Washington Post: Kerry may want to run in 2008

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last

  1. Actually, Clinton would have lost against Bush even though Clinton was considered moderate; it was the Bush campaign's little crisis during that last weak that took away their 5pt lead. I don't remember the guys name, but he was in a world of **** and that killed the Bush campaign. Had they more time, they would have recovered, but it was just too sudden. Oh well...

    I think the most important four words you typed were "tool of the UN". That's exactly what they want us to be, and exactly why I hate them. We're supposed to be sovereign nations joined together for a cause, and they want a world of nations under one rule. I find it scary...but, that's MHO.


  2. I'd want to see McCain run, but I'm concerned that supplements may come under even more fire if he's elected. Other than that, I think that he'd be an excellent candidate.
    •   
       


  3. Yeah but still, the only Democrat that has a chance of victory is a moderate Democrat. Republicans can bank hard on conservatism because people wouldn't like to admit to being amoral, against protecting their own country, and for the government to take more of their money. This is why Republicans don't really need to aim in the middle. Their base is always big. I thought it was great that Bush got 60 million votes, when Democrats were so sure that Kerry had victory.

  4. funny thing i noticed.... hillary is now sorta removing herself from the 08 run a lil bit more.... reason why could be this.... Bill ALWAYS wanted to stay as pres. he even looked into how he can loophole the term limits and run for a 3rd... obviously it would have been too fishy ( but he would have won) anyway... so yeah if hillary won.. bill would get to be pres. but now.. HAVE YOU SEEN CLINTON ON LARRY KING LAST NIGHT... he looks like pooo. he really doesn't look like he has more than a couple of years to live... so NOW i think because he knows he is going to die. hillary wont run, and so that leave only a Kerry/ Obama


    PS there is no true support to this claim.. i am just really bored and bloated from cookies last night....

  5. The Democrats have no really good candidates to run in 2008. Just a lot of the same people that tried in 2000 and 2004 plus a couple more like my state's governor, Tom Vilsack. Lets be honest, Hillary running for President is a big mistake. Her approval ratings right now are very low and only seems to be favored by the Socialist Left. She will not win. Republicans have a lot of good choices to choose from and will probably run away with the election. I doubt the 2008 elections will set voting records like 2004 but in the times where security is considered important, Republicans will be the ones who ultimately triumph. Plus I don't know anyone who really thinks Socialism is a good idea.

    I don't think Bill would have won in 2000 if he chose to ran for a third term. His approval was kind of slipping towards the end of his second term. Clinton succeeded in 1996 mostly because the economy was doing the best that it has for a few decades and there were no major **** ups by the administration. In 2000, the tech bubble had burst, Bin Laden was attacking the US continually, and it just seemed to be a mess overall. That is the reason why Al Gore did not win the election. Yeah, he won the Popular Vote but there were still a lot of votes for George W. Bush. Al Gore = Clinton's 3rd Term. People were getting tired of Clinton's adminstrative tactics and wanted nothing more to do with them.
    •   
       


  6. I'd want to see McCain run, but I'm concerned that supplements may come under even more fire if he's elected. Other than that, I think that he'd be an excellent candidate.
    McCain is basically a democrat who supports the military. His campaign finance reform bill is totally unconstitutional. He is a total media whore, which is why you see him throwing himself in front of the baseball steroid scandal. I don't like the guy at all.

  7. hillary is now sorta removing herself from the 08 run a lil bit more.... reason why could be this.... Bill ALWAYS wanted to stay as pres. he even looked into how he can loophole the term limits and run for a 3rd...
    Hillary is in the process of reinventing herself. She is trying to be perceived as a moderate. She came down hard on illegal immigration a few weeks ago. She is also trying to keep talk of her presidential run contained. This is because when she does run the media will pee all over it's self in excitement and act as if it was a big surprise.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by The Experiment
    Lets be honest, Hillary running for President is a big mistake. Her approval ratings right now are very low and only seems to be favored by the Socialist Left. She will not win. Republicans have a lot of good choices to choose from and will probably run away with the election.
    The left does not like Hillary because she's too conservative (in terms of her record). That's her main problem, she's a conservative (for a democrat) that's perceived as a liberal by the right - that's the worst combination. The right hates her and the dem base thinks she's too rightwing. What the dems need is a liberal that's perceived as mainstream.

    I think Republicans will probably go with Jeb Bush for 2008, otherwise W would have chosen a vp that could run after he's out. I think Wesley Clark would make a good candidate for 2008 and there's still time for many good alternatives to emerge. With a lackluster economy and things going south in Iraq I think dems have a good shot at it in 2008, but a lot can change in 4 years.

    To be honest though, I dislike both parties - I think the democrats are wimps and the republicans are crooks, but those are the only viable choices right now.

    -5

  9. Young people don't vote. You know what 'Rock the Vote" did? It mobilized the conservative base that weren't going to vote. Billy Bob and Martha Jean MacDonald in rural Kentucky didn't want some teenage punks on MTV to decide who the President was going to be so they went out and voted instead of doing what they normally do on election day; sit on their porch and watch a plethora of local insects fly into their bug zapper.

    So you had those people voting, but the young people who were supposed to vote, didn't. The votes were record numbers, but not from young Democrats, they were from Southern and Midwestern Republicans.

  10. The left does not like Hillary because she's too conservative (in terms of her record). That's her main problem, she's a conservative (for a democrat) that's perceived as a liberal by the right - that's the worst combination. The right hates her and the dem base thinks she's too rightwing. What the dems need is a liberal that's perceived as mainstream.
    ??????????? The left loves Hillary and she sure as hell is not conservative at all or perceived as one. She tried to rail road threw socialized medicine for god's sake. The reality is that Hillary is a socialist. That is the difference between Bill and Hillary. Bill would pretty much do what ever a poll shows is the popular opinion. Hillary is a far left ideologue and is currently trying to change the perception of that because of Bush's victory in this past election. You will see her say more moderate things and she will probably distance her self from the NY elitist crowd / label and make more frequent trips to Arkansas as 08 approaches. Hillary has the nomination when ever she wants it. I agree with you that democrats need to keep putting up liberal candidates, because they will keep loosing. If they were smart that will run a moderate southern dem in 08. Unfortunately for them the Clintons still control the democrat party. I think who is installed as the head of the DNC will tell allot. If it's a Clinton crony she will have a lock on 08. If it's someone else such as Howard Dean, it means they have lost control.
    I think Republicans will probably go with Jeb Bush for 2008, otherwise W would have chosen a vp that could run after he's out. I think Wesley Clark would make a good candidate for 2008 and there's still time for many good alternatives to emerge. With a lackluster economy and things going south in Iraq I think dems have a good shot at it in 2008, but a lot can change in 4 years.
    They will probably wait awhile for jeb to run. There is some talk that Rudy or McCain will run. McCain will probably run judging by the way he likes to keep his name in the paper. Arnold is trying to run in 08 as well. The problem with all three of them is that they are all liberal republicans and will have a difficult time getting the nomination. There has also been some talk of Mitt Romney running in 08.

  11. I like MacCain's economic policies. Unfortunately, I hate his stance on steroids. The only way to gain power in this country is to be a part of a special interest group who votes only on 1 issue and that 1 issue alone.

    Well, it is high time we had a pro-anabolics special interest group. Hence, from now on I will ONLY be voting on this issue.

  12. Young people don't vote. You know what 'Rock the Vote" did? It mobilized the conservative base that weren't going to vote.
    Would it be a good thing if young people or anyone for that matter listened to puffy or eminem for political advise? I love how rock the vote is supposedly non partisan yet it's transparently obvious who they want to win the election. MTV and thinking are the antithesis of each other.

  13. I like MacCain's economic policies. Unfortunately, I hate his stance on steroids.
    Which are liberal. They guy is a media whore. He jumped in front of juice bandwagon because he saw it gaining momentum and he could keep his name in the paper. Maybe we will see a mixed ticket with McCain and Biden running together.

  14. Nonetheless, if any of us are going to get anabolics legallized we need a lobby. In order to have a lobby there needs to be a special interest group backing it. We need to vote ONLY on this issue if we are to have any voice at all. There is no anti-steroid special interest group that I know of, so we'd have no direct opposition. The only opposition would be from people who vote on more issues than just steroids. If the pro-steroid group gets large enough and more importantly gets active enough in voting, then you can be darn sure they will change the laws. Just look at gun control. Every member of Congress who voted for the assault weapons ban didn't get re-elected. The NRA did that. They vote only on gun control. That's why when the ban came up for renewal everyone let it die even though the overwhelming majority of America was for the ban. Those Congressman knew they could get away with letting the ban die and still get votes from all those people because those people vote on other issues but if they voted to renew the ban they would be guaranteed to lose the votes from the NRA.


    I strongly urge to others on this board, if you want the demonization of steroids to end, then vote pro-steroid and ONLY pro-steroid. Make it known, spread the movement.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    MTV and thinking are the antithesis of each other.

  16. Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    McCain is basically a democrat who supports the military. His campaign finance reform bill is totally unconstitutional. He is a total media whore, which is why you see him throwing himself in front of the baseball steroid scandal. I don't like the guy at all.
    I second this! I cannot stand McCain!

    And, ROFLMAO @ MTV quote!!

  17. I read about Newt making a run.

  18. I read about Newt making a run.
    I guess anything is possible but he has been demonized so much I can't see him getting the nomination. The press hates him as well.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    ??????????? The left loves Hillary and she sure as hell is not conservative at all or perceived as one.
    If you want to know what the liberals think then listen to Air America: http://www.airamericaradio.com/listen.asp , the liberal talk radio channel - you won't find anyone that supports Hillary there.

    Her senate voting record is moderate, quite similar to that of Joe Lieberman actually. And the young people did turn out to vote in record numbers. The problem was that other demographics also turned out to vote in record numbers and thereby negated the youth votes contribution to Kerry. Still, it bodes well for the future.

    -5

  20. Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    I agree with you that democrats need to keep putting up liberal candidates, because they will keep loosing.

    <snip>

    They will probably wait awhile for jeb to run. There is some talk that Rudy or McCain will run. McCain will probably run judging by the way he likes to keep his name in the paper. Arnold is trying to run in 08 as well. The problem with all three of them is that they are all liberal republicans and will have a difficult time getting the nomination. There has also been some talk of Mitt Romney running in 08.
    The trick is to choose someone that is liberal but does not come across as such. Take Wesley Clark for example. He's a liberal, yet I doubt the average American perceives him that way, and furthermore there's no voting record that the Republicans could use against him.

    I like the guy a lot and he has a lot of charisma to boot. His only problem is height, or lack thereof - I think he's just 5'6" - there's never been such a short president.

    As for Rudy, he's tainted now by the Kerik incident - he cannot be trusted if he'd appoint people like that to important positions. Some say Rove let Rudy burn on purpose because he was too liberal to follow the Bush mold.

    I like McCain, but he's getting old. I wonder what would happen if Americans elected a younger (possibly non-caucasian) guy (or woman) for a change.

    -5

  21. Quote Originally Posted by Number 5
    .... I wonder what would happen if Americans elected a younger (possibly non-caucasian) guy (or woman) for a change.....
    Colored presdient....pfft! Never gonna happen!!

    J/K Alot of the republicans would like to see Conaleeza Rice attempt the job. At the moment, I have a good opinion of her, too, so I have no objections.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    Colored presdient....pfft! Never gonna happen!!

    J/K Alot of the republicans would like to see Conaleeza Rice attempt the job. At the moment, I have a good opinion of her, too, so I have no objections.
    Problem is that Rice is either hopelessly incompetent or pathological liar - probably both.

    ---------------------------------------------------------

    Condoleezza Rice's Credibility Gap

    A point-by-point analysis of how one of America's top national security officials has a severe problem with the truth

    March 26, 2004
    Download: DOC, RTF, PDF


    Pre-9/11 Intelligence

    CLAIM: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02

    FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles. [Source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01]

    CLAIM: In May 2002, Rice held a press conference to defend the Administration from new revelations that the President had been explicitly warned about an al Qaeda threat to airlines in August 2001. She "suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]

    FACT: According to the CIA, the briefing "was not requested by President Bush." As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, "the CIA informed the panel that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]

    CLAIM: "In June and July when the threat spikes were so high…we were at battle stations." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

    FACT: "Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism 'the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.'" Meanwhile, the Bush Administration decided to terminate "a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04; Newsweek, 3/21/04]

    CLAIM: "The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

    FACT: President Bush and Vice President Cheney's counterterrorism task force, which was created in May, never convened one single meeting. The President himself admitted that "I didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism before 9/11. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Bob Woodward's "Bush at War"]

    CLAIM: "Our [pre-9/11 NSPD] plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets -- taking the fight to the enemy where he lived." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

    FACT: 9/11 Commissioner Gorelick: "There is nothing in the NSPD that came out that we could find that had an invasion plan, a military plan." Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: "Right." Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04]

    Condi Rice on Pre-9/11 Counterterrorism Funding

    CLAIM: "The president increased counterterrorism funding several-fold" before 9/11. – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/24/04

    FACT: According to internal government documents, the first full Bush budget for FY2003 "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [Source: New York Times, 2/28/04; Newsweek, 5/27/02]

    Richard Clarke's Concerns

    CLAIM: "Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

    FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. [Source: CBS 60 Minutes, 3/24/04; White House Press Release, 3/21/04

    CLAIM: "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

    FACT: "On January 25th, 2001, Clarke forwarded his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 Delenda plan to the new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice." – 9/11 Commission staff report, 3/24/04
    Response to 9/11

    CLAIM: "The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

    FACT: "In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04]

    9/11 and Iraq Invasion Plans

    CLAIM: "Not a single National Security Council principal at that meeting recommended to the president going after Iraq. The president thought about it. The next day he told me Iraq is to the side." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

    FACT: According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq." [Source: Washington Post, 1/12/03. CBS News, 9/4/02]

    Iraq and WMD

    CLAIM: "It's not as if anybody believes that Saddam Hussein was without weapons of mass destruction." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/18/04

    FACT: The Bush Administration's top weapons inspector David Kay "resigned his post in January, saying he did not believe banned stockpiles existed before the invasion" and has urged the Bush Administration to "come clean" about misleading America about the WMD threat. [Source: Chicago Tribune, 3/24/04; UK Guardian, 3/3/04]

    9/11-al Qaeda-Iraq Link

    CLAIM: "The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

    FACT: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11." Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 that "It is not surprising that people make that connection" between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said "we don't know" if there is a connection. [Source: BBC, 9/14/03]

    from:http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=40520

  23. Unfortunately, none of those statements are uncommon for somebody in American politics.

    However, that doesn't change my position. Not that I'm stubborn about it, it's just that you could type in any major politicians name into Google, click search, go to a website which holds oppositve views and find publishings like this. Does John Kerry ring a bell

    Interesting read though...

  24. Kerry was a such a joke. Shame on the democrats for nominating him.
    My Little Site about Hair Loss & Anabolics-
    hair loss from steroids dot com

  25. Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    Unfortunately, none of those statements are uncommon for somebody in American politics.

    However, that doesn't change my position. Not that I'm stubborn about it, it's just that you could type in any major politicians name into Google, click search, go to a website which holds oppositve views and find publishings like this. Does John Kerry ring a bell

    Interesting read though...
    Okay, my problems with Rice are the following:

    1. Blind loyalty: She knowingly lies to pimp Bush's policies as shown in my previous post, and she played a key role in scaring the people into supporting the invasion of Iraq. Do you remember her mushroom cloud statements? "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he [Saddam] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." [Rice]

    Also, I wouldn't pick just any website from a google search. The source I used in my earlier post, Center for American Progress, is a high quality and honest, though liberal, nonpartisan organization.

    2. Incompetence: Bush put her in charge of post-war Iraq and the rebuilding of Afganistan. Those have been a miserable failure, yet she has not been held responsible. [Reading: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...ce-iraq_x.htm]

    3. I'm not aware of a single success she's had as the national security advisor, but I'm open to learn, please point out her big accomplishments.

    -5

  26. I much rather have John Kerry as leader of the worlds greatest country... or is it?

    Its hard for me to believe that George Bush is the best we could come up with?

    Hell, if John Kerry was president I'd be saying the same thing.


    Is this really all we've got left?

  27. The trick is to choose someone that is liberal but does not come across as such. Take Wesley Clark for example. He's a liberal, yet I doubt the average American perceives him that way, and furthermore there's no voting record that the Republicans could use against him.
    So your plan would like be the Trojan horse. Some one who is a liberal but will lie and deceive the country into thinking that they are not?
    I don't know how liberal Clark really is. At one point he was going to get rid of all taxes for people that make under 50 k(?). I am not sure if that was the right number or not but it was something like that. Clark was used by the Clintons to knock Dean down a peg or two.

  28. I wonder what would happen if Americans elected a younger (possibly non-caucasian) guy (or woman) for a change.
    You could have voted for Al Sharpton.lol You can vote for the anti christ in 08 she's a woman.

  29. Okay, my problems with Rice are the following:
    Why don't you just say it's because she is conservative
    1. Blind loyalty: She knowingly lies to pimp Bush's policies as shown in my previous post, and she played a key role in scaring the people into supporting the invasion of Iraq. Do you remember her mushroom cloud statements? "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he [Saddam] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." [Rice]

    Also, I wouldn't pick just any website from a google search. The source I used in my earlier post, Center for American Progress, is a high quality and honest, though liberal, nonpartisan organization.
    Did have have a problem with Blind loyalty with anyone in the Clinton Administration?
    2. Incompetence: Bush put her in charge of post-war Iraq and the rebuilding of Afganistan. Those have been a miserable failure, yet she has not been held responsible. [Reading: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/...ice-iraq_x.htm]
    Rice alone did not plan for post war Iraq. There are many people involved in that.

  30. If you want to know what the liberals think then listen to Air America: http://www.airamericaradio.com/listen.asp , the liberal talk radio channel - you won't find anyone that supports Hillary there.
    Al Frankin loves the Clintons. If they have turned against her it's to give the impression that she isn't the far left ideologue that she is.
    Her senate voting record is moderate, quite similar to that of Joe Lieberman actually. And the young people did turn out to vote in record numbers. The problem was that other demographics also turned out to vote in record numbers and thereby negated the youth votes contribution to Kerry. Still, it bodes well for the future.
    The reason her voting record is making a U turn to the right is because she is running in 08 and wants to change the perception of her being a communist. ( which she is)There is your trojan horse for 08 #5.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 213
    Last Post: 04-08-2008, 07:43 PM
  2. I want to run faster
    By csunkramer in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 06-27-2007, 09:36 AM
  3. I want to Compete in my First Contest, Can Anyone Help?
    By IronMarc in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-06-2006, 01:29 AM
  4. i want to run just a m4ohn cycle few ?
    By bigrich954rr in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-23-2005, 12:57 AM
Log in
Log in