If Clinton and Kerry were the only two options, who would you pick?

[ecstatic]

Now keep in mind, all the demonizing of Clinton occurs on far right wing shows and liberal message boards. The mainstream has a very favorable impression of Clinton and her husband, and welcome the idea of a female president.

Neither of them have displayed more 'liberal' qualities, as both voted for the IWR and what not.

So which would it be, 'count every vote' Kerry or Mrs. Bill Clinton?

Read choices carefully!

[saltpoint]

1. I'd expect Sen. Clinton to be a formidable, well-funded candidate, but

I'd vote whole-heartedly for Sen. Kerry.

Kerry-Edwards won in Ohio. Bush-Cheney cheated.

[Tellurian]

4. Kerry would make a good AG under Hillary Clinton..

Clark as Sect of Defense (a brilliant strategist)

[saltpoint]

11. Both have the legal creds to be AG, no question. But I don't think

HClinton will be our nominee. Her huge warchest notwitstanding, I think Kerry's ground game is already pretty focused.

Whoever wins the Democratic nomination in 08 deserves to be president because no one the Republicans can throw at us will be as formidable, talented, prepared, or effective an opponent as any of the rest of our Democrats.

Who among the Republicans would want to debate Bill Richardson on energy?

What Republican is going to have an advanced program on poverty to rival John Edwards'?

What prayer do the Republicans have of besting Kerry's background in history, and especially, his ability to connect Madison and Franklin to the current hour? He's tops at that.

--and so forth. We've got an all-star line-up, no matter how it shakes out.

The 2006 midterms aren't the only national election the Republicans are about to lose.

[Tellurian]

33. I think she NEEDS to be our nominee..

and it not as simple as we get Bill too, because we have her.

It's the biggest plus yet- But not the end all!

It's a more complicated problem then most will even think twice to consider.

Look..our economy is going into porcelain-

The middle class is shrinking into poverty-

Social Security is technically bankrupt..

Health Care (Medicaid) is teetering on elimination.

Foreign policy is nonexistent as far as the US is concerned.

The War is taking a heavy tole on Americans..

The VA taking care of the war torn and battered and maimed.

We have a big SIN hanging over our heads; the unbridled killing of Iraqi civilians-

And these are just the highlights, there's so much more. (Constitutional Restoration)

I don't believe any one candidate can address all these issues simultaneously,
and none of the others come so prepared to start work immediately.

Hillary has her talents...She can work on plans to improve the quality of
life for Americans while Bill is already mainstream networking with World leaders.

We need a multitasking presidency. There isn't a choice except for Hillary..(imo)

We stand a better chance with this existing team to get things done quickly, while
getting them done right. I don't think people really appreciated Bill Clinton's America
for what it was at the time.

When I traveled abroad, Americans were welcomed with a smile and a handshake...
and always quips about what a wonderful country we have and how someday they wanted to vist..
A distinct contrast to the sullen, distrustful glances we now receive from populations all over
the world. We're seen as hypocrites aiding and abbeting the demise of our so called democracy
gone stark raving mad...I don't try to explain it..I just say, remember the Clinton years..
their faces light up...and immediately happily identify with the way it was..

Peace and Prosperity.

[ecstatic]

36. wow...excellent points

It's not just about one person, its about building a team of the most qualified. Very good points, but it will be hard to get people to see it that way.

[Tellurian]

38. Well, I am guilty of getting ahead of myself..

and then I have to be patient and wait till they come around.

But the nit-picking arguments seen here are the
dumbest things I've ever seen on a Liberal board.

Why we have to battle 2 fronts is beyond me, when
we need a candidate that can survive getting elected.
And that candidate needs our full support to make it so!

[blm]

48. Bill let all his good be UNDONE by his huge mistake that Hill will repeat

Bill Clinton closed the books on the outstanding matters of IranContra, BCCI, and Iraqgate in order to protect Poppy Bush. He even covered up and played down CIA drugrunning that was revealed in his term.

Hillary will do the exact same thing and NOT PURSUE the crimes of BushInc because now her husband is part of the coverup - even if it was done for nobler reasons.

The American people deserve TRUTH so they can act as responsible CITIZENS. They need someone who RESPECTS them instead of spins them.

[Tellurian]

55. What are you talking about?

Bill Clinton was never in charge of the CiA...Sure he had access
but Poppy could counter an order he gave, any time of the day and night.

I really don't care if they hang JR or not. He hasn't got the brains
he was born with in the first place and you know damn well Cheney is
the outlaw running things in the WH. Cheney and Rumsfied are a rouge
gang of politicians plundering countries at will and are the ones
responsible for hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the ME including
our GI's. Public outcry will hang Bush if push comes to shove because
it will be coming Worldwide and if Justice isn't served, and the World is
angry enough, it will administer justice in unorthodox ways...

Psssssth, like I would ever lose sleep over Poppy or JR roaming the
planet FREE...There are more important things in life right now that
need fixing. Our physical and financial survival depend on us keeping
our eyes on the prize and electing someone capable of getting the job done.

The past isn't going to do anyone any good to dwell on..The future is
what we're voting for. The Clintons are the only ones capable of handling
this undertaking and the only ones that stand a chance of turning this
disastrous white house into something we can once again respect and look up to..

You won't convince me otherwise. I just hope you'll come to your senses in November.

[blm]

57. HAHA..the Clintons helped get us INTO THE MESS by covering Poppy's ass

in the first place.

EVERYTHING happening today is part of the CONTINUING matter of BCCI and CIA drugrunning. Bury your head in the sand all you want - that doesn't move a great nation ahead and does NOTHING to respect the people as informed CITIZENS.

Your whole tact of letting BushInc off the hook is BULLSHIT Clintonism at its WORST that brought us Bush2 in the first place.

[Tellurian]

60. So, you're telling me that Kerry the almighty prosecutor,

Is going to take Poppy to task?

:rofl:

Kerry is having trouble enough handling Veteran retirees!

:::swiftys::: will be the first to go after Kerry.

His first test by fire. we'll see how well he fares with them.

That will be a big determining factor if he can hold his own with retirees.

[blm]

62. All he has to do is open the books and let chips fall where they may.

You think Clinton will remove himself from Poppy's ass when he speaks to the grand jury?

[Tellurian]

66. Is he going to do this

from Beacon St...

Let's start him off with a low bar..

The swiftys are the first test..

We'll see if he exhibits the 'deer in the headlights' and is able
to thoroughly crush the ancillary opposition first.

Just so you know, blm..I like taking to you
I think you're great.

[blm]

67. He will do it. The Clinton advisors looking out for Clinton's ass are gone

The swifts are no longer an issue - as they will be meeting an entirely new force set up by vets FOR vets. That same force will be used with ANYONE attacking vets politically with smears.

Kerry doesn't have to deal with them, as he never should have in the first place.

So he can concentrate on smears from those who protected terrorists, their banking networks, and BushInc - - and let the chips fall where they may.

[Tellurian]

69. Don't be so sure of that..

Clinton has garnered plenty of political capital over the last few years.
His job will be to watch Hillary'sass freeing him up to do anything and everything
to strategize her campaign.

If Kerry is able to get money laundering evidence on him, that ought to do it.
I hope he does..it's a full time job doing the research and grunt work that-
Kudos to him for that...and as you say, let the chips fall where they may..

:toast:

[blm]

71. Not a matter of any Clinton crime - it's how he covered up FOR Bush1's

crimes. The choices HE made to protect Poppy over the people's right to know and how that cover up brought us Bush2.

[Tellurian]

73. So, what your saying is you have a "grudge" problem..

I guess to figure out or prioritize
the importantce of your information
can you please provide a detailed summary
of how we went from Bush1 to Bush2 and
Clinton's part in the coverup.

I'd really like to know.

[blm]

89. I'll quote Robert Parry - Hey Democrats, Truth Matters

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2889557&mesg_id=2889557


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.
>>>>>>

[sandnsea]

51. Hillary can't get any of that done

She'll have half the country permanently against her and there will be absolutely nothing she can do to change that. It'll be a mission for the Republicans to sabatoge everything she attempts.

She'll also have the Greens and half the Dems against her, because of the true results of many of Bill's economic policies. It was good in the short run, but let's not forget where those policies have left us today. The truly good policies of the 90s didn't come from Bill. I haven't heard them admit there are serious problems with NAFTA either.

This is why we still need John Kerry. Underneath it all, rational Republians still respect him, see Warner on Iraq. He always saw the problems with global trade and tried to fix them at the time. He actually supports unions, which I've never heard Bill truly support. He's put forward some truly innovative health care, education, housing and day care initiatives. He's been a leader on the environment. He's been 100% correct on Iraq, even warning that we should only go to war because of WMD, which Bush didn't do and Kerry DID warn about in Jan 2003. Every speech he gave in 2004 was correct, as is his plan to stabilize and get out of Iraq, that people are finally moving towards.

He is the one who led against Rice, Bolton, Alito, specifically. Voted against all these Bush cronies. He's been absolutely everywhere fighting Bush these last 2 years.

What's Hillary done? Absolutely squat, except come out against violent videos. Wow, way to take a visionary stand.

Hillary sucks. No way.

[Tellurian]

53. All that you mentioned concerning Kerry may be True.

but you're forgetting they were on his terms.
He allowed himself to get swift boated when he should have defended himself
like a common street fighter could have.. Why did he throw the towel in after
the election so soon?

At least with Hillary and Bill, they will get to the bottom of the election results
if there is any question of manipulation if it the results are unfavorable.

Kerry is like 'a deer in the headlights', when it comes time to get down in dirty.

No Thanks, he had his chance and he blew it!

And it's not that I don't appreciate the issues he's been addressing.
But I'm not about to back a horse again in the next election thats afraid to WIN!

[sandnsea]

54. rotfl, Clintons will get to the bottom of election results???

Well then were the hell have they been for 6 years?? Did you not read that Carville was the one who tipped the Bush campaign off to the fact that the Kerry people were considering fighting Ohio?? They've done NOTHING on election reform.

Clinton almost got thrown out of the White House, that's the kind of fighters they are. And they weren't even up against Rove and the media we've got today.

Bill is a great politician and I love what he's doing to address poverty and AIDS issues around the world. As it comes to the Democratic Party though, they've done much much more harm than good and they need to just go away.

[Tellurian]

64. So, why didn't Kerry Fight in Ohio?

Sure, I read about Carville...So, he tipped off the Bush gang.
Kerry should have gone to Ohio, barged in with a film crew on
the 11 counties counting votes and had advisers there monitoring
each county knowing which ones showed the anomalies and pounced on
Blackwell like stink on skunk..and stopped the whole process until
both sides were present to witness the vote count..

So, what did Kerry do? He rolled over kissed Teresa goodnight and went to bed.

end of story.

If BK didn't have the research done 2 yrs later...

we still wouldn't know what happened.

Oh, and btw...Clinton was never in any danger of getting thrown out of the White House
as you so flagrantly purport.

You do know why don't you?

BECAUSE IT WAS ALL A SMEAR...THE REPUBLICANS NEVER HAD A CASE!
we all knew it in 98'...

[sandnsea]

72. What do you think happened?

Even in Warren County, there weren't enough votes to overturn the election. There's supposedly some massive fraud because of so many Repulican votes - 68,000 to 26,00; yet the recent primary had 22,000 Republicans to 5,000 Democrats. They have punch card ballots. There's absolutely no evidence something illegal happened with the actual vote results, certainly not that would overthrow the election. I've checked county after county, and there just isn't enough ballot tampering type problems to indicate the election should be challenged. They steal elections before the ballots are cast, the same way they've always done it and there isn't a whole lot that can be done about it. Look how many Democrats support picture ID's without accepting that's the next way people will be disenfranchised.

And I don't know what you were doing in 1998, but Clinton was impeached. I don't call that beating down the right wing machine successfully at all. If we hadn't had the majority in the Senate, Clinton would have been gone. He's so arrogant, he claims it as his success instead of thanking the party for saving his hide.

[Tellurian]

76. Here's something informative for you too read..

http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/discus.cgi?pg=next&topic=2197&page=36601

Theres a pdf file in this link to Richard Hayes Phillips' Report
documenting evidence of the ballot thefts in Warren County. The
case of the disappearing unused and spoiled ballots that were never
returned to the S of States Offices as of Sept 29 06'. If Kerry had
been there to oversee the ballot count it never could have happened.

Furthermore, he believed what Blackwell told him, per their telephone conversation.
And if Bobby Kennedy didn't order the forensic audit; we'd still be in the dark
because your boy didn't think it was important enough to know!

Clinton's Impeachment was a sham and you know it. You're so full of crap and half
truths. The senate vote was based on the evidence. They voted there was insufficient
evidence to meet the criteria of High Crimes and Misdemeanors to even begin a Trial
for Impeachment.

Listen my computerized Bull Shit meter is going berserk flashing lights,
whistles and bells. Oh, oh...a message is playing.."get the hip boots out ...
this one is getting deep.."

Oh, the democratic party saving Clinton's hide...like who for instance?

[sandnsea]

83. I've already read that

I went through various counties and worked up my own spread sheet by checking the election day reports, recount reports, etc. I'm well aware of all these claims, picking straight out of your link:

Shortage of voting machines - Even if you came up with a documented plan direct from the campaign to short machines, the people involved would be prosecuted. There's no way to know how many votes were lost. They would have to literally have Bush on tape directing someone to short machines in order to turn over an election. Don't have that.


Similar errors that don't amount to enough votes to turn the election:

Cuyahoga – hundreds of votes shifted - HUNDREDS, not enough to turn an election. That's true of almost ever irregularity that exists. Even adding them up, they don't equate to 60,000 votes.

Oval stickers – covered either written names or stray marks, fewer than 100 out of 89,000

Questionable Voids and duplicates – 60 from Clermont county

Ballot remakes – we fought for the remakes in Florida, now we want to fight against them in Ohio? 500 ballots in Miami County

Vote shifting at the Methodist Church due to incorrect ballots for precinct – 100 votes

Cuyahoga – 177 votes in the disqualified Nader column, 362 overvotes where people supposedly accepted ballots that were pre-punched for President and kept them


Kerry - down ticket - I always have to go right back to my own district on that, my very liberal candidate got significantly more votes than Kerry, people really did push the button for liberal Pete DeFazio and push the button for Bush. People vote oddly, it's a fact.


Whether Kerry received more votes than Gore+Nader, puzzling, I know. Not proof of a stolen election, 9/11 really did change peoples minds about security. It's always possible.


Tabulators, computer techs, etc – Just because something worked differently than normal, or even against the rules, where’s evidence that something untoward happened to the votes as a result?


Gay Marriage is quite interesting, the most interesting peculiarity of all. Still, it amounts to 10,000 votes, not enough to turn an election. Similar to the 13,000 Ellen Connally votes, which actually can be eplained as I already stated.


This is what I've come up with, time and time again. Small numbers of very normal errors that always happen, or peculiarities that wouldn't turn the election anyway. And no evidence of how fraud happened, if it did. There's just no evidence that would overturn the election.


And as to Clinton, of course the impeachment was a sham. But it isn't like Clinton beat the Republicans into a bloody pulp the way people are claiming. He hung on by a thread, and every Democrat stood by his side. Al Gore cast the tiebreaker vote for chrissake. Where's Hillary been for the last 6 years, if the Clintons are so savvy against the Republican machine. They've been the biggest part of the problem, just like they were in the 90's.

[blm]

56. The manipulation of election results was assured by McAuliffe's inaction

and letting four years of RNC 's vote suppression, purged voter rolls and control of voting machines go uncountered.

And Clinton handpicked McAuliffe for that job.

And Kerry countered the swifts 5 years faster than Clinton countered the claim that "Clinton did nothing for 8 years to get Bin Laden" that EVERY Dem candidate was saddled with in 2002 and 2004.

[saltpoint]

59. Well, she may be our nominee, but I reject the notion that she alone

can be a multitasker.

Isn't (almost) any president, by job definition, a multi-tasker?

A President Kucinich or a President Dodd or a President Richardson could all meet the criteria of your list, couldn't they?

She wouldn't be any worse than many but she's no better than many either.

[elehhhhna]

96. Odds are Bill will predecease Hil. She doesn't look so hot when you

consider THAT.

NO MORE FAMILY POLITICAL DYNASTIES. PERIOD.

[DefenseLawyer]

80. Clark can't be Secretary of Defense

by statute the Secretary of Defense must be a civilian who has not served on active duty in the military for at least 10 years prior. It is a good thought, but Clark was on active duty until 2000 I believe.

[Tellurian]

100. !

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. John Edwards And Obama Are The Only Ones Who Can Stop HRC...

She would beat Kerry like a drum...

That's my projection not necessarily what I want to happen...

[Tellurian]

10. Why STOP Hillary?

She needs a team. All the Dem front runners posses a specific talent
which I believe would be invaluable for the WH leadership.

I don't believe (alone) Kerry, Edwards or O'Bama are capable of straightening
out the mess Bush has put this country in. We're talking about a worldwide problem.

[Bucky]

22. For she is a mighty juggernaut o'Clintonismo! Look on her works & despair!

Can no one see the writing on the wall
Relentless
In excess
Nothing lives and none can stand in its way
Crash course
Full force
Crushed before the mighty juggernaut
We got to stand and fight
This creature forged in fear
We got to make the message clear
With omnipresent eyes
The beast prepares to rise

--Raven, "Life's a Bitch"

[Tellurian]

40. BALONEY..

nothing but!

[demwing]

52. The Tempting Of Hillariel

"And now at last it comes. You will give me the Presidency freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!"

Was that over the top, I can never tell?

[Bucky]

65. that....

was awesome. Tell me when the movie comes out.

[Tellurian]

77. Who was that Sally Fields?

at some Academy award night?

[ecstatic]

23. thats my question too, why does she need to be stopped?

I thought the plan was to put a Dem in office? :shrug:

[Tellurian]

35. These posters constantly BASH the best and most suitable

candidate for our time..

Think about it for a second..

Do you think in your wildest dreams Bill Clinton
is going to allow another election to be stolen from US?

And if it does happen again, do you think HE won't STAND UP
and FIGHT for US?

Out of the 2 predecessing candidates, they were ill prepared to run the gauntlet
and go the limit to take what was legally theirs.

I don't want to back a horse that is afraid to win anymore.
I want to back someone that would DO what I would do in the same situation..
and that is to fight for what is mine, fair and square and keep fighting
until it's done.

[blm]

58. He won't stand up and fight for us because he's busy protecting Poppy Bush

He put McAuliffe in place who left uncountered four years of RNC vote stealing efforts.

You want to venture whether McAuliffe neglected election process security for four years deliberately or not?

[Tellurian]

68. Tell you True...

I never liked Terry McAullife and probably never will.
I'd rather not know if his actions were deliberate or not,
my shit list is long enough already..

I think Clinton's major fault is giving his unbridled trust to people.
He did the same with Janet Reno and look where it got him.

Stop worrying about Poppy...Karma takes care of people like him. You'll see.

We have to worry about our kids and Grandkids to come..
Believe me, they will be lost if we don't fight this fight now.

[blm]

70. Are you kidding? Clinton covering for Poppy GAVE US Bush2. you want Bush2

crimes covered up by the next Clinton? Fock that.

Clinton covering up for Poppy LED to 9-11 and this Iraq war, and endless war profiteering. Fock that.

[Tellurian]

78. You've fallen into the emotional Fascist Pit

and you can't get up..

Can't you see the paradox...you become what you hate...
Let it Go, get rational and productive.

[blm]

90. The lying and coverup is dysfunctional - you want more of it - I want NONE

of it and want the books opened.

Your absurd conclusions are the result of your failure to accept that Clinton is stuck so far up Bush's ass that James Baker has to reach a long way to shake hands.

[Tellurian]

91. Sorry, you're backing a dead horse...

After last nights reaction to Kerry revealing he's contemplating another "crack" at running,
the overwhelming reaction @ DU was fiercely against him. People that have worked hard (I did)
to support him feel angry and betrayed..We sent our money, we spent countless hours volunteering,
we believed, as I did, his faithful promise, "I WILL FIGHT TO MAKE SURE EVERY VOTE GETS COUNTED."

In the end, Kerry didn't come through, not even close. HE NEVER TRIED! He ran a sloppy campaign
delegating too much authority to people who were specialists at losing campaigns!!

God, in hindsight, that doesn't even make sense,

Why you keep up this facade of wanting to resurrect Kerry is beyond me!
And as I said before, you have turned yourself into an emotional fascist,
blaming everyone else for Kerry's failure to get the job done. A leader
takes FULL responsibility for any and all outcomes. Gore is not his equal.
Gore stands head and shoulders over Kerry. Gore was blindsided..
Kerry has no excuse for his supreme failure to secure his election.

You are extremely non-productive at this point and are a liability to the
Democratic Party if you continue on this never ending "if come" rant concerning
Bush/Clinton. It's all conjecture at this point. When it's proven as fact, we can
deal with it at that point in time.

So, please do me a favor, find something else as a debating issue and I will be
more than happy to respond to you. Kerry is no longer a viable presidential
candidate for my consideration. And as I said before, he would make a great
AG or another cabinet appointment, if we're fortunate enough to out witt these
perennial thieves infesting the voting process.

People may not be too happy with Hillary, but she has
plenty of time left to improve her image. She can do this
by listening to people, refining her message, and putting forth
a message reflecting her platform, as the 'will of the people'.

And never in my wildest dream could I ever imagine Bill Clinton letting
a Republican getting the best of him..he's proven himself a winner.
And the primary reason for backing Hillary all the way to the steps
of the White House. Together, they will fight for US until WE WIN!

[blm]

93. HAHA..She's being set up to cover up for Bush2 like Bill covered for Bush1

If you think this country is better off BECAUSE Clinton closed the books and covered up for Poppy Bush - then you are wasting your breath.

And if YOU concern yourself so much with what DU says - then look at the poll results if they matter so much to you. DU trusts Kerry more than Clinton.

I never cared one whit about what the majority of DU says because most are recent activists who are still learning about what's been going on in the world and how it relates. I expect more will catch up as they are exposed to real history.

You want to run a poll? Ask DU who they would trust to open the books on BushInc as president. Then take a poll asking who they would expect to cover up for BushInc as president.

And if you think Clinton WASN'T bested by Poppy when he covered up the outstanding matters of IranContra, BCCI, Iraqgate and CIA drugrunning, then you must believe that Clinton KNOWINGLY closed the books because ............... please inform us what his brilliant action accomplished.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[blm]

95. My ass is in GREAT SHAPE.

You can take your "emotional fascist" taunts and shake hands with the coverup crew you seem to adore. The books WILL be opened.

Covering up for Poppy Bush is just SOOOO 90s.

[Tellurian]

99. But the myopic views you propagate are not!

as exhibited here:

last night's direct response from live participants here at DU
show Kerry's viability at another WH run, in serious question..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2563329

[blm]

101. Covering up for BushiNc is just soooooooooo 1993.

.

[blm]

27. If you think any of mentioned can beat Kerry in debates - you're dreaming

.

[Radical Activist]

98. I would add Gore to that list

if he runs. I would be very happy with any of those three.

[jobycom]

3. Not sure. Unlike many, I beleive both would be excellent liberal choices

They are not only more liberal than the Swiftboaters around here want us to believe, but they both have the experience and ability to get things done, rather than just talking about stuff that sounds pretty. I hope we get to make a choice like that. I would have to listen both of them, see what they say and how they feel during the campaign.

And I'd consider other candidates, too. Especially if Gore runs. But, if those are the only two choices, I have no problem with either, and both could win the general. Hillary would win more easily, though.

[HereSince1628]

5. I want a progressive option in the primary.

And if there isn't one I'll be writing one in.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Russ Feingold Will Be Running.

Here are the favorites in order but not necessarily my favorites. Call it my crystal ball...

HRC

John Edwards

John Kerry

Joe Biden

Russ Feingold

Obama's the wild card... I don't see Gore or Clark running...

[bdamomma]

19. Do not underestimate John Edwards he has been under the

radar and working very hard, just like Wes Clark.

[RaleighNCDUer]

34. Last time out, Clark/Edwards was my dream ticket.

Wouldn't be so bad this time, either.

[bdamomma]

50. Elizabeth Edwards was on Hardball last nite she looked great

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. I Got Him In The Two Spot... That's Not Underestimating Him...

eom

[blm]

29. Because we all know open government and clean elections is NOT progressive

so we have to choose someone other than Kerry who believes in those arcane ideas.

[HereSince1628]

39. Pick a belief about Kerry and sell it. That's ok with me.

But I want a progressive who is committed to progressive principles. I don't see Kerry as that person. It's my priviledge and yours to support whom we prefer.

I want someone who has a history of political life making decisions that make progressive sense.
That is to say someone who has stayed on a steady course supporting things I believe, and it would not include anyone who has ever had membership in the DLC.

The field of potential primary candidates I could support is to say the least, constrained.

[blm]

41. Then how did Kerry end up with the most progressive record of any nominee

and out of all the 2004 Dem candidates had the record closest to Wellstone's - and Kerry's was based on a 19yr career.

I think you really don't KNOW that Kerry's entire career has been a progressive one.

He was the fIRST senator ever to write and submit a bill protecting gays.

He was the main advocate for gays to serve openly in the military.

He advocated for public financing of campaigns since 1985, and WROTE and submitted the Clean Money, Clean Elections bill with Wellstone in 1997 that took corporate money OUT of politics.

His anti-corruption and open government principles led to IranContra, BCCI, the illeglal wars in Central America, and CIA drugrunning to be investigated and exposed.

He and Kennedy crafted the SCHIP children's healthcare bill extending healthcare to more children in every state than ever before.

How you overlooked this record is a mystery. You can't find a more historically significant record from any other lawmaker of the last 35 years.

[HereSince1628]

44. Yep, and Kerry became a DLC member after doing much of that

The DLC is the most unprogressive organization within the Democratic that I know. Why would a true progressive do that?

I just can't reconcile a membership there with a steadfast committment to progressive principles.

[blm]

47. Kerry was a furthest left voice at the DLC - one pulling left AGAINST the

voices pulling right.

And he MAINTAINED his progressive voting record throughout racking up a record to the left of many non DLC members.

How right would the DLC have gone over the years with NO left voices chiming in?

[LibDemAlways]

6. Kerry won't get a second chance and Hillary

won't get a first. There is no one more capable of turning out the repuke vote than Hillary. She's irrationally hated by millions, and the Dem base isn't too fond of her either.

I'm hoping Gore will get into it. I'd like to see a Gore/Wes Clark ticket. That would kick ass.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. I'll Vote For Any Dem

But I think HRC is too polarizing to win a national election...

I'm fatalistic about these things anyway...

[Bucky]

17. How do you respond to the view "Mrs Clinton has maxed out her negatives"?

One argument in her support is that she can't really gain more opponents--people who are going to hate her hate her already--and that she has proven adept at winning over swingable moderates. What do you think about that argument?

[calimary]

26. Well, she recently added a new one, at least in my opinion -

when she voted for small, selective amounts of torture.

I'd been on the fence about her up til then. Now, my conscience won't let me go there. If she DOES wind up being the nominee, I will vote for her with great reluctance and resignation.

And as long as I'm at it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2888413&mesg_id=2888413

[Tellurian]

92. !

[LibDemAlways]

31. It's not just the mega-hate against her

on the part of the repukes. It's the distrust of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party toward her centrism and DLC ties. And, most importantly and pragmatically, (and it pains me to write this), the US is not yet ready to elect a woman president no matter who she is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. What State Does She Put In Play That We Lost In 2004?

If she can answer that affirmatively she has my vote...

Same for just about any Democrat...

[juajen]

49. We will not win without great disenchantment with pugs

Within that scenario, she will win many states not in play in 2004. Sounds like that famous "Clinton" timing thing to me.

[Bucky]

8. It's a tough choice--I'm not enamored of either, tho both could lead well

My concerns with Kerry are his political tin ear and his patrician demeanor. I just don't think he'd pull in the maximum number of votes--he's not a Diebold-proof quality of candidate. I think he'd make for an okay president, but frankly the bar's been set pretty low for the last six years. Senator Clinton would also be a decent president, tho I think she's a bit of a panderer and is a little bit too fond of heavy handed government regulation (moreso than President Clinton was).

But the real problem I have with Clinton is that I think it's bad for democracy to keep on going back to the same two nuclear families for our leaders. The imperial presidency is powerful enough and electing Mrs Clinton I think elevate dynastism at the cost of republicanism. I don't like and I don't trust the concentration of political power. I would only vote for her if she were our nominee--even tho politically I'm probably closer to her than to Kerry.

These are qualified concerns. Either is preferable to any Republican Party nominee. Both are intellectually qualified to do the job. Both would do us proud. Kerry is more electable.

[SheilaT]

9. I'd be so appalled that

these were the only choices that I'd probably renew my desire to move abroad.

I really hate all these straw polls about 2008. We're still some three weeks away from this year's mid term elections. We don't yet know what the new Congress will be. Bush and Rove are reported as being strangely optimistic about it, seemingly completely confident that Republicans will win. And I wouldn't put it past them. If there are no exit polls we won't really know what actually happened, and everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) will be falling all over themselves on November 8 to explain why the Republicans won yet again.

And even if Democrats win big, who knows what will happen between now and when the primary season really heats up.

Plus, I'm so effing sick of the same old same old names being put forth, that's reason enough to give up. Surely there's some other Democrat out there who'd be a plausible presidential candidate besides the same five or six who are constantly mentioned.

And none of this ever takes into account who the Republican nominee might be.

Think about a Clinton against McCain matchup. Kerry against Rice. Not that I have any idea who the R's might come up with, but it will make a difference.

[The Brethren]

12. My vote would go to Hillary Clinton.

[bdamomma]

13. geez, as much as l like both Clinton and Kerry

I think we need some new fresh blood for 2008, but I rather think about this mid term election, and to fight for our country and get it back to some sort of normalcy.

[MrCoffee]

14. HRC any day of the week.

[bullimiami]

15. i tried kerry once. i was very dissapointed. he lost me.

[Bucky]

24. Geeze you make him sound like a diet plan

Try Kerry-Oh's! Helps reduce deficit!

[tularetom]

18. I'd support Kerry although I'd vote for HRC in the general

the problem is I'm afraid Hillary will bring back the same tired old crew of inside the beltway loser consultants that attached themselves to Clinton and have never gone away since then. Kerry got bit in the ass by hiring these morans in 04 and I think he's smart enough not to make the same mistake twice. I'm not lookin forward to another Dem campaign screwed up by Greenberg/Carville/Shrum, Donna Brazil and Terry McAuliffe and that's just what we're gonna get with Hillary.

[peace13]

20. If I could muster the courage for one prayer...

which I can't because I used that Jan 2004 begging god to let * step on his dick during the last State of the Union Address before the 2004 election. 'Please god let this man step on his dick so the world can see what a farce he and his administration is!'.. I would pray that Kerry and Clinton not be a choice in a national election, ever! They can be strong forces in the administration of a fresh Democratic administration without a doubt. Peace on earth, Kim

[Bucky]

25. I should send you a Gold Star for that post alone

Thank you, even if you have placed in my mind the mental image of George Bush nude with a dangling 20 inch cock.

[novalib]

21. BERNIE!!

I'd vote for Bernie Sanders from Vermont!!

(I could live with either Clinton or Kerry as Vice President).

[blm]

28. When did Anti-corruption, Open govt., Clean Elections become NOT LIBERAL?

Do REAL RECORDS matter to people or internet MYTHS conjured up by the uninformed who plug themselves in to the corpmedia illusion?

[Zavulon]

30. Just give me someone who can win.

Hillary would turn out too many Republicans. Obama would turn out too many racists (in other words, Republicans). Kerry would get torn to shreds by the media and shot at by the Swiftboat fucks again, and it's my opinion that Edwards sank himself with that stupid Christopher Reeve comment.

Give me Gore. He can win.

[LibDemAlways]

32. What you said - completely agree.

[blm]

43. Give me a DNC who secures the election process so Dem winner's votes get

counted and can take office.

And so far we KNOW Kerry can get 60-65 million votes - the most votes cast in history.

Terry McAuliffe made sure the DNC didn't lift a finger to counter the RNC efforts to steal our votes in 2002 and 2004.

[BurtWorm]

45. I'd vote for Kerry, but I'd rather have Gore to vote for

[ecstatic]

46. So 7% would sit out (aka vote for Jeb Bush?) nt

[bigwillq]

61. Kerry (nt)

[Imagevision]

63. My vote and the neighborhood would go with Hillary

[WillyT]

74. Wow... Didn't Realize They Were On Any Ballots Nov. 7th ???

Must have been too busy helping ACTUAL candidates get elected.

:hi::evilgrin::hi:

[leesa]

75. I wouldn't vote for Clinton, she has lost her moral compass.

[Matariki]

79. One thing about Clinton bothers me - and I admit it's not fair

I think she's extremely qualified and would love to see a woman president - finally. But I worry about the creation of these dynastic families ruling the country - Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. And throw some Kennedy's in there too I suppose.

[mtnsnake]

81. haha, only on DU does Kerry have a chance against just about anyone.

Anywhere else and it's "been there done that, never again".

[ProSense]

82. Not only DU, here:

Clinton, a U.S. senator from New York, goes winless against four Republicans. Democrats Edwards, 2004 presidential running mate John Kerry, and Vilsack each draw a 2-2 split.

Political experts agree that Clinton, who unlike other presidential prospects has not been to Iowa since the last election, needs to work on her image. Giuliani and McCain are familiar figures who enjoy a reservoir of good will. However, they may be taken down a notch once the race crystallizes.

"We haven't seen the dirt fly in the nomination process. ... I think McCain and Giuliani will get dirty," said Georgetown University professor Stephen Wayne.

Experts say it's too soon to anoint anyone the favorite in a wide-open presidential race that's still two years away and features a long list of potential candidates from both parties.

But for Clinton, the Iowa Poll's findings raise warning flags, said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics.

Losing all four trial heats against Republicans - including Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee - feeds the doubts of those Democrats who wonder whether she is too polarizing to deliver a victory.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060924/NEWS09/609240335/1056

[AtomicKitten]

88. According to the link

Edwards is tainted by having run with Kerry, but still comes out on top.

Edwards, the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004, holds an edge in popularity among eight Democrats listed in the Iowa Poll who are seen as possible candidates.

The 54 percent of likely voters who view Edwards favorably outnumber the 30 percent who regard him unfavorably.

Among Democrats alone, 85 percent have a favorable impression of Edwards. "I think he's a good-hearted person," said Davis, of Centerville.

Sabato wondered about Edwards' electability after being on the losing ticket with Kerry in 2004: "They like Edwards, but can he win?"

Vilsack achieves a similar level of popularity while Kerry, a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, trails Edwards.

[pinto]

84. Neither are currently running for national office. I'm OK with a

wait and see what happens after this November's elections.

[question everything]

85. Oh for heavens' sake. "Mrs. Bill Clinton?'' On DU?

Her name is Hillary.

When you refer to a woman by her husband's name, this means that it really does not matter who she is. Her name can be Mary, or Elizabeth, or Hillary. She may be a nurse, a lawyer, or a homemaker. It does not matter. All that counts is that she is "Mrs. Joe Smith."

Only Republican women are "proud" to be called Mrs. Charles Jones.

Shame on you for going back to the 50s.

[AtomicKitten]

86. spazzy double-post - delete

[AtomicKitten]

87. I'd vote for Tipper's husband.

eom

[Radical Activist]

97. Kerry is more liberal and Hillary is not well liked by moderates.

I disagree with your assumptions.