of the Monica scandal? I just don't understand what I am to believe. I find myself not wanting to agree with anyone anymore.

[Bertrand]

21. Back up your opinions

To look at it a different way, Why did Clark mention a couple of weeks agon that he would let the public know what he stands for over the course of the next 4 weeks. I think it is because he is trying to figure out what he believes in so as to not upset the Democratic base.

Unfounded Speculation

Also, he has been reported as supporting Bush and the war on Iraq as early as last year.

You are generalizing a complex issue. Clark is on the record of supporting the war in itself when it was commenced, much like Dean and the rest of the candidates who have come out saying everyone needed to back the troops when in danger, but the onus is on you to provide proof of Clark being in favour of the concept of preventive war the way the Bush Administration percieved it to be (and particularly backing Bushs push into preventive war with iraq)

And why have people continuously forgotten that Clinton had shot some missles into Iraq to take the heat of of the Monica scandal? I just don't understand what I am to believe. I find myself not wanting to agree with anyone anymore.

You realize that youre speculating, right? Provide proof of Clinton expressing your claim.

[Concerned American]

Whatever you say

Unfounded Speculation

Not unfounded, my opinion based on my logical thoughts.

You are generalizing a complex issue.

I am generalizing because I don't have time to write a 10 page essay and watch the Baseball game at the same time.

You realize that youre speculating, right? Provide proof of Clinton expressing your claim.

Of couse I am speculating, has anyone ever picked up on that coincedence, I have not heard it. And I am glad to get that scumbag out of the Whitehouse, even if it was given to the Anti-Christ. (By the way, that is speculation too. I don't actually have proof that Bush is the Anti-Christ)

BTW: Everyone can read my original post. Why do you find the need to repeat it in sections? I find that rather annoying.

[Bertrand]

29. RE: Whatever you say

Not unfounded, my opinion based on my logical thoughts

unfounded as in without verifiable evidence to back up your speculation.

I am generalizing because I don't have time to write a 10 page essay and watch the Baseball game at the same time.

Isnt it fair to the person you are criticizing to offer evidence as to how you came to that conclusion? Would it be fair for me to say that it has been reported that Dean kicked an elderly Lady in the Face and stole her purse to buy crack? No, so provide verifiable evidence for whatever claim you make.

Of couse I am speculating, has anyone ever picked up on that coincedence, I have not heard it. And I am glad to get that scumbag out of the Whitehouse, even if it was given to the Anti-Christ. (By the way, that is speculation too. I don't actually have proof that Bush is the Anti-Christ)

People have picked up on the coincedence but that in itself doesnt verify your claim . Your speculation (which you acknowledge) is presented without verifiable evidence, which means you are libeling him.

BTW: Everyone can read my original post. Why do you find the need to repeat it in sections? I find that rather annoying.

I do it to show the context of each response.

[Kool Kitty]

23. Maybe he's putting his ideas into words so he can convey them to

the public? But, then again, you believe that Clinton bombed Iraq to offset a scandal, and if you were paying attention you would have heard Dems of all sorts saying they were behind Bush going into Afghanistan, not just Clark. (I am assuming that you meant Afghanistan, rather than Iraq, because we weren't fighting in Iraq last year.) You don't have to agree with anyone, you should just read a bit and get some of your facts straight.

[Art_from_Ark]

22. Not just GOP spin

John Brummett, one of the most widely read political commentators in Arkansas, who is not a conservative hack by any means, was somewhat dismayed by Clark's political naivete and inability to announce a party affiliation, or even identify with a party, last year. Clark was 57 years old at the time, with apparent political aspirations, and yet he could not announce any party affiliation.

[Kool Kitty]

24. Because he was an independent.

You don't have to register with any particular party in Arkansas in order to vote. And re: the original post, I don't think Dean is a weak candidate at all. He's strong and he could win.

[Art_from_Ark]

31. I KNOW you don't have to register your party in Arkansas

I'm registered in Arkansas.

My problem is this-- Clark has political aspirations. He rubs elbows with the Republican elite of the state. Then he gives an interview with probably the leading political writer in the state, and yet he cannot bring himself to say what his political affiliation actually is. He has also gone on record as praising the very people who have done so much to damage the good things about the USA. And yet he expects to be accepted as a legitimate Presidential candidate representing the Democratic Party.

This is what bothers me so much about Clark.

[Kool Kitty]

33. Sorry.

I should have know where you were from. (I can read, sometimes fingers move faster than my brain.) If you have problems with Clark, then you shouldn't vote for him.

[Bertrand]

27. you have taken that comment out of context

Clark claimed to have been kidding, but it really doesnt matter because it's a he said/she said between Clark and 2 republicans.

Whats interesting, and which bolsters Clark claim, was that the Whitehouse released its phonelogs indicating that Clark never actually called it(which was the context of the quote, not "the Republicans) so that eliminates any evidence backing up the 2 GOPs claim. It's a non-issue.

[Minstrel Boy]

10. But isn't it true if

candidates stand up for what they believe in, then they are engaging in partisan politics?

Partisanship is not necessarily a bad thing. It's not "sniping" at each other. It's being devoted to a movement, a party, a worldview. The Democratic nominee had better be a partisan, with fire in his belly to rally the base and excite the independents, or the cause is hopeless.

[Concerned American]

16. That is not the point I was trying to make.

Partisanship is not standing up for what you believe in. I guarantee that Leiberman is voting on things that he does not believe in because he happens to be a Democrat right now. Partisanship is voting on whatever the party wants because that is what you think your purpose is regardless if you believe in it or not. There are many issues that are sponsored by the Dems that the reps should support and vice versa. That is called standing up for what you believe in. I just think it is time for someone who will stick to their convictions and now bow down to the most powerful special interest group that happens to be lobbying them at the time.

[Concerned American]

17. AND

And so far I think Dean is the only one that comes close to not being a scumbag like all politicians seem to be.

[diplomats]

30. I also like Dean, as I do most of our candidates

but he was governor of Vermont, so he is, technically, a politician. :)

[GOPBasher]

12. I'm a Clark supporter, and I think Dean can win.

I'm not sure why you write off Dean like that. I think he's running a fantastic campaign. It's a very grass-roots campaign, he has tons of volunteers, and he's raised tons of cash all by small donors (much on the internet). He's doing some impressive stuff. By the way, I'm a Clark supporter, but I'll be happy if Dean wins as well. In fact, I like just about all of our candidates.

[quaker bill]

18. Wrong

Dean is not a weak candidate. He has taken tough positions and is willing to defend them strongly. He recaptured the initiative from Clark after about a week, (much sooner than I expected).

Kerry is much weaker in his disembling attempt to have it both ways on the IWR vote. He also panders to the middle class on the tax cut. He has not captured the initiative once and appears simply reactive to Dean's lead.

Clark has yet to show he has the right stuff, I have hope for the man, but he just has to step it up very soon. He could be the man but so far his campaign seems a little lackluster. He had the limelight for about a week. A stronger campaign would have kept it longer and taken more advantage of the opportunity.

I like Edwards just fine as a person. But his pro-corporate "business tax incentive" approach to economic recovery screams corporate welfare. His approach on economics is too neo-con corporatist for my taste. He like Kerry tries to have it both ways on Iraq. He seems to think that the war could have been done "right". There is no right way to do a wrong thing.

Gep is a good guy, but comes off a bit too much like a football hero for my taste. He is pro-labor which I like. But, he is also compromised with the IWR vote.

I think each of these guys has what it takes to beat Bush*. But they will all need Bush* to cooperate in his own undoing. So far, it seems that Bush* is his own most powerful opponent. Fortunately for all our guys, Bush* seems quite prepared to do more of all of the things that have worked against him.

[bigwoody]

19. Maybe she'll run against Newt Gingrich. Other than Bill, nobody

raises the ire (and wallets) of the right more than Hillary. Although much of the hatred of her is misinformed, it can never be overcome. Is it possible to deal with reality just some of the time? If you people don't stop it you'll have 4 more years of the village idiot and then 8 years of Jeb! These $200 million presidential runs are becoming easy for the "family" as chimpy has given back in excess of $1 TRILLION in tax cuts to the top 1%, with more to come during next years election. Wake the fuck up!!!

[Kool Kitty]

20. "If Bush wins..."

would someone please promise to kill me? Please?

[Resistance Is Futile]

25. If the GOP retains power

If the GOP retains control over all three arms of government, America will devolve into a one party state and will suffer a fiscal meltdown before 2010. If the GOP wins in 2004, 2008 will be nothing more than a Stalinist farce.

[bleedingheart]

26. There is something wrong with your equation...why would any dem

vote for Bush if their chosen candidate didn't get the nomination? There are so many people pissed at Bush that I think he is going to lose.

[Faygo Kid]

28. If Bush wins, what makes you think there will be an election in 2008?

I do not believe there will be a FAIR election in 2004, let alone 2008. Cue the music: The Horst Wessel Song.

[seventhson]

36. Optimist: What makes you think there'll be an election in 2004????

The way things are going the BFEE will derail this nation before then, assert martial law, cancel the elections and round us all up into the crematoria.

John Loftus said it best: To the BFEE, we are ALL Jews.

[Tatiana]

32. A couple of years ago I wouldn't have thought Hillary had a chance

...in hell of ever being president. I thought her aspirations were a bit too high, and that this country wouldn't elect a female president.

In these strange times, however, Hillary doesn't look as bad as she did back then. An advantage she would have is that her baggage is already out there. We've been through it a thousand times.

Yes, she is possibly the most polarizing Democratic figure that could possibly be candidate for presidential office. But she has more than a few things going for her.

1 - Her last name is Clinton. Fact is, Clinton had some of his highest poll numbers in terms of popularity after impeachment. Repukes have a visceral hatred of the Clintons. The other 60% of the country pretty much likes them.

2 - She can run on her husband's record. If we're still under Repuke leadership by '08, this country will be the closest thing to a Banana Republic and Clinton will look like a Savior.

3 - She has personality and she carries authority. Most people regard her as extremely intelligent, and she certainly knows how to make some unpopular decisions... which shows leadership ability.

4 - She has experience -- as a Senator dealing with legislation and passing bills as well as executive experience, having played a decent-sized role as First Lady for 8 years in the White House under her husband's administration.

I'd say she was qualified, intelligent, experienced, and if she ever ran for office, I'd probably vote for her.

[Jack Rabbit]

35. If Bush wins, he's still the dictator rather than the President

Legitimacy is like virginity. Once lost, it's gone forever.

Bush is like the whore of Babylon. She never had her virginity, and he never had his legitimacy.