"They say" Hillary will beat Kerry like a drum during the debates. Really?

[blm]

Because my guess is that Kerry won't have the protect Bill Clinton crowd he was surrounded by in 2004 and WILL be going after the BCCI connections to what is happening today - terrorism, drugrunning, oil profiteering, nuclear proliferation and to those involved in the coverup.

And since the Clinton team has already been targeting Kerry the last few weeks - I'm not waiting to strike back.

I believe in the motto of the Gadsden flag - Don't Tread on Me - won't strike first, but WILL strike BACK.

[babylonsister]

1. Who are 'they'? I think that could be a compelling debate. nt

[blm]

3. Those who want to establish conventional wisdom and will delude to do so.

.

[cali]

15. Oh, c'mon.

Make a statement about the ever elusive they, you should at least point to some articles that quote pundits. I have never seen such a statement.

[blm]

23. They've fanned out throughout the blogs and boards.

Enough of us have seen them. A little Carville here, a little Schwartz there.

Dean and Kerry have been the two most obvious targets, and you may have missed that, but it exists.

[tularetom]

2. The Clinton toadies sold Kerry down the river in 04

to protect Hillary's chances in 08. They advised him to ignore the swift boat attacks and then ridiculed him as a pussy for doing so. I'm with you - I think he has wised up. I'd prefer someone with a bit more fire but maybe Kerry has wised up to those who sold him out.

[Totally Committed]

22. I agree with this, essentially....

however, he still hasn't found the moral will to break with them completely and leave the DLC, so he's mustn't feel THAT bad about what they did to screw him.

Just saying. Why get our panties into a wad about something he doesn't seem to mind?

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

46. There is no basis in fact for your comment

None. Anyone can look at everything he has done in the past two years and see that he is EASILY diametrically opposed to the Clinton agenda.

Let's see, who actually TOOK A STAND on Iraq and called for the withdrawal, much to the chagrin of the Clinton/Reid crowd? That would be Kerry.

On that and every other issue, Kerry has been on the LEFT side of things, often putting him in direct opposition to the appeasement wing of the Democratic party.

You know, I respect you TC, but my patience for your refusal to look at the facts is wearing kind of thin. I'd like for you to submit ONE way since 2004 you feel Kerry has been "DLC." Just ONE instance where he parrots the DLC line, votes the DLC line, or in ANY WAY aides and abets the DLC/centrist agenda would be fine. If you can actually back up this ridiculous and baseless assertation, then please do so, because your continued insistance that Kerry is just as DLC as Hillary Clinton is no longer remotely defensible.

I like you but that doesn't give you carte blanche to be misleading like this.

[Totally Committed]

48. Guess what? I actually agree with ALMOST everything you said here:

...Anyone can look at everything he has done in the past two years and see that he is EASILY diametrically opposed to the Clinton agenda.

Let's see, who actually TOOK A STAND on Iraq and called for the withdrawal, much to the chagrin of the Clinton/Reid crowd? That would be Kerry.

On that and every other issue, Kerry has been on the LEFT side of things, often putting him in direct opposition to the appeasement wing of the Democratic party.

I AGREE He has mostly gone against the DLC agenda in the past two years.

I AGREE He did take a courageous stand on Iraq.

I AGREE On almost every issue he has been on the opposite side of things from the "appeasement crowd".


I also like and respect you, my friend, a lot. I'm sorry to be a vexation to your spirit, believe me. I have always found your willingness to discuss things with me, rather than go off on me so mature and refreshing. But, I can understand how my position could be driving you up a tree at this point. I admit that. The reason for my still insisting on Kerry's leaving the DLC is this: For me, and I admit, this is only my position -- I speak for no one else here but myself -- there are no degrees of DLC-ness. It's like being pregnant -- either you are or your not. There is not "a little pregnant, as the saying goes. For me, you either are DLC or you aren't. His remaining on their roster gives me pause for taking anything he does or says seriously. Until he can look the DLC in the eye, and say to them as courageously as he's taked about Iraq or other things lately, I only feel like I'm being "had". I feel like heh's still trying to have things both ways. To be frank, I'm dying to see him do this definitive thing once and for all to show all of us he really did take his loss seriously, and is willing to make the big changes needed to get most who are so disappointed with him at least in the mood to listen again. This one gesture would go, for me, a long way to that end.


That's how things stand for me.


TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

50. Can you even prove he's still ON the DLC roster?

I mean, what exactly do you consider to be "DLC"? Attending meetings, receiving their newsletter, going to their convention? Or is it a philosophy, reflected in the way one votes, speaks, thinks about the world?

Consider Joe Biden. Biden is a centrist Dem - his position on the Iraq War is similar to Hillary Clinton's, and he is a very famous corporate shill. He voted for the bankruptcy bill, which was one of the most pro-corporate anti-person pieces of legislation in the past 10 years. He epitomizes the mealy-mouthed pro-corporate wishy-washy triangulating Dem you (correctly) loathe.

YET.... he is "not DLC."

So - would you seriously support Biden, who has proven with his votes, words, and actions time and again that he would support the corporate agenda first and the American people second, over Kerry, who has proven time and again the opposite - because Kerry once was on the DLC roster and Biden never was? If you did so, you would directly violate every reason you've ever given for why you oppose the DLC in the first place. If it IS about keeping corporations out of government - if it IS about stopping war profiteering - then your conscience would dictate to you to choose Kerry over Biden. I know they will not be the only two choices, but the juxtaposition of the two candidates rather succinctly sums up the griveous error in your thought process, to my mind.

If corporate control is your most important issue, I suspect Kerry plans to address the issue of the economy and the working class soon. You should listen to him and determine from his speech whether or not his position demonstrate the populism you seek in a candidate. But if you're waiting for the magical words "DLC", that seems rather self-defeating - few people have heard of the DLC and, as Biden proves, a person's ACTIONS are far, far, far more important than anything else.

[Totally Committed]

58. Kerry was on the last DLC Roster I saw, which was from about 6 months ago.

Then they removed their Roster from DLC.com altogether. So, no, I can't "prove" he's still DLC, but he hasn't said he's not, either. Anywhere... public or private... that I know of. Can you "prove" he's not? You'd be doing him a huge favor if you can, here and now, provide that. I can tell you I am not the only one on this board who is concerned about candidate's DLC affiliation.

I'm sorry to be so difficult about it (and admit that's what I'm being), but that's how it is right now.

Peace.

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

64. His actions prove it far more than any website link ever could.

If you would seriously vote for Joe Biden over John Kerry because of who was "DLC"... how is your quest to rid the government of corporate influence being advanced? You are too obsessed over the letters "DLC" that you are losing sight of why you even hated them in the first place.

[AtomicKitten]

65. Well, that's a rationalization befitting your caliber of argument.

I assure you TC is genuine in her convictions unlike * ahem * some here.

[WildEyedLiberal]

67. Thread stalking me?

Hmm, that would be against DU rules.

You're right, some here ARE insincere in their convictions... for example, people who claim to support Al Gore but who cravenly make sleazy attacks on other Democratic candidates and DUers in order to advance some shadowy agenda.

Do you have any reason to believe I'm insincere in my convictions - my support for Kerry - or are you just slinging mud for the hell of it, now? Because you just CAN'T STAND anyone who likes Kerry on this website?

[Totally Committed]

69. Thanks, AK...

Seeing you don't agree with me, either, your willingness to speak on my behalf here is very classy of you.

Thank you.

TC

[AtomicKitten]

71. You are one of my favorite people here , TC.

We may butt heads on issues but I have never for a minute doubted your sincerity or your integrity. I have the greatest respect for you and know for damn certain you do not compromise your principles, and no pissant is going to suggest that in my presence without comment.

[Totally Committed]

81. Ditto to you, AK...

I appreciate that a lot. :hug:

TC

[Totally Committed]

68. I wouldn't vote for Joe Biden because

he's a pompous fool.

My opposition to the DLC is sincere and it is irrevocable. No one who is DLC will ever get my vote. Simple as that.

Can we please agree to disagree about this?

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

72. I like you, TC...

So out of respect for you I will let it drop, though I think you are wrong.

[Totally Committed]

80. Thank you, WildEyed... I appreciate that.

It is important to feel that one's deeply-held beliefs are at least respected and understood by those who are respected in return. You have always been a favorite of mine because of your willingness to discuss our differences, publicly and privately, rather than fight over them constantly. I have appreciated so much your efforts to try and understand where I am coming from, and believe it or not, I have always tried to do the same with you. In you, I have always seen the idealistic and loyal Kerry-supporter I was when I was your age. It's touched my heart at times, because I can remember what it felt like to believe totally in him and his promise. Just because we no longer agree on those feelings doesn't mean I haven't bee charmed by your absolute belief that you are right about your feelings. If you can try to apply it to me and this belief of mine about the DLC, maybe you can understand and it'll be easier to not feel personally attacked when AI express myself.

All of us are here because we feel that what we believe, personally, is what's best for our Party and our country. Not everyone is this closely attuned to the political end of things, but we are, and we are because we care. To have one's beliefs understood, at least... even if not shared, is a gift we can all give each other. I've always valued that gift from you, and thank you for offering to drop this. I will be more mindful, in return, to your strong feelings.

Thanks again,

TC

[tularetom]

4. delete

[wyldwolf]

5. oh, I don't know

Kerry smacked Dubyah around pretty good in their debates and Hillary is no Bill. But then again, Hillary is no Dubyah, either.

I wouldn't put money on the outcome of this one, but I would privately tell me friends the edge goes to Kerry.

I would like so see some 1 on 1 debates in the primaries. Maybe a round-robin tournament.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

88. I agree on all points. Kerry is a better debater.

If it were on the debates alone, he would have not just beat bush in the election, but clobbered him.

However, elections are not based on just the debates. Bill and bucks will be Hillary's biggest advantages. And she is no slouch in the brains department either.

[FrenchieCat]

6. What is a great thing about this system is that "we shall see"......

Won't we?

And I dare say that even after the debates between them and others are done, we most likely will still be debating as to who may have won.

That's the beauty of our democracy, or what's left of it.....we will all be able to judge for ourselves based on the event occuring.

I won't sell anyone short. Debating is based on making the point one wants to make in a coherent and logical manner that can be easily comprehended by those who are listening. I do believe that not only John Kerry nor Hillary Clinton have a corner market on being able to accomplish just that. So, I'm looking forward to the debates (but most of all, I'm looking forward to the elections that are shortly coming up), and I, for one, won't make speculate or predict the outcome...cause my crystal ball, as that of others..... ain't all that! :shrug:

[blm]

8. My basic attitude is "we will see" - - then Hillary camp started swinging

against Kerry with their not so subtle digs.

I WILL strike back.

[lojasmo]

7. Six of one, half dozen the other....I don't care for either one. EOM

[TheWraith]

9. What the fuck?

It's two years away, and we're already talking about anticipated debate performance between two people who haven't said they're running?

[blm]

12. This is posted because Hillary camp has been targeting Kerry already

hoping the meme will set in.

Don't Tread On Me - Won't strike first, but WILL strike back.

[wyldwolf]

10. why don't we have a friday night smack down between all the...

... most passionate candidate supporters? Now THAT would be worth watching.

[blm]

21. Big difference between Striking FIRST and striking BACK.

.

[wyldwolf]

29. oh, most definitely... but you, blm, would be my choice...

...to defend Kerry in a DU steel cage match. You definitely have your facts in order.

[Doctor_J]

11. Kerry and Hil are scheduled to debate?

I must have missed this

:eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

13. Strawman premise but I'll bite.

Al Gore would kick both their asses, pack them a lunch, and send them on their way.

[karynnj]

14. My bet is on Kerry, as the better debater

[AtomicKitten]

16. in your opinion

and you know what they say about opinions ...

[ProSense]

17. Gore lost a debate to Bush! n/t

[AtomicKitten]

18. in your opinion

Then again, in your opinion, Kerry's poo glows. The rest of us operate in the world of reality.

And, just so you know, your clan is doing a bang-up job of driving people here at DU away from ever supporting John Kerry. You must be an HRC plant.

[NYCGirl]

19. Going by the same "criteria", Kerry lost a debate (and perhaps two) to

Bush!

[ProSense]

26. No not really!

Most polls and reports showed Gore lost the second debate and tied in the final debate.

Most polls and reports show Kerry winning all three debates, "trouncing" and "crushing" Bush in the first debate.

[NYCGirl]

28. Most media polls showed Kerry losing the third debate. The only clear cut

one was the first.

[ProSense]

32. No they didn't

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/14/snap.poll/index.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2108121

[AtomicKitten]

33. watch out NYCGirl

She will bury you in data to "prove" her wrong impression.

[laugle]

52. LOL!!!!! n/t

[NYCGirl]

34. And then they tore him to pieces about the Mary Cheney remark.

Same way Gore won his debates and they tore him down about the "sighing."

[ProSense]

35. He still won the debate! n/t

[AtomicKitten]

36. and she will stomp her feet and hold her breath until she turns blue

if you don't acquiesce, NYCGirl.

[ProSense]

37. You're entering the "facts are misguided and demented" zone again! n/t

[AtomicKitten]

38. where you are clearly the mayor

Your opinion is not factual. It is an impression. You might want to slowly climb down off your high horse because all your posturing just makes you look silly.

[ProSense]

40. This

is not my opinion (while I completely agree):

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/14/snap.poll/index.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2108121

[AtomicKitten]

41. You are referencing opinion and polling (i.e., opinion) pieces.

I guess sometimes I expect people to be smart enough to know the difference.

And your "proof" that Gore lost a debate to Bush is just as pointless and without merit.

Your real agenda is to "prove" that Kerry's poo glows and you will continue to encounter resistance in that debate, but knock yourself out anyway.

[ProSense]

42. Huh?

People's opinions and analyses are used to determine who won the debates. If polling and commentary indicates he won, he won!


"Your real agenda is to 'prove" that Kerry's poo glows..."

Real smarts there! What's your agenda to prove it doesn't?

[karynnj]

61. Polling is likely the most objective way to determine the

true effect. The fact is that Kerry's numbers did go up. It is better than waiting and getting the "atomic kitten" response or the concensus of the pundits.

[AtomicKitten]

63. You can't use subjective data to PROVE anything.

... and particularly that Kerry won and Gore lost. Now that is garbage. It's imperfect data and conveniently used by the Kerry fan club to elevate Kerry to demigod status at the same time eviscerating all others deemed a threat. It's a trend, you know, and one that hasn't escaped any thinking person here at DU. Blindly raging against anyone that gets in the middle of your circle jerk is really lame.

[karynnj]

66. What is your background here?

I worked in statistical design and analysis for one of the top research companies in the country. One group I was in guided most statistical sampling in the corporation. NO data is perfect, but the studies commissioned by the various networks that took a sample of self-described undecided people and asked their opinions before and afterwards are decent studies. (The focus groups are not good to use for this - they are good to answer possible factors involved.)

The other thing you can do is to look at the polls before the week before the first debate and those after the first debate. Kerry was in major trouble before and there was a major impovement sfterwards. The debate was the most significant thing in that interval.

Putting these together and adding the fact that even the cable media people - who for the most part favored Bush - gave the debate to Kerry, I really don't see how you can question this.

Historically, William Weld is very clear that Kerry beat him because of the 9 debates they had. Weld, unlike Bush, was a very bright man - and had higher approval rating in MA going into the race than Kerry. Kerry was the star of the Yale debate team the 4 years he was on it - when they were said to have beaten everyone.

I seriously don't know why you can't concede ANY positive quality at all to Senator Kerry.

[wisteria]

97. I second that. I suppose the truth hurts. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

99. your "truth" = propaganda

you can rationalize 'til the cows come home and only the choir is buying it

[laugle]

54. It's nice to inject a little humor now and then to

put out the flames.......

Did I miss something.....is Hillary running??

[NYCGirl]

55. Yes, it is.

I have no idea if Hillary's running...but it seems the Clinton and Kerry camps are duking it out lately.

[NYCGirl]

39. And Gore won his!

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh092804.shtml

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081502.shtml

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h053101_1.shtml

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h053001_1.shtml

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h060101_1.shtml

[Cha]

56. Yeah, bush is the ultimate

masterbater.

[blm]

31. Gore didn't lose any debate to Bush - however, media AWARDED Bush a win he

never earned.

[blm]

20. It's not just that Kerry's a better debater, he has more principled stands

he takes on major issues and can discuss them in detail, as well as present doable solutions. Hillary is almost always in straddle mode.

[AtomicKitten]

27. that's a shame

According to polling here at DU and in the real world, Kerry consistently hovers in the dead middle of the pack. Mediocrity breeds mediocre support. That's a shame.

[blm]

30. Buy people for what they know and sell them for what they PRETEND to know.

I'll stick to real records.

[karynnj]

60. that is garbage - there are many reasons people vote on

The most common nos for Kerry have to do with the fear that he can't win. There is general acceptance that he is a good man of integrity and charatcter. It is also ridiculous to use the word mediocre to describe any of the 20 or so people with even the slightest chance of becoming President. By definition, they are among the top people in the political arena.

Kerry also EASILY won the primaries last time - putting him as one of less than 25 men in a century to win the Democratic nomination - hardly mediocre. So I assume that in 2004 he was exceptional. This leads me to a quandry as there are people who didn't support Kerry who have said that he he better in seval ways now as opposed to then.

Not to mention that "if Mediocrity breeds mediocre support" it would not be a shame, but deserved.

[wisteria]

100. Conventional wisdom has it, you don't want to be the front runners

at this time. Besides, polls now are meaningless.

[AtomicKitten]

101. if that makes you feel better ...

[laugle]

57. Both would be formidable debater's without a doubt! n/t

[hijinx87]

24. oh, please . . . .

first of all, the only "them" I see saying that is you.

but as a topper, this is the online message forum variant
of "I dare you to knock this chip off my shoulder". and
quite a chip it has become, too.

[onenote]

25. what we can't know for certain:

ULtimately, who "wins" or "loses" a televised debate between presidential candidates has less to do with what they say than with how they are received and perceived by the public. Does the public connect with one more than the other? DOes one seem colder, less trustworthy, etc etc etc.

What can't be know in this context is how the public will react to Hillary Clinton. Even among Democrats, there is a wide range of opinion about her -- probably wider and more strongly held than feelings about Kerry. Yet, most people have not seen her in the role of candidate (outside NY) and no one has seen her in the role of candidate for the highest office in the land. Again, even among Democrats, it is going to be interesting to see how people react to her vis a vis Kerry. Will the fact that she is a woman impact people's perceptions? It shouldn't, but the reality is that we won't know if it does until such a debate (or any debate between Hillary and another Democratic candidate) occurs.

[yellowcanine]

43. I think it will be Gore/Obama and they will beat McCain/Brownback

[AtomicKitten]

44. yep, that ticket will pack a power-punch

eom

[wisteria]

102. Hey, what are you going to do when Gore doesn't run?

All indications are he isn't and he has said so himself. His appeal is limited to those who support him because he contested in 2000.

[AtomicKitten]

105. His "limited" appeal has him second to HRC and 2 x Kerry consistently.

http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm

Nice try marginalizing him, but unfortunately for you the polling consistently says otherwise. Truth might inject some reason in your argument.

To answer your question, I will not for anyone that voted 'yes' on the IWR; you can do the math on that.

[Mass]

109. I disagree - Gore has appeal, do not discount him.

I know a few of his supporters are highly irritating, but it does nobody any good to discount him.

Personnally, I am not even sure what good it does to humour somebody who is seeking attention. Why feed the Kerrybashers?

[Imagevision]

45. Botto0mline? - Kerry did say all the votes would be counted and we know

that this was clearly not the case. (sorry John) I gave you a lot dude...

[blm]

62. Then Clinton's man McAuliffe mysteriously didn't secure election process.

DELIBERATELY? Covering up for Poppy Bush, again, Bill?

[Imagevision]

47. Hillary's not a "Bonesman" I'll take Hillary...we already had one of them

[blm]

49. Clinton ACTS like a Bonesman and covered up for Poppy. Kerry NEVER acted

like a Bonesman and investigated and exposed the crimes of Poppy Bush that Clinton worked to cover up.

So YOU side with the criminal wing of the Bonesman party when you side with Clinton and Poppy.

I side with the minority of Bonesmen who will take the criminal Bonesmen and expose their crimes.

[Imagevision]

70. Kerry never acted? Kerry did say "your votes would be counted this time"

[blm]

73. Clinton made sure McAuliffe didn't secure the election process for 4 years

You side with the Clintons who covered up for Poppy Bush and his fascist cronies, and didn't want Kerry in office opening those books, so he puts his man McAuliffe in there to purposely IGNORE the securing of the election process the entire four years the RNC was purging voter rolls and controlling the voting machines.

That's who YOU trust over the ONE LAWMAKER who exposed government corruption the most and would open the books on BushInc and EVERY ONE who protected Poppy Bush and his son over the years.

You think Clinton will be holding Poppy's hands when they put the cuffs on?

Or are YOU protecting Poppy Bush and Clinton, too?

[hijinx87]

82. this is just scandalous

you're accusing the clintons of actual crimes. several of them, in fact.

I understand being bitter because your guy lost the election, but this just
stinks to hell.

if you have an specific allegation to make that doesn't include the meaningless
phrase "secure the election process" or the empty word "infrastructure, then
make it. otherwise, I would appreciate it if you would be a little less reckless
with your accusations.

[blm]

83. McAuliffe DIDN'T counter rampant vote suppression and purged voter rolls

throughout the four years he was charged with that duty.

He was Clinton's chosen man.

Carville tipped off Matalin about the 250000 provisional ballots Kerry was going to challenge in Ohio - she told Cheney and Bush - they contacted Blackwell - The number of ballots turns into 150000.

McAuliffe and Carville are Clinton loyalists. I don't care what YOU think.


Hey Democrats, the Truth Matters

By Robert Parry
May 11, 2006

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Snip...

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Snip...

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.

Yet, Clinton – and now some pro-Iraq War Democrats – view truth as an expendable trade-off when measured against political tactics or government policies. In reality, accurate information about important events is the lifeblood of democracy.

Though sometimes the truth can hurt, Clinton and the Democrats should understand that covering up the truth can hurt even more. As Clinton’s folly with the Reagan-Bush scandals should have taught, the Democrats may hurt themselves worst of all when helping the Republicans cover up the truth.

[hijinx87]

84. please tell me

that your whole conspiracy case against the clintons is based on
more than that.

[blm]

86. Pooh it all you want - Clinton covered up for Poppy and most

everyone who pays attention KNOWS IT.

You would have to be a foolish COINCIDENCE THEORIST to believe otherwise.

[hijinx87]

90. very nice.

it is true because everybody knows it. and everybody knows it because it
is true.

and I am going to ignore the phrase "coincidence theorist".

[blm]

91. Embrace being a coincidence theorist - be pleased with the GOOD that has

come from it. Bush2 presidency, 9-11, Iraq war. You must be so proud.

[hijinx87]

92. let me make sure I am following you

because following your point can be, uh, quite challenging.

I don't believe that the clintons conspired to steal the 2004 election
from john kerry, therefore I am somehow responsible, albeit indirectly,
for 9/11 and the iraq war.

is that pretty much it?

[blm]

93. You slam as "conspiracy theory" what you must believe to be "coincidence"

so, you can take your coincidences and sleep well.

It is Clinton who is responsible for Bush2, 9-11, and Iraq war as the direct consequence of his covering for Poppy Bush - side with Clinton and you side with CONTINUING the coverup of BushInc.

[saracat]

51. As one who has heard both Kerry and Clinton debate and give speeches in

person , I think Kerry would wipe the floor with Hillary.She is a terrible speaker and debater. She speaks in a momotone and can't make her points stick.No way would Hillary win a debate against John Kerry.

[liam_laddie]

78. Agreed! n/t

[trillian]

53. Either one of them....

....will loose in the general election, so who cares.

How I wish the Dems were smart enough to nominate someone who can actually win.

Sheesh

[blm]

59. I wish Dem party structure would secure election process so Dem winner

can take office with ALL the votes earned.

[leesa]

74. They'll probably both try to outdo each other with Republican talking

points. "I can bomb bigger and better that any Republican can! I see terrorists EVERYWHERE! I promise to bomb 12 countries my first year...I'll bomb first, ask questions later"

Hopefully, someone like Gore or Feingold will also be present to interject some reason.

[WildEyedLiberal]

75. Yeah, Kerry's real big on pro-war talking points

See, it's even on his website: http://www.johnkerry.com/initiatives/kerry_feingold/

Oh wait, that's a link to the Kerry-Feingold withdrawal plan.

Looks like you need to get a clue!

[AtomicKitten]

76. well, they both voted 'yes' on the IWR thinking it would cover their butts

I too can imagine a testosterone-off in 2008 between the two of them. What we need is someone who had the good sense to call bullshit on Junior's folly from the get-go and to move away from this macho bullshit/CYA nonsense. We need somebody who has the integrity to do what's right and lead this country without thinking ahead to the next election.

[blm]

79. Gore is AGAINST Kerry-Feingold withdrawal plan and is FOR later withdrawal

the same as Hillary voted for.

My guess is that you must have missed those threads from last summer.

I also think you are unfamiliar with the fact that Kerry has always believed terrorism is a LAW ENFORCEMENT issue with use of specialized military strikes only as backup forces.

[Mass]

77. Could not care less what "they"say.

[robcon]

85. It would be a great debate.

But I think Hillary would mop up the floor with Kerry.

[blm]

87. Because .......

.

[hijinx87]

89. let me employ your own argument.

because he said so.

[robcon]

94. because...

she is a tremendous campaigner, and her speaking skills are terrific. I don't think there'd be enormous differences with Kerry, but she is an extremely persuasive speaker, IMO.

She's the best campaigner in the Democratic party, IMO.

[blm]

95. Thanks for the answer. My curiosity about your reason is sated. ;)

.

[wisteria]

96. LOL, Sen. Clinton has never taken on a strong opponent and she

has never had a challenging debate while running for an office. Kerry is an extraordinarily strong debater. He really knows how to deliver a punch and he doesn't mince the issues- especially now. As long as Senator Kerry realizes that he cannot treat her differently than a man and give her some slack, he will win the debates hands down. He has real positions on issues, she has to defend her muddy middle path.

[AtomicKitten]

98. which position are referring to?

Voting for the IWR and then coming out against the Iraq war? It is obviously crystal clear to some of you who have no problem rationalizing it, but it's muddy as hell for many others. Kerry's positions have evolved along with public opinion. Coincidence? I think not.

[wisteria]

104. Nonsense, you choose to see them that way. His opinion evolved

and was based on the changing situation in Iraq. Many of us had hoped for the best outcome there.Any military strategist will tell you it is always necessary to change direction and plans based on the current situation. To bad you have a hard time grasping that.
As for Clinton, do you refer to the only things she is clear on such as, flag burning and her vote in favor of the bankruptcy bill?

[AtomicKitten]

106. that's not nonsense, that's a fact

And it's unfortunate that you have difficulty grasping that. You are so willing to rationalize his vote, it's pathetic. Worse, he plays right into the flip-flop crappola.

Don't bother tearing HRC down on my behalf; I won't vote for her either.

[wisteria]

108. Oh, that's not my point. You just have a closed mind to kerry.

I don't have to justify or defend his vote.I understood it and I am grateful he decided to make that decision because he had an obligation to protect our country. Most reasonable people get it.

I am well aware you are a Gore person. And, I have enough respect for the former VP, not to debate or belittle him here. I wouldn't vote for him again, but I respect his intelligence and his concerns over global warming.

[AtomicKitten]

110. think again

Most reasonable people hold their leaders accountable and are not apologists for their mistakes.

[NYCGirl]

103. You don't think Giuliani was a strong opponent? NT

[wisteria]

107. Nope, his real recognition came after 9/11. From what I have read

he was to busy cheating on his wife to be an effective mayor. She would have had a tougher time of it if he had stayed in the race, but she was running on the Clinton name and that would have put her over the top. Now if she had run using Hillary Rodam, well that would have really be a challenging campaign.

[The Magistrate]

111. Locking

This has become a flame-war.

It really should, my friends, be possible to discuss these things without insult and abuse.