The 2004 Election all over again...

With the 2004 Election offically ending,it is absolutley vital that the fight go on. While we should remain focused on the fraud issues of this past election I believe its time we give part of ourselves preparation for the years to come.

I will be a first time voter in 2008 because I will be 18. I would just like to get a rough estimate on whom we think would best represent our values in 2008.

So who would you choose to be the Democratic nominee for the presidency in 2008.

NOTE: I apologize if this poll offends anyone because its not in the Campaign 2006 & 2008 forum, I believe there is really no action in there and its mostly dead, I really wish more people would take part in it...

Candidates that WILL LOSE?

What for?

I dont remeber havin those questions in there

Next time include the option "other", OK?

Those are my choices, though 2008 is so far off.

I didn't select anything in the poll. I'm really torn between these three. I'd like to see some combination of two of them on the ticket. Kerry would never run for VP, so maybe that puts him on top. I don't know if Boxer has any aspirations, but I'd love to see her somewhere at the top of the administration if not on the ticket.

If I can't have Prez, I'd love it if he were in the next admin SOMEWHERE! This would be a decent fit, I think. Eh? Eh? Or National Security Advisor? Eh? Eh?

I just want to see him somewhere high up in the administration where he can make a difference.

I didn't know too much about Clark, and he didn't get enough media attention, IMO.

But if Dean doesn't get to be DNC chairman, I'll support him. The next up would be Boxer because she is a progressive that stands her ground and is not afraid to speak out.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/428793

But I'd love Boxer as well.

defiantely

Kerry/Boxer '08....

My husband took our Kerry sign off the front lawn for the final time today... :cry:

My yard would look so empty without it. I would feel so empty without it cause its a way to express my self to my conservative neighbors. I did have 6 Kerry-Edwards signs in my front yard all set up real nicely surround 1 Bush-Cheney with an X spray painted across it...ah those were the days....

It's great to see such enthusiasm from the youth! Keep it up! With young people like you there is still hope for Democracy. :hi:

Up until the last primaries rolled around, I saw a few scattered Gore/Lieberman bumper stickers.

But I'm not sure I will support Kerry in '08. He'll have to really fight hard these next few years.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/428793

a statement on inaugurination day. (And, no, that's not a typo.)

but my husband made me promise not to put it back this time...says he's afraid people will think we're nuts (like his knee length dreadlocks make him look sooo normal)...but I promised, so...

The bumper sticker, however is staying!

inaugURINATION - LOL (took me a minute...) good one

Air American had their inaugural day here in the Detroit area yesterday and someone called in to the a.m. local show and called it that. I loved it so much, I adopted it for myself.

they would make a great team and it would warm the country up into eventually having a woman as president.

Just ignore the surly guy. Welcome!

article, correct? And you're only a teenager? You are great to be so involved and, for the record, Kerry would be my choice at this point, but 2008 is a long way away.

that makes me wanna dig it out of the higher up numbers and kick it 1 last time!!

I absolutely love Kerry.While 2008 is along time away it will b significant for me, ill be voting for the first time, graduating high school, and hopefully electing Kerry. I was at his rally in dayton and from that day on I told my elf i would never support another candidate running against him

to hearing more from you.

If you asked me this question 2 years ago, I would have chosen another, but now I want to see the man who was TRULY ELECTED claim his honorable position.

He should certainly be in the mix.

Since Howard Dean won't run, and Boxer can't win. I chose "none of the above"

There is no better candidate than this man! He will be one of the great ones!

if you think Kerry is the best we can do. We deserve much better.

I think we should give Kerry another chance. Look at the GOP, they stick together. All this back and forth bitching and moaning about how lousy a candidate he was played right into Smirky's hands. Sure some boo-boos were made, but we won't know what kind of president he would have been because we were too busy bashing and berating him. :cry:

First off, I think it's far too early to limit ourselves to any particular candidate. Secondly, the major problem Kerry had during the campaign is that he did not come across as genuine. I volunteered many, many hours for him, and had some of that view myself, though rarely articulated it during the campaign since I was so busy working to get him elected. That sense I had of him as concerned for his own political career above principle or the interests of the American people has grown since Nov. 2, due principally to the way his campaign and lawyers pulled up stakes immediately here in Florida and refused to help pursue charges of voter suppression, of which there were many. Watching him play to the cameras during the Rice confirmation hearings also bothered me. The country faces crucial problems that are far more important than his own political career. I likewise resent the fact he wasn't in the Senate on January 6. I can't think of a worse time to plan a trip to Baghdad. By doing so, he was able to avoid controversy from the debate concerning the seating of the Ohio electors, which no doubt kept him from being sullied. But in doing so he abdicated his responsibility as a Senator and as the most visible figure in the Democratic party.

I don't think it's time to decide on a candidate yet, because the party has far more important things to do. We need to work on organization, figure out what our core principles are, and then find a candidate that fits with those. Right now I like Barbara Boxer, though I expect she is not palatable enough for the American public. I'd be willing to give Richardson, Edwards, or Clark a shot. I don't even like listing candidates now though. So much can and will change in the next four years. Eventually I'd like to see Elliott Spitzer as a presidential candidate, but he will not be ready in 2008.

I would vote for Kerry in the general election if given no other choice, but I don't think I could muster the enthusiasm to put the hours into a 2008 campaign that I did in 2004.

I would have loved for him to be there too, but he would have taken the spotlight off Babs and Stephanie, and the Congresional Black Caucus. Bush owns the press, Kerry doesn't. Thankfully there are some more positive people around DU.

and I resent the implication that I am negative because I don't favor your chosen candidate. How many hours did you spend canvassing, making phone calls, and poll watching for Kerry?

Everyday I worked at the campaign office anywheres from 10 - 12 hours except Sundays which was about 6 hours. Phone call so damn many I couldn't tell you, research and paper work out the ass, and we worked starting at 7:OOam Nov. 1 all the way till 5:OOpm Nov 3 without any sleep and we were like zombies when it was all done. But thanks to a lot of coffee, stress, and just flat ass out being wired from it all we all made it. And I was one of many volunteers not a paid staffer. So now the question is exactly what all did you do and how many hours did you work since you find it so easy to question others about their commitment because that don't agree with you?

http://209.150.59.148:8080/dontphoto/sullivan/image/image2.jpg

KERRY! KERRY! KERRY!

I find so many people who imagine Kerry as the savior of the party and insist the election was fraudulent and should not be accepted did nothing to help with the campaign. My view is that if Democrats were as committed to working to secure victory as the Republicans were, we would have a Democratic majority. I applaud your efforts and hope you continue to do so in the future, even if we support different candidates in the primaries.

We don't know what situation the country will be facing four years from now. It is quite likely there will be candidates that none of us are even considering today. I suggest we wait until closer to the election to decide who we favor rather than limiting our options now.

I understand what you are saying - I know others who share your view and I have had numerous debates with them. There is some validity in some of these points. However, I have to ask: RICHARDSON???

How can you even suggest Richardson with what has gone on in NM???

As I said, I don't even like suggesting candidates at this point. It is far too early. Why should we limit ourselves when we don't know what the country will be facing in four years and who might emerge.

Kerry. But I will say there are those of us at here at DU, other websites, and all across this country that still support him all the way worked our asses off as well and will continue to do so. And are very proud to be doing so. Sorry you don't share our enthusiasm but there are thousands on top of thousands that do. DU doesn't speak for the majority of America. But again thanks anyway.










KERRY! KERRY! KERRY!

We are all working hard to make sure your vote (and all others) actually counts in 2008.

It's great you are taking such an interest in who leads our country so early on in your life.

Right now, I suggest you (and anyone else you can convince) focus all your efforts on election reform. We need all the help we can get. Don't worry, the candidates will be there in 2008 - we just have to all focus now so it even matters who runs then.

If we don't have meaningful election reform by 2006, it won't matter anymore. That's when HAVA mandates that we will have 100% evoting. And, as Edward Griffen, the producer of "Invisible Ballots" explains (link below). If that happens with no verifiable paper trail in place: "no reform candidate will EVER be able to get elected".

http://www.independentmediasource.com/evotingfraud.htm#Listen_Online

6-17-04 - Listen Online (52 minute interview) - INVISIBLE BALLOTS
Edward Griffin discusses electronic voting machines and how they will negatively affect our lives. (Source)
<G. Edward Griffin is the Executive Producer and host of the documentary, "Invisible Ballots". (watch preview online).>

After you listen to this interview, I suggest you get the documentary (Invisible Ballots), watch it, and get EVERYONE you can to watch it.

P.S. If I had to choose someone for President today, it would be Boxer, Conyers, Kucinich and Dean. Integrity is EVERYTHING.

I think he is just starting to fight,he's gonna take these guys out of office for the election fraud of 04 .And once Kerry exposes them to the people which I think he will. The people are going to stand up and demand that the rightful man takes office. Hence "change history" just a thought.

If Kerry wants to run again, he is going to have to come up with better/important strategy to win the South. I live in a red state (Tennessee) and there are a lot of Dixiecrats here that don't care for "northeastern liberals" that much. Some who want the Dems to nominate a southern governor may try to use this against him.

Even though Kerry carried my county and parts of Middle and Western TN, Tavis Smiley thought the Democrats need to put out someone who isn't afraid of mentioning the word GOD and won't write off the south. I thought this was one of the campaign's biggest mistakes. Kerry had quite a bit of support down here.

(Hide me from the Kerry bashers. :scared: )

his faith, it wouldn't be such a bad thing (and I am not religious). He didn't want to make that an issue, but obviously it has become one.
I'm not going to nail you, politicasista, I'm not a Kerry basher, just a lover. And I will just bet he learned a lot and might be more agreeable to a lot more people, especially after Shrubbie messes up, which is bound to happen. Heck, it's already happening.

If there's one thing he had, it was integrity. He wouldn't put up a farce for his character. For instance, Bill Clinton advised him to come out against gay marriage in MA, but Kerry wouldn't do that.

I think it's a shame that the South cares more about whether a candidate mentions God than whether that candidate wants to blow up the world.

I question if the Christians who care so much about a president's religion are the same ones that support the neocon ideology.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/428793

Your post, as usual, did a typical job of it.

:mad: :mad:

I believe any Dem candidate should campaign in every state, not just swing states. Give them a chance to like you! I think that is what it will take. You don't have to be from a red state, just care about them! And you don't need to pander to any groups either. Just mainstream American values.

I'm in EAST Tennessee - home of the GOP!

My city (Knoxville) also went blue, though the county went red, thus making the whole county go red.

I will protect you, praise be! We need someone who can speak to all. I like Kerry, but he's not my dream date.

He is cool too.

They are harder for the Repukes to attack because they have no federal voting records. I don't think it will be Dean though, but I hope Dean is DNC Chair.

Just had that thought today myself! Wouldn't that be a great duo?

What makes you think Kerry would run a better campaign the next time? Choosing Kerry again is '08 is just asking for another defeat. Howard Dean would be the number one choice, of course. Anyone thinking Hillary could win, let alone Boxer, needs a head check.

there were things his strategists could have done better, but a lot of people in this forum believe he won and it was stolen from him, i'm surprised you don't already know that about this forum after 80 posts :shrug:

anyway, welcome to DU :hi:

and don't mind me, i'm super duper sensitive and defensive :nopity:

I am well aware that the fraud most likely accounted for a 51% to 49% switch. That leads me to another point on why not to vote for John Kerry, he rolled over and conceded. He also was not present for the objecting to Ohio's electors. I have a feeling Howard Dean wouldn't take it lying down like Kerry did, if he could get a break from the media for once, he could run a killer campaign.

:D

Howard wouldn't have backed down, and he would've fought hard. I still wonder why Kerry conceded so quickly.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/428793

ya got there :hi:

If John Kerry didn't actually beat Georege Bush in this last election it was damn close in a legal race. Bush is unfortuantely a popular incumbent in a time of war and for Kerry to beat him in 2004 election, or come damn close was amazing. If you think Kerry couldn't bat anybody elese including Bush your the one thats nuts.

Another thing is I never supported Howard Dean but I thought he definately gave off good energy but Dean has just about half the chance Kerry does as winning. Face it, the media will make him out to be a loose cannon stemming back from the "I have a Scream" speech in Iowa.

Dean would make a great DNC chair and I think he'll get that keeping him out of the race in 2008 anyways. As far as Boxer goes shes even got a better chance then Dean because at least her own party supports her standing up to the Ohio vote and Condi. dean can't even get enough support to fill up 3 busloads of people so he blacked out the windows to make it look like they were filled, the media will remember that.

Kerry 2008

vote for Kerry.

But yes there were alot of ABB voters in the beginning there sure was. But what you and others around here either fail to realize or just refuse to admit it, is as the campaign when on and those ABB voters really got to know Kerry and what he was all about and what he stood for they were faithful supporters and still are today. Hell you have many here at DU that started out ABB but love Kerry now. Go check out all the Kerry websites there are many many for you to check out and ask people in those sites how many use to be ABB. I dare you. Next do a little traveling across the country and see how many started out ABB but in the end were not, see how many still support Kerry. I guarantee it's more than you want to admit.

Sure there are those who were upset over this election but everyone didn't turn on Kerry like a bunch of damn whiners. So you go on believing what you want but the truth is out there if you want to know it. It may not be what you like but it is there. And I don't expect everyone to support Kerry around here hell everyone knows that he wasn't well supported before this past election but as you seen he had many supporters then to. DU does not speak for the majority of Americans. You have a right to support ant candidate you want just as I do but when you speak of mine get your facts straight as I assume you would expect of me if I were talking about yours.

http://209.150.59.148:8080/dontphoto/rudick/image/image19.jpg

KERRY! KERRY! KERRY!

i was "ABB" before I knew anything about Kerry. Actually to quote myself BEFORE learning anything about Kerry, I was thinking of voting for a third party because i 'didn't give a shit about Kerry'.

Until I actually took some time and learned something about him.
I now still support him to this day and would vote for him again in 2008 with ALL my heart.

ABB at the beginning, then a full-on Kerry supporter as I got to learn more. I'm looking forward to watching what he does in the next few years.

I started out vague Clarkie (was only just awakening politically) and ended up a big Kerry supporter.

I still would like to have someone point out the poll or any other proof that most of the Kerry voters were ABB. Where did this statistic of 70% come from. Are people going mostly from anecdotal? Well if you tend toward farther left, then yeah, perhaps most of your friends were ABB. But I hung with mostly mainstream folk, and I'd say my experience was more 70% going the other way.

See anecdotal isn't going to work. It's not going to be a good indication of the rank and file. For one thing, I sense that we here are left of the rank and file. Of course, I could be wrong and welcome anyone who wants to show me I'm wrong.

But I do wish folks would back up this claim that most votes for Kerry were ABB. I haven't gotten anyone to show me any proof yet.

and think he would make a terrific President - but like it or not, many people had a very negative reaction to him. Why, I am not sure --- I found his enthusiasm heartening, and his points very strong. However, I know several people who couldn't stand him as a Presidential candidate, who heard him speak, after the primaries when he was taken out, and they all said, "Wow. That guy is really smart and makes a lot of sense." and were very impressed with him. Yet when I asked if that meant they would vote for him now, they all have indicated that no, they don't think he is Presidential material regardless of how intelligent he is or how much sense he makes. I am not sure why except that he tends to exhibit a volatility in his passion. Being very passionate in expressing views myself I certainly don't think that should detract from his value as a candidate, but others see it as lacking control - which scares them.

geez! Gore bought himself another chance - but Kerry/DNC kicked him out of the race.

better now, but I'll wait until 2008. I'll wait as long as it takes.

Kerry is the man of choice and the man to be the next leader of this country. And he will be a great one at that.

He represents our values, has the experience, and can present it well. He's the only one who can be a liberal but appear as a moderate. We'll need him to get the swing states.

Please, Senators do not win/have not won in 45 years...and that win was questionable. And before Kennedy, what President was a Senator first???

or non-senator would you recommend?

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/428793

I thought maybe you might be able to tell by my avatar. :)

Warren G. Harding (I'm pretty sure)

No way he gets the nomination. Frankly, I think the Democrats are done, and they'll lose the presidency regardless of who they run in '08. This was their time to stand up, and instead they chose to roll over and play dead. Heck, even Gore put up more of a fight than Kerry. Besides, he ran a lousy campaign, and couldn't even Destroy the Shrub. He probably Won the election, yet gave up when it was the opportunity to expose what was out there. Perhaps he was in on it, who knows?

If I had to pick, it would be Dean or Boxer, yet neither will matter since elections are a mere figment of the democrats imagination for many years to come, by the looks of things.

:cry: :cry:

Kerry didn't answer, at least until the echos faded. Almost as if he WAS in on it. I see zero chance for any effectual legislation getting passed now to assure a tamper-proof voting system for the next time around.

It's crucial that our next nominee have backbone, with the jaws of a pitbull. Someone who will stand up for the truth, and stand up for the people supporting him/her as their leader. Sorry, but Kerry has proven that he isn't that one. Why anyone would donate another cent to any future campaign of his is mind-boggling to me.

Dean or Boxer.

As well as many people find it mind-boggling why people why you see it necessary to eat your own in order to say you don't support that candidate or a decision he made. Sorry, but senators are no different from from anyone else they make mistakes or have to make a judgment call that you will never get everyone to agree with. Not everyone agrees on everything and your a shining example of that because many don't agree with your remarks at all.



KERRY! KERRY! KERRY!

Because there are many many Americans just like myself that find that statement utter bullshit. As I have said in other post you have a right to support who you want just the same as other like me have a right to support who we want. Your post is your opinion and does not represent many here at DU and other Americans across this country. But as they say opinions are like assholes everybody has one. Good luck in whoever you choose to support.


http://209.150.59.148:8080/dontphoto/lane/image/image5.jpg

KERRY! KERRY! KERRY!

communicate our values to those who may think they do not share our values?

For that, Wesley K. Clark is truly a gift to the Democratic Party.
:toast:

If Kerry wants to be president, he should've fought harder for the one he already won. I would only support him as a last resort, and then maybe not even that.

Clark/Boxer 08.

nt

There are many many that are still backing Kerry. There are a lot here but as I said DU doesn't speak for the majority Americans. Go check out all the other Kerry websites, check out places like Daily Kos, get out and do some traveling across the country and see for yourself how many are still supporting Kerry. So to say Kerry has had his chance as if he is yesterdays news is utter bullshit. But you go on believing what you want. But the truth is out there if you want to know the truth. You have the right to support anyone you choose as do all other Americans and thousand and thousands choose to continue to support Kerry. But those who don't have the right not to and I wish them luck in whoever they support.


KERRY! KERRY! KERRY!

I vote for Gore/Kerry

We need Gen. Wesley Clark in '08. :)

You don't speak for me and many many other American across this country, here at DU, and all throughout the internet. I'm sure you wish you did but you don't. You have a right to support who you want just the same as other Americans have a right to support who they want. So to say Kerry has had his shot is your opinion not that of all Americans. So I wish you and your candidate luck.



KERRY! KERRY! KERRY!

I didn't think I needed to say it was my opinion. Good luck to yours as well.

is the man for the job. :yourock: Wes!

Kerry is a nice person, a decent senator and I have nothing against him. However, he couldn't stomp the worst president in history; he didn't connect with enough of the "common" people and didn't define his position on Iraq and "terra" explicitly enough to satisfy the fence-sitters. Frankly, Clark could would have won in a walk. Rigged tabulators or not.

:hi:

He's been kicking butt. He's not about what people think, he's about doing. What possible good things could have come from him pretending to be like bush. He's not going to fake being stupid and ignorant so the masses could "relate" to him. I don't think he would have made a better showing of himself by yelling and screaming about the election. He's far too mature and dignified, and he knows better. He knows the law, and the system, and the last thing we all needed was a public recount that you can't verify, because of the methods of voting. Instead, he is starting by working to prevent the system from corruption (the Electoral Reform project), he is using his website and followers to be sure that children have proper health care. He went against the traditional "let the pres have whoever he wants" for Condi--he voted no. He just got back from a trip overseas to see what is really going on in Iraq, and meeting with foreign leaders. He's doing the job that so many of us know he had stolen from him. He's not about lip service. His commitment is to the citizens of not only his state, but of the nation. He's doing the job. People shouldn't need to have his position force fed to them.

You sure don't speak for me and many many other Americans in this country. You saying Clark would have one in a walk is nothing but pure speculation and your opinion. You can't win the election unless you are the nominee and as I remember he lost. Now that is the facts. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with Clark it just simply means he didn't have the votes to win.



KERRY! KERRY! KERRY!

One red state voted Blue. It was the state where Clark spent a month and got the media attention enough to convert life long Republicans to vote Democratic. New Hampshire shows Clark's winning abilities among Republicans and Independents.

http://digbig.com/4cmse

There is an interesting article in the LA times Sunday morning. It seemingly is off topic (A Toyota Factory Revs up in Tijuana). Since registration is required I quote <<"Teamwork, personal responsibility and looking out for the other guy, all things Toyota's system values, are not what the maquiladoras have been all about,">> As background, maquiladoras are low paying electronics factories in the border town and the term "Toyota System Values" are considered responsible for Toyota's incomparable success in the automotive industry. It seems to me that the phrase <<Teamwork, personal responsibility and looking out for the other guy>> have political consequence. Republicans worship the concept of personal responsibility; Democrats likewise stand for looking out for the other guy. Obviously everybody, even Independents, like to "own" teamwork. But in reality, as evidenced by his life story, it is Wes Clark who best brings together all these factors. Only Clark can bring enough Republicans and Independents into the election on our side.

One question If that is true why could he even get enough votes to win the primaries and become the nominee? That is your opinion and and doesn't represent all Americans. Which was proven when Kerry was the presidential nominee not Clark. That is fact not opinion.



KERRY! KERRY! KERRY!

The voters in the primaries are not indicative of the population at large. Hell, they are not even indicative of democrats -- unfortunately.

You have a great screen name. May of us are angry democrats. Angry that Kerry didn't fight back against the swift boat liars, angry that he didn't fight back against Diebold, angry that he made such a poor choice of running mate, and angry that he kept so much of the money we sent him to run again instead of winning this year.

But you can go and check out any of my post and tell I'm not the one angry at Kerry. Far from it. I'm not one that is going around bashing the man in fact just the opposite. Did Kerry make mistakes? Sure he did but who don't make mistakes. I don't care who it is or where they come from any candidate makes mistakes. The real test is do they learn from those mistakes. Yes Kerry made a mistake about listening to campaign managers about Swifty Liars.

I don't agree with you about the Diebold. That is where alot of people have a problem getting a grip. Kerry said and is going to fight for election reform but because he refused to do things the way some people wanted him to they are still pissin and moanin. There have been investigations done and yes there was voter intimidation ect. but there was not enough evidence that would hold up in a court of law to change the outcome of the election. And if you cannot change the outcome itself it doesn't matter if you have conceeded or not you can still fight for changing the system and bringing charges against those that you can prove did it. And knowing something happen is one thing proving it is another. And you would have had to hard evidence that would stand up in a court of law. You have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you had won enough votes to overturn the election. Do I believe he won? Yes Does Kerry believe he won? Yes but there is not enough there to change the outcome. Am I pissed over the election? Yes Is Kerry pissed over the election? Yes But all we can do is fight to make sure the shit doesn't happen again and try to get enough evidence together to prosecute those who did it. Do I blame Kerry for what happen here? Hell No he worked his ass off just as much as anyone to win this election and he is as much a victiom to all this as we are.

That is were I differ from those that choose to bash and make nasty remarks about the man. He didn't do everthing exactlly the way some people wanted and when they wanted it done so they find it easier to elect themselve god judge and jury and adopt it's my way or the highway attitudes. Well sorry I'm nothing like that and I know the man fought with all his heart and soul to win this election and was as devastated as anyone if not more when he lost. And I also know the man is madder than hell for the way he lost and he will fight back. I guess me being a supporter of his 18 going on 19 years I might understand how the man works more than those who havn't. I know he will fight for fair elections as will others democrats. So no I don't blame him for everything as so many around here find so easy to do.

Now about the running mate. Am I mad at him for the choice he made? No Did he pick the one I wanted? No Who did I want him to pick? Clark But did I dislike Edwards and find him terrible? No I just thought at the time Clark was the better choice. But you know what he is the one running not me and choices are made for a reason. Does everyone agree with them? No But that is part of life and choices will be made by all candidates no matter who the are that will not please everyone. Because everyone doesn't think alike. That is why when it comes to politics you have as much debating on the issues as you do.

What I get angry about is people start sounding like a bunch of damn repukes spewing bullshit lies about the man, making nasty ass remarks about him that are totally uncalled for, and they decide to elect themselves god judge and jury and get this it's my way or the highway attitude, and act as if they know the answers to it all they can change the world attitude. All I got to say to those that do I would like to see them walk in the man's shoes they find so easy to pass judgment on. Because if it were all so damn simple why is it he has the job and not them. Why are they sitting behind a computer screen criticizing others if they are so good why are they not senators or congressmen? As I'm sure you get pissed or angry when people do all I listed to your candidate.



KERRY! KERRY! KERRY!

I'm sorry that my post wasn't clearer. It's obvious that you aren't the one angry at Kerry, just a lot of other people.

<<Do I blame Kerry for what happen here? Hell No he worked his ass off just as much as anyone to win this election and he is as much a victiom to all this as we are.>>

I don't wish to be argumentative with a fellow Democrat (so many Republicans -- so little time) but Kerry did not work as hard in this election as Gore did in the last or Clark did in this one. Kerry took too many vacations in too elitist of a manner. He lost a lot of votes with swing voters with this silliness.

<< I also know the man is madder than hell for the way he lost and he will fight back.>> Perhaps, but he promised to do this(fight) before and during the election, not afterward. You seem to think that this happened to him. It didn't. It happened to the black voters and others who stood in line for 5-6 hours and Kerry has disrespected their right to vote. I am not sure how many more turns at this these minorities are going to give us Democrats. Fortunately Senator Boxer did something; Kerry couldn't even invest a moment of time to support her. Kerry has put congenial relations at his work place before the rights of the citizen/voters.

<< But did I dislike Edwards and find him terrible? No I just thought at the time Clark was the better choice>>

Someone (shorthand for media know it all) counted 72 Vice Presidential candidates. Edwards was my 73rd. choice. He was that terrible. Unlike Kerry, who I accuse of not caring enough, not trying hard enough, and not being good enough to beat Rove, Edwards is truly a nasty behind the back, back stabbing SOB (see General Shelton's comments). It seems that he was chosen for his contributors money which Kerry has decided to use in 2008, instead of this election cycle.

"In politics, we asked the question this year, 'If you got stuck in an elevator, who would you rather get stuck in an elevator with, George W. Bush or John Kerry?' The number one answer that was volunteered was, 'I'd rather die.' "
-- Dr. Frank Luntz, political pollster and consultant with an episode of PBS's "Frontline," titled "The Crusaders."

"One red state voted Blue. It was the state where Clark spent a month and got the media attention enough to convert life long Republicans to vote Democratic. New Hampshire shows Clark's winning abilities among Republicans and Independents."

Good point.

PS Thanks mein

That's the only reason I can't vote for Clark (even if he is a hottie)

Show some evidence that anything wrong took place there while Clark was CinCSouth? Tell me that you've never voted for a Senator or Congressman who voted to fund the SoA? Tell me what authority he could have used to shut it down, when it's established by executive order and funded by congressional resolution.

Makes more sense to vote for a guy who knows about what goes on in military institutions like the SoA (and Abu Ghraib), and what can go on when they're improperly supervised, and who has a track record of instituting safeguards to make sure the bad stuff doesn't happen.

I never voted until the last primary.

I saw an interview on Democracy Now (will try to find it) with Clark about depleted urainium that gave me chills.

What could he do to shut it down? I don't know but he is a staunch supporter of SOA - you tell me what to think!

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/1632224&tid=25

Monday, January 26th, 2004
EXCLUSIVE: DEMOCRACY NOW! Confronts Wesley Clark Over His Bombing Of Civilians, Use Of Cluster Bombs And Depleted Uranium And The Bombing Of Serb Television

128k stream: http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2004/jan/128/dn20040126a.rm&proto=rtsp&start=25:44.0

256k stream: http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2004/jan/256/dnB20040126a.rm&proto=rtsp&start=25:44.0

Partial transcript:

In a Democracy Now! exclusive, General Wesley Clark responds for the first time to in-depth questions about his targeting of civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia, his bombing of Radio Television Serbia, the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium, the speeding-up of the cockpit video of a bombing of a passenger train to make it appear as though it was an accident and other decisions he made and orders he gave as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click here to read transcript of Jeremy Scahill questioning General Wesley Clark :
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/1632224&tid=25#transcript

... is a man who takes responsibility for the decisions he made as commander in a war. Who doesn't hide from hard questions. Who feels remorse for innocent lives lost, and recognizing that such things invariably happen in war, feels that war must be a "last, last, last resort."

Anyone who becomes president will face difficult situations which may call for military action. I'd like to have someone with the kind of compassion and understanding, as well as experience, displayed by General Clark making the decisions in such a situation.

is not about what was formerly called the School of Americas. Short answer is your just plain wrong about the school's purpose. I'm sure if you listened to an interview of Clark about it, he explained that already.

and this is a viable issue. I may be wrong, but I am not the only one who sees this as an issue. I don't know if I'm wrong or not but everything I've read about SOA is HIGHLY disturbing to me to say the least.

I have seen disturbing things written about it too. The question is how much is fiction and how much is fact and how much is just bullshit hyperbole. But thats all I will say in this thread on it.

and I think it's important to debunk what is debunkable, especially before Rove would spin it, besides being certain we can fully support the candidate ourselves.

I hope to GOD it's debunkable because Clark is one HOTTIE?

Yea. The Kucitizen admits it. Clark is a hottie. YEAAOOOOWWZA!

He has to get enough votes to become the presidential nominee first.
That is speculation and opinion until he can prove otherwise. Good luck to you and your candidate.



KERRY! KERRY! KERRY!

i see GD peeps have come over to change the poll. real nice :eyes:

What's that?

those who don't usually frequent this forum as much as General Discussion.

There was a similar poll to this in that forum, and Clark was winning. My stupid ass posted in that poll that over here, telling them that Kerry was winning on the poll here. I just thought maybe they decided to come over and change it :shrug:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0117-01.htm

Published on Saturday, January 17, 2004 by the Boston Globe
Facing Questions, Clark Backs Army School
by Joanna Weiss

CONCORD, N.H. -- Retired General Wesley K. Clark sometimes downplays his Army background, and criticizes the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays. But there is one military institution he vigorously defends: the controversial academy once known as the US Army School of the Americas.

Opposition to the school, which trains military officers from Latin American countries, has long been a cause celebre among some Democrats and liberal activists, who say the academy has trained some of the most notorious criminals of the region and teaches skills that Latin American armies sometimes use against their own citizenry. Supporters of the school point to reforms from the 1990s, and say its courses teach foreign soldiers about democracy and human rights.

<snip>

and here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=clark+%22school+of+the+americas%22

I would say it appears he is aware of and has done his part to change the school. As CIC he could once again oversee it and make sure it is not being used for the wrong purposes again.
http://www.clark04.com/issues/soa/

She didn't say it was restricted. But sorry you get so easliy offended. Go take chill pill.



KERRY! KERRY! KERRY!

Are you saying I shouldn't be voting in a DU poll?

No where in her post does it say WesDem shouldn't be voting in a DU poll. Easily offended are we? Take a chill pill.



KERRY! KERRY! KERRY!

so I can vote in your polls at DU?

So we can vote in your polls at DU?? Again take a damn chill pill.



KERRY! KERRY! KERRY!

:shrug:

on the latest page to all the latest polls, regardless of the forum. I vote in polls from that page all the time that aren't in forums I frequent. I figured that's what the link was there for?

i'm feeling wierd lately. saying things that offend people. not sure why. it's not like me :shrug: :(

(wait, that last part isn't true who am i fooling!!!) j/k

Forget it.

:pals:

:hug: :hi:

:hi:

I didn't see your "stupid ass" -- thank God -- I came here all by myself and saw your stupid words. :shrug:

Glad you found it we wouldn't want you getting lost. In the meantime I wouldn't call others a "stupid ass" using quotes like "Uh Uh". Let's see who was that used to say that all the time:think: Oh I remember it was * he was always saying "Uh Uh it's hard work." In the meantime take a chill pill.



KERRY! KERRY! KERRY!

So I'll leave it be.

Faye called herself "stupid ass" -- that's why the quotation marks!

But me and Faye, we're okay. :)

You, on the other hand, calm yourself.

I worked for, gave money to every month, and voted for John Kerry. (Hey, maybe we have something in common.) He wasn't my first choice, but I dropped all that on 2/11/04, just like Wes Clark did. I don't hate the Senator and I don't go tearing around after his supporters, but that's just me.

Alerting DU members to a poll on DU (as meaningless as they are) is plain old GOTV. Similar to: "DU this poll." There is disagreement on this point, and while I respect others' opinions, it's no reason for me to change mine. The main point is "DU members" and people who pay their dues get to vote in DU polls, no matter who doesn't like it. And frankly if anybody wants to look, they will find such alerts somewhere on the world wide web on candidate-related sites. We found them during the primaries, it's no biggie. But the primaries are over now. No reason hostilities can't cease. I defend Wes Clark when he is attacked. But search as anybody may, you will find not one anti-anybody smear post or thread initiated by me.

There are too many Kerry supporters I genuinely respect and like to have one I don't, influence my opinion of John Kerry or his contingent, so carry on LMAO-ing. At some point, you won't have an ass to sit on, but that's your business.

sorry i find it a little dishonest, almost to the point of cheating but just tipping the borderline

from a post in GD "There is a general belief among many that the only reason Clark does well in 2008 Presidential preference polls at DU is because links are being left at outside Clark oriented sites asking people to come to DU to vote for Clark.

Some think there is nothing wrong about links to DU from other Democratic sites asking for participation here, some think that unfairly skews poll results and/or participation on the forums here."

not a big deal, just pointing that out is all. i really am not trying to start an argument just stating how it seems. :)

Last year Clark won virtually every poll here on DU, yer Kerry won the primary.

than the average voter.

The first votes were in Iowa at the caucuses

supposedly due to his late entry in the race.

true. Still, Iowa has a huge impact.

Hell far what a damn joke! LMAO LMAO!! Why don't you go ask Skinner how many members were here at DU then. Next minus off the ones that supported Kerry here at DU. Then your next step is to take the number of members you have left over and minus that from the number of people that voted in the primaries and see how many Americans you have left over. That will tell you how many voted in the primaries that never even visit this site much less take a damn poll. LMAO! Or is that to complicated for Freddie? It may be after a comment like that you would have to wonder if you could do simple math. LMAO! What a damn joke. Keep dreaming Freddie keep dreaming! LMAO



KERRY! KERRY! KERRY!

someone sent an army over here to take over the poll :P

If it makes them feel better let them do it. You know yourself all the Kerry supporters havn't been here yet. Look at the names that are missing and you you will see for yourself LOL. Vector and WildEyedLiberal just to name a couple. And you know if they had been here they would have posted. But like I said who cares regardless LMAO. It doesn't matter one way or another its a DU poll not a voting booth LMAO.



KERRY! KERRY! KERRY!

the Navy came ;)

i was right. :P

thanks for the idea though, i might have to borrow it :hi:

honestly i can see Clark and Kerry in the same cabinet if there ever was one :hi:

Me, too.

According to your judgment, you were right. According to mine, you are not. So there :P

:crazy:

This poll is consistent with the other polls that have been on DU. It's not necessarily an indicator of exactly what Democrats think nationwide- I'd be amazed if anyone actually thought it was. Clark has a lot of supporters, Kerry has a lot of supporters. Practically all of Clark's supporters BECAME Kerry supporters for Nov. 2. If you are really as stressed about all of this as you seem in your posts I'd be concerned for your health, so I'm hoping you only write this way.

I hope you aren't saying that seriously, as common sense would say a lot more goes into factoring who wins the primary.

Read Again. It doesn't say anything about factoring who wins. If you read the post all it is doing is giving him a way to do simple math to see that these DU polls don't represent shit except for those of us that are members. The polls here at DU sure as hell don't prove Clark won as he was saying. It is a way for him to see the difference between how many members vs voters so he can see that there were more voters per say in Iowa vs DU members. GET IT.



Kerry! Kerry! Kerry!

He's the only one who represents my own progressive values, who I think has a really good shot at winning the election, if only he can get past the primary.

I would like to see Barbara Boxer as his running mate.

It is way past time that we have a female in the Top Tier of Power. We are, afterall, fifty percent of the population. Or is it 51?

Conyers/Boxer
Clark as Sec. of Defense.
Kerry as Sec. of Veteran Affairs.
Dean as Sec. of Health and Human Services.
Clinton as Atty. General.
Edwards Sec. of State.
Feingold as Sec. of Labor.
Obama as... as much as I like him, I don't think he has enough experience for a cabinet position yet. Maybe Ambassador to Kenya (his father's home country). :shrug:

And I'd finally give Kucinich the cabinet position he's always dreamed of, Sec. of Peace.

She had the conviction to stand up and say no!!! She represents what we need in our democratic nominee. Honesty and Integrity.

but right now, in January 2005 I'm definitely a Kerry backer. For those who say "at least Gore put up a fight", that's because the election was LEGALLY close enough for him to do it, and (supposedly) he wouldn't look like a fool for doing it. Of course the rethugs tried to make him look like one anyway. Kerry's OFFICIAL, ie LEGAL count was nowhere near those of Gore, so he had NO LEGAL STANDING.

It's easy to say that Dean would have fought, Clark would have fought - they weren't in the position to, and had they been, I really doubt that they would have. Not if they wanted to keep their political integrity.

It's easy to say Kerry should have fought, but, had he fought, he, as well as the democratic party, would have been the losers. If you don't have what you need LEGALLY it's not gonna work, and you're gonna look like a fool, unless you own the media, which the democratic party doesn't.

Anyone who doesn't understand that needs to study this regime a little more IMO. Kerry has emerged with his integrity intact (obviously not with a few DU'ers), but with the people he really needs it to be intact with, to make any effective change. Watch and see - I think maybe you'll learn that.

Getting some people around here to understand that makes you feel as if your talking to a block wall. And there are many that need to study more. And I respect other peoples choices about who they decide to support because that is the way it should be. What I get mad is when they bash and make nasty remarks about mine. Their are to many around here that like to eat their own. And I understand people get angry sometimes and they say stuff but there are people that is all they know. I have gotten mad and said stuff about other candidates at times I will be the first to admit but I also admit I was wrong for doing it when I do. You can disagree and not support a candidate without bashing, lying or making nasty remarks about them all the time. There is way to much eating your own around here.

There are many like yourself that are not decided and as you can see there are man that are. Those that are should respect the choices of others. As I said you don't have bash, lie, or make nasty remarks about a candidate tho get your point across that you don't support or disagree with a candidate.

but the last thing I see in your posts are "respect" for others.

You jump all over anybody who disagree with you and either label or categorize them. Everybody that disagrees with you either 1) doesn't represent the "majority" of Americans, 2) do not speak of the truth, 3) "bashes" your candidate or 4) have not worked as hard as you in the Democratic campaign to justify a voice.

Well you are wrong buddy. Most of us like Kerry just fine. We just do not believe that he was or will be the best presidential candidate. Those are OPINIONS, just like yours. Tak e your own advice and CHILL.

Sincerely,

J.

My candidate would still be the same, Dennis Kucinich, but I voted for John Kerry, since I am realistic and think he stands the best chance.:shrug:

Kerry in 2008?

what makes anyone think that he would run a different campaign in 2008 than he did in 2004

he ran on one issue--he served in Vietnam and Bush didn't and we see how far that got him

he supported the war in Iraq and then didn't and then did and then didn't, ad nauseum

THK, bless her heart, was more of a liablity than an asset

there are a lot of people that disagree with you :shrug:

First it was Kerryed, then it was Clarked, then it was Kerryed.

GO WES!!

then why did everyone run over here to tell me off WHEN I WAS RIGHT!!!????? :grr:


j/k

You think you're right because you think vote calls to DU members are wrong. I think you're wrong about that. I see nothing whatever wrong in alerting DU members to vote in a poll. Therefore, I think you are wrong. But I don't have to agree with everybody on everything to know a good person when I see one. There are others on DU who share your opinion who I think much less of as human beings, but that speaks to intent, not opinion.

so you're saying, i'm a somewhat decent human being that you disagree with.

sounds good :D

It's been swell, Faye, but I guess I should get some work done today.

You can start being a mean rotten bitch now.

See ya :hi:

i can insult you while you're not around!!! :hi:

j/k, have fun. i need a hoagie. or a sub. or a hero.

You already have a hero ;)

Bye for real.

to represent us. They are the only ones on your list who stood up and voted to defend our vote. Several, of course, were not in a position to do so, and I'd be willing to consider them too. I'm not convinced we need a centrist or a general, to appease the right. The right will vote for extremists no matter what, so what we need to do is appeal with a consistent and clear message to our base, that we are the party of decency and compassion. We should not shy from social issues, and we should proudly wear the liberal label. Tell the world what liberal means, and show them with numbers, the difference in their personal lives. But first and foremost, our candidate must be able and willing to defend our vote, or the rest is moot.

And he isn't on the list. But I would welcome any of your choices over what we're stuck with for the next four years. I really fear for this country. But if you will be 18 in 2008, in time to cast your first vote, this does give me hope. This makes you what, 14, now? Amazing and delightful that you are informed enough and care enough to post this. At 14, I just knew who was president, and nothing about elections or candidates. I wish more people would take part, as well, but I am so glad to have you with us.:-)

The 'thugs will steal the Senate supermajority in 2006 and the presidency again in 2008.

'Nuff said.

I'm suprised by all of the clark support. I liked him and thought he would have made a hell of a vp nominee. But as a candidate he really fizzled and was more inept when it came to connecting w/ voters than even kerry.

After some digging, I think Kerry's possibly in on the fix. He was a bonesman after all, like Bush. And his leading the BCCI investigation was pathetic, he stopped a larger investigation from happening. Why do you think he's not fighting for the Presidency he won?

Wes Clark? A military man as president? He's smart, well spoken, but no. The military industrial complex is a large part of the problem, and he's part of that.

Kucinich is the only one who would actively try to change things for the better, followed by Boxer and Conyers.

LOL your kidding right. Hes so simple minded he would never make a great commander in chief and is severly inexperienced.

Kerry 2008

The only Democrat promoting any real change is "simple minded"?

Interesting. No middle of the road corporate rich white guy democrat is going to change anything that matters. Face it. Including Kerry!