John Kerry was the wrong choice... he sucks!

[kolpo]

"People barely know the guy."

That is exactly why a popular and know vice president shall be so important, someone like Hilary Clinton or even MCain(thought he is a republican). If he takes a vice president who is well known and popular(especially by swing voters) then can he still win.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by kolpo
That is exactly why a popular and know vice president shall be so important, someone like Hilary Clinton... If he takes a vice president who is well known and popular(especially by swing voters) then can he still win.

I thought you said popular, not polarising.

[Jac de Molay]

Originally posted by dojoboy
The vast majority of Americans are doing pretty damn well.

I have to wonder who's living in an illusory world here. The Midwest has been absolutely hammered by the last recession, and has hemorraghed jobs. So much so that Bush stands a strong chance of losing a typical Republican stronghold like Ohio.

Seems to have been an unpleasent consequence of the coronation the Democrats had for Kerry.

Nobody knew who any of the Dem candidates really were so it makes no difference.

This seems to have been a plus for Bush because it allows him the time needed to define Kerry for the voters before Kerry can do so.

Read: Drag the level of discourse down to a new low that makes the '88 campaign look like a garden tea party. Then again, I don't expect anything less from carnivorous bloodsuckers who pull out all stops to maintain their grasp on power. Kerry needs to grow a set of nuts and start fighting back or he will become another Dukakis.

[kolpo]

"I thought you said popular, not polarising."

Someone can be both popular and polarising, but I don't believe Hilary is so polarising. Howard Dean is what i call polarising not Hilary. Hilary Clinton can get the politican center if she wants it.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay
Read: Drag the level of discourse down to a new low that makes the '88 campaign look like a garden tea party.

Point being?

[Jac de Molay]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Point being?

We can count on Bush and cabal to use their usual tried-and-true tactics of character assassination to maintain their hold on power- I think its stated clearly enough.

They did it with McCain. They did it with Gore. This time, they will elevate it to an art form because it's the best and only chance they have.

[Sava]

Originally posted by dojoboy


Exactly! Six months ain't gonna change this by much. Plus, most Americans are not liberal. Gore won a majority of the vote in 2000 by 200,000 votes, which is not a mandate by any stretch. Bush won 30 states to Gore's 20. Thank God for the Electoral College. The idea that folks in California, with out the Electoral College, would decide the election over the wishes of Americans in a majority of states makes me shudder.

The vast majority of Americans are doing pretty damn well. Iraq, like it or not, is an extension of the containment effort of radical Islamic Fundamentalism and to prevent a large portion of the world's oil supply from being controlled any longer by unstable leadership. Americans support this whole heartedly, maybe not most 18 - 22 year-olds, but they live in an illusory world.

The electoral college is ****! It should be popular vote all the way. I shudder to think that boofoo-ass backwoods states have more power to decide things with the electoral college.

If an entire state goes one way, automatically, all the votes for the losing candidate of that state DO NOT COUNT.

Sorry, but every vote should count. Not just those of the winning candidate in the state.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay
We can count on Bush and cabal to use their usual tried-and-true tactics of character assassination to maintain their hold on power

The outrage you exhibit leads me to believe that you think a) this started with the Bush admin and b) is solely the domain of the right. How quaint.

[Sava]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The outrage you exhibit leads me to believe that you think a) this started with the Bush admin and b) is solely the domain of the right. How quaint.

I think, like me, he's just frustrated that the Democrats aren't as good at it as Karl Rove and his buddies.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay


We can count on Bush and cabal to use their usual tried-and-true tactics of character assassination to maintain their hold on power- I think its stated clearly enough.

They did it with McCain. They did it with Gore. This time, they will elevate it to an art form because it's the best and only chance they have.

Boo frickin hoo! Anyone who didn't expect his campaign to get dirty from both sides was foolishly niave.

OTOH one has to wonder about a candidate who is known for his "Bring it on!" statement/attitude only to squeal like a stuck pig as soon as it gets hot and heavy. Great presidential timber.

[Kuciwalker]

Why?

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Re: Re: Re: John Kerry was the wrong choice... he sucks!

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
As if Bush wasn't a loser.

In case you didn't notice, Bush did win

[Jac de Molay]

The outrage you exhibit leads me to believe that you think a) this started with the Bush admin

No, they've taken more than a few pages from the old Nixon playbook.

b) is solely the domain of the right.

Never said it was. But the right, especially Bush and Co., have elevated it to an art form. That just doesn't apply to Kerry but to anyone considered remotely hostile to the Admin (eg Richard Clarke, Joseph Wilson, ...)

Boo frickin hoo! Anyone who didn't expect his campaign to get dirty from both sides was foolishly niave.

I think Kerry has been relatively civil. He hasn't dragged around Bush's National Guard tenure too extensively, and he's stuck to the issues.

OTOH one has to wonder about a candidate who is known for his "Bring it on!" statement/attitude only to squeal like a stuck pig as soon as it gets hot and heavy. Great presidential timber.

This is absolutely devoid of meaning.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay
I think Kerry has been relatively civil. He hasn't dragged around Bush's National Guard tenure too extensively, and he's stuck to the issues.

Perhaps, but his surrogates sure haven't been very civil. Terry Mcauliffe, Ted Kennedy and others have done nothing but bash Bush, calling him a deserter, implying he knew 9-11 before it happened etc... Heck, we've had the senator from NJ, Frank Lautenberg go on the senate floor with a picture of a chicken making fun of Cheney and others as being "chickenhawks".

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think, like me, he's just frustrated that the Democrats aren't as good at it as Karl Rove and his buddies.

Indeed Sava. Clinton had it right, though. He set Carville off on the Republicans and Carville, even though he can be a wackjob, is almost just as good as Rover.