Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Election 2004: Who are you voting for?

Who will you be voting for in November?

  • George W. Bush

    Votes: 89 56.7%

  • John Kerry

    Votes: 53 33.8%

  • Ralph Nader

    Votes: 2 1.3%

  • Not voting - they all suck.

    Votes: 13 8.3%
  • Total voters
    157
Status
Not open for further replies.
Discussion is stirring about Kerry adding Hillary Clinton, who made the socialist comments, as his VP candidate.
Some more info:
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

I was just going to post that. I am pretty sure that is one of signs of the apocalypse. It's a win / win situation for Hillary. If she wins she'll be the presidential candidate after Kerry (assuming he lasts 8 years). If she looses she'll have the 2008 nomination.
If Kerry doesn't pick her he is running against Bush and against the Clintons. I really hope this isn't true but Dudge is usually right when it comes to these things. If he picks the socialist with hooves from NY and wins he better wear a bullet proof vest for 8 years.
 
The other problem if he picks Hillary is the press will have a universal multiple orgasm over Hillary being VP. So other than Fox news, the wall street journal, and the Washington times, the rest of the medias story will be the first woman as VP (if she wins). There will be no negative coverage of her. Any opposition critics will be defended as "I all ready addressed that it's in my book". The problem is her book is fiction.
 
Last edited:
well put. i've said it before, i'll say it again. the repubs need somebody like Condi to run for pres. in 2008. it will trump everything that hillary could "offer"

i find it ironic that the dems are supposed to be the minority and woman's party, yet bush has FAR more minorities in his cabinet and administration than clinton ever did, that's fer shure.

not to mention the repubs don't support legalized racism ie racial preferences, but i'm being partisan, so i'll stop. :)

condi is smarter, better educated, has better experience, is less likely to go "off script" in public and look like a shrill hen, can trump hillary in the racial category (a sad fact, but identity politics is a factor), equals her in the gender category, etc.

she is NOT the first VP candidate btw, who is female. if she WINS, she will be the first female VP, but you don't state it that way, you say if kerry picks hillary, the press will orgasm over the first woman as VP. she will only be VP if kerry picks her AND he wins. we've already had female VP candidates before, and not just with nader.



heck, if kerry dies from a freak botox injection fatality, hillary would be president. :)
 
i hope she gets on board with kerry. It will be political suicide for him and her. They can run under the socialist ticket together - and the democrats can nominate Edwards (like they should have). Like I said before, Democrats will start to regret selecting Kerry. John Edwards or Bill Richardson (Sen-New Mexico) would have been better choices. Love or hate Bush -- Kerry is dud and he isn't the guy to beat him.

(my opinion) :)
 
jjjd said:
well put. i've said it before, i'll say it again. the repubs need somebody like Condi to run for pres. in 2008. it will trump everything that hillary could "offer"

i find it ironic that the dems are supposed to be the minority and woman's party, yet bush has FAR more minorities in his cabinet and administration than clinton ever did, that's fer shure.

not to mention the repubs don't support legalized racism ie racial preferences, but i'm being partisan, so i'll stop. :)

condi is smarter, better educated, has better experience, is less likely to go "off script" in public and look like a shrill hen, can trump hillary in the racial category (a sad fact, but identity politics is a factor), equals her in the gender category, etc.

she is NOT the first VP candidate btw, who is female. if she WINS, she will be the first female VP, but you don't state it that way, you say if kerry picks hillary, the press will orgasm over the first woman as VP. she will only be VP if kerry picks her AND he wins. we've already had female VP candidates before, and not just with nader.



heck, if kerry dies from a freak botox injection fatality, hillary would be president. :)
Click to expand...


Condi is a tough lady. Unforunately she has two factors against her... (race and sex, obviously). mccain? is still the GOP favorite for 2008?
 
not to mention the repubs don't support legalized racism ie racial preferences, but i'm being partisan, so i'll stop.
Click to expand...
That's one thing I don't think I'll ever understand. I don't know why more minorities are against affirmative action. It's really insulting to them if you think about it. By supporting affirmative action what it is essentially saying is that minorities are inferior. Therefore the bar must be lowered for them for SATs, Getting into college, entrance exams, and getting jobs.
she is NOT the first VP candidate btw, who is female. if she WINS, she will be the first female VP, but you don't state it that way, you say if kerry picks hillary, the press will orgasm over the first woman as VP. she will only be VP if kerry picks her AND he wins. we've already had female VP candidates before, and not just with nader.
Click to expand...
I know that I just worded it wrong.
 
i hope she gets on board with kerry. It will be political suicide for him and her. They can run under the socialist ticket together - and the democrats can nominate Edwards (like they should have). Like I said before, Democrats will start to regret selecting Kerry. John Edwards or Bill Richardson (Sen-New Mexico) would have been better choices. Love or hate Bush -- Kerry is dud and he isn't the guy to beat him.
Click to expand...
The press will get so excited they will loose control of all bodily functions if she is picked. They will give her a pass no matter what she does or say. Hillary will totally over shadow Kerry of coarse but the coverage will be so slanted in favor of them it will help them. It will be political suicide for Kerry not to pick her. The bottom line is Hillary wants to be president and she will not let anyone get in her way. The Clintons control the DNC and if he doesn't pick her they will be constantly undermining him. The biggest mistake conservatives have made is under estimating the Clintons. They thought she wouldn't get elected to the senate and she did. She has a chance at the Whitehouse. The press loves her and have let her get away with allot of things. Did her comments about taking peoples money and redistributing it make it on to the 6 o'clock news? Hell no.Believe it or not there are people like her and think she'll make a good president. They know absolutely nothing about her but they know they like her.
 
Condi is a tough lady. Unforunately she has two factors against her... (race and sex, obviously). mccain? is still the GOP favorite for 2008?
Click to expand...
I don't think Bush and MCcain like each other that much. He's probabally not going to get rid of Dick Cheney. Unless he has more heart problems. His strongest choice would be Rudy Giuliani.
 
i agree that the press loves her, and will grant her a free pass on her socialist comments. But the American people won't. If she runs for president, the spotlight will be on her like never before. She can make these comments and statements now, but it won't be so easy if she is making a presidential run.

Imagine the republican advertisements against her - they will make her look like Karl Marx.
 
Imagine the republican advertisements against her - they will make her look like Karl Marx.
Click to expand...
You could say that before she ran for senate too. For some reason Lazio didn't do it. The problem is when they do, they are labeled as Clinton haters and mean for picking on a woman. At least that's how the press will spin it. Also any charge they make about her she'll use the it's in the book defense. Republicans will not go for the jugular with them. Bob Dole had any number of scandals to attack Clinton with and he didn't do it. Bush could have hammered Gore with various scandals but didn't. I think that they are afraid that if they do the front page of the new York times will accuse their campaign of getting too negative and too dirty. Mean while Hillary will have a team of private eyes digging up dirt. Then they leak it to the new York times and they put it on the front page.
 
Right, New York embraces liberalism to its fullest. I don't believe Bush is going to hold back on Kerry however.
 
Deoudes, i disagree with this

""Condi is a tough lady. Unforunately she has two factors against her... (race and sex, obviously). mccain? is still the GOP favorite for 2008?


those aren't factors AGAINST her, they are factors for her. iow, she will gain support from many merely because of her racial/gender identity (sad but true) who wouldn't otherwise vote for her, and for those who would vote for her ideologically, i don't think her race/gender will even matter to those people

furthermore, it will override hillary's gender trump card.

imo, it's a win/win
 
Sex perhaps may be favorable, but Race isn't... I feel.
I think.....?
I'm not really sure...
For the presidency different criteria apply, than for just being added to the ticket as a vice president.
Not really sure though
 
it's pretty much opinion (although i've read some polls), but i disagree.

i think in this day and age, condi's gender and race would work for her

iow, she's got the conservative cred to win over the conservatives/repub's

she's got the female gender (which is going to give her a lot of females who would otherwise vote dem), and she's got the black thang, which is going to give her more black vote (but not take away white vote imo)

bush had the lowest black support among modern day republicans, of any president.

pretty decent hispanic support, though

iirc, he got about 8% of the black vote. that sux

condi would, imo, get the highest black vote of any republican presidential candidate in recent memory (nixon got 32 % iirc) (blacks on average vote about 87%+ democrat), a much higher %age of the female vote than bush did, and trump hillary

speculative, i admit. but at least partly based on polling data.

20 years ago, a black candidate would not garner widespread support

today? widesrpread, imo
 
good point a Black Republican would have more widespread appeal than a Black Democrat.
 
i think in this day and age, condi's gender and race would work for her
Click to expand...
She won't get the support of the majority of African Americans. They think of her as a traitor. They were calling her the house Negro a few months ago. Look how the black leadership treated Bill Cosby when a said that Black people should be responsible for themselves. In most of their minds a black conservative is a sell out.
 
Right, New York embraces liberalism to its fullest. I don't believe Bush is going to hold back on Kerry however.
Click to expand...
He held back on Gore ( buddist/ china fund raiser) and on the Clintons. After the Clintons trashed the Whitehouse and left with a large number of expensive items they let it go. They could have gotten them on many other things. There was a story about a fund raiser where Hillary raised about a million dollars and didn't report it. As far as I know the investigation is still on going. They could have and should have made sure that the Clintons were done but they didn't. That leads me to believe they will go soft on Hillary if she gets the VP spot. Kerry is easy to attack on his liberal voting record and his flip flops.I am sure we will see allot of that.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
She won't get the support of the majority of African Americans. They think of her as a traitor. They were calling her the house Negro a few months ago. Look how the black leadership treated Bill Cosby when a said that Black people should be responsible for themselves. In most of their minds a black conservative is a sell out.
Click to expand...

yeah, the leadership in the NAACP is absurd. They love to play the blame game and encourage other African Americans to do the same. At the end of the day, they have made absolutely no progress and have further disgraced themselves.
 
"She won't get the support of the majority of African Americans. They think of her as a traitor. They were calling her the house Negro a few months ago. Look how the black leadership treated Bill Cosby when a said that Black people should be responsible for themselves. In most of their minds a black conservative is a sell out."

a #of points. first of all, i didn't say she'd get the support of a MAJORITY of african americans. I said she would get more support than BUSH et al have been getting. bush got 8%. that is terrible. i have no doubt condi would do much better than that. even if she got 15-20%, that would be a HYOOOGE boost in voting #'s.

also, don't confuse the message of the (so called) black leaders (NAACP, Jesse Jackson et al) with how many blacks actually feel (and often admittedly will not discuss in a non-mixed audience - many black commentators have spoken about the things blacks admit culturally among themselves is a bit different from their public face in the NAACP and is true of many groups in the USA, such as catholics, protestants, jews, or pretty much any group that has a strong identity) about many issues.

it is correct that in MOST black people's minds, a black conservative is a sell out, but a black conservative for president (imo) would still garner way more support than the average white conservative merely based on identity politics. if you doubt this, look at how, for example, kennedy's catholocism helped him among the catholic voters (otoh, i don't think nixon did very well among quakers, so that's a contrary example)

i also think a fair #, EVEN IF they agree a bit with the sellout thang will still cast their vote for "one of their own" at least as a protest vote. the repubs could really RUN with this. look at some of carol mosely braun's comments in this regards, in terms of her democratic candidacy

the house negro comment iirc was harry belafonte referring to colin powell (not condi), but maybe you were referencing another comment

i readily agree that the (so called) black leadership gets apoplectic about black conservatives. however, that group is not the one doing the voting. dems, for too long, have depended on the black vote as a "given" and don't think it's even an issue

i think condi would show them they should not take the black vote for granted.
 
a #of points. first of all, i didn't say she'd get the support of a MAJORITY of african americans. I said she would get more support than BUSH et al have been getting. bush got 8%. that is terrible. i have no doubt condi would do much better than that. even if she got 15-20%, that would be a HYOOOGE boost in voting #'s.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that you said that. What I did say that the majority of blacks support democrats. There is no way Bush would get a 7 to 12 % jump in the black vote if he put rice on his ticket. At best he would get a %2 more. Why is it terrible that he has 8% rating? A republican will never have a high approval rating from minority groups. I am sure he could get a much higher rating if he tried to do something with reparations.
also, don't confuse the message of the (so called) black leaders (NAACP, Jesse Jackson et al) with how many blacks actually feel (and often admittedly will not discuss in a non-mixed audience - many black commentators have spoken about the things blacks admit culturally among themselves is a bit different from their public face in the NAACP and is true of many groups in the USA, such as catholics, protestants, jews, or pretty much any group that has a strong identity) about many issues.
Click to expand...
A lot of people say not to confuse the black leaders from the general population. That's great but someone has to support them other wise they wouldn't be leaders. They continually support race pimps like Jesse Jackson and I don't recall anyone speaking out against them. Also when someone speaks out that isn't in line with their agenda they are ridiculed. Look at how they treated Bill Cosby ( who isn't a conservative). How dare he suggest personal responsibility over government programs. Look at how Black conservatives are treated JC Watts, Clarence Thomas, Cond. Rice, or Collin Powell. They have all be called uncle tom, race traitor, sell outs, or the house Negro at some point. Look at how Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson is treated.
it is correct that in MOST black people's minds, a black conservative is a sell out, but a black conservative for president (imo) would still garner way more support than the average white conservative merely based on identity politics. if you doubt this, look at how, for example, kennedy's catholocism helped him among the catholic voters (otoh, i don't think nixon did very well among quakers, so that'r a contrary example)
Click to expand...
The majority of African Americans vote democrat and will probably always vote democrat. This is why the dems. do take the black vote for granted. If Hillary went head to head with cond. Rice in a presidential election, Hillary would win the vast majority of the black vote. In their mind Rice is a race traitor. So Clinton would get 90% and Rice would get 10%.
 
"The majority of African Americans vote democrat and will probably always vote democrat. This is why the dems. do take the black vote for granted. If Hillary went head to head with cond. Rice in a presidential election, Hillary would win the vast majority of the black vote. In their mind Rice is a race traitor. So Clinton would get 90% and Rice would get 10%"

as an analysis of PAST behavior, you are correct. but i disagree that this will always be so, should be accepted as something that will always be so, or especially that this would apply if we could (the repubs) field a black presidential candidate.

in the minds of the elite, so called leaders she is definitely a race traitor

however, in the minds of many blacks, she is not

and like it or not, identity politics does matter

imo, a significant %age of blacks would vote for a conservative black presidential candidate. iow, fealty to a candidate because they were black (in a presidential race) would trump (for a signficant %age) fealty to the dems

it would also put the dems at a serious disadvantage tactically, as they would have to tread cautiously with negative campaigning for fear of appearing anti-black.

imo, it would be a great tactical decision, not to mention the fact that condi is brilliant, and would make a good candidate.

as for some of your other points, i am good friends with a # of blacks. they admit that they (blacks in general) will be hesitant to criticize the jesse jacksons etc. IN PUBLIC among mixed race people, for fear of seeming to be dissing one of their own.

however, in private, trust me. jesse jackson gets a LOT of disrespect among a lot of blacks

there is a signficant trend, oft-commented on by blacks, that there is a tendency not to want to publically (ie in mixed racial venues) criticize a black leader etc.

it's a group fealty, PUBLIC face, that is not necessarily going to be represented when people pull the voting lever

imo

repubs would be VERY smart to run condi, at LEAST as VP. imo
 
i should also add, that as i said, bush only got about 8% of the black vote.

reagan, for example, iirc, got much more. bush SUCKS among blacks, EVEN for a repub

condi would do BETTER than bush. i am not saying she would garner a MAJORITY of black votes.
 
imo, a significant %age of blacks would vote for a conservative black presidential candidate. iow, fealty to a candidate because they were black (in a presidential race) would trump (for a signficant %age) fealty to the dems
Click to expand...
If they don't support a conservative black congressmen and a supreme court justice, then they probably not support a conservative black vp candidate.
it would also put the dems at a serious disadvantage tactically, as they would have to tread cautiously with negative campaigning for fear of appearing anti-black.
Click to expand...
How many African Americans were in Bill Clinton's Cabinet? The answer is none. How many are in the Bush Administration's cabinet? He has Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Rod Paige (Secretary of Education) and Alphonso Jackson (Secretary of Housing &
Urban Development). Yet despite having the most African Americans in a Cabinet in history Bush has a low approval rating. This hasn't stopped the Dems from race baiting at all. If your argument was true Bush should have a higher approval rating in the black population he doesn't. We are still hearing the b.s party line that black voters were disenfranchised in the 2000 election. Hell Bill Clinton was called the fist black president........give me a break.
imo, it would be a great tactical decision, not to mention the fact that condi is brilliant, and would make a good candidate.
Click to expand...
It's not a good tactical decision. The main reason why is getting allot of black votes does not translate into winning a presidential elections. If this was true we would have a democrat in the white house permanently. I also think if Cheney stepped down (for health reasons) and he tapped Rice for VP the Dems would accuse him of using her to get black votes. She has already been called every name in the book by the Black leadership. That's not going to change if she is VP. In fact it would prob. get worse.

however, in private, trust me. jesse jackson gets a LOT of disrespect among a lot of blacks

there is a signficant trend, oft-commented on by blacks, that there is a tendency not to want to publically (ie in mixed racial venues) criticize a black leader etc.

it's a group fealty, PUBLIC face, that is not necessarily going to be represented when people pull the voting lever
Click to expand...
That may or may not be the case. The fact is no one is really speaking out against the race pimps in the black leadership. Until they do and surprise the dems. by voting for a republican they overwhelmingly vote for dems. Hillary would easily beat Condi among black voters.
The reality is by playing up to black voters and putting Rice in the VP slot might get Bush another 2 to 5 % of the black vote. However, 2 to 5 % of the black vote isn't going to make too much of a difference in the presidential elections. IMO Bush's strongest pick would be Rudy Giuliani.
 
Let me be the first to say "****" about Kerry picking Edwards to run for VP. There goes the election.

My only hope is that Cheney decides not to run again for "health reasons" and Bush takes Powell or Guiliani to run in his place. I like Cheney, but too much controversy surrounds him.

/karp
 
and let me be the first to say "good move" in regards to Kerry's campaign. Hillary was way too controversial a move, and Gephardt just doesn't have the energy that the Kerry campaign needs IMO. Edwards' weak spot will be foreign affairs (lack of experience), his positives will be his upbeat attitude and charisma in domestic affairs, not to mention simpler and more effective speeches (which, if we have learned anything from American voters, is that they apparently like things very simply put) ;)
 
Kerry definitly needed to pick Edwards.
Edwards should have been the presidential pick actually
 
It was a good move. I have to give credit where it's due. The man may be a lot of things, but he's not stupid.

However, if the Democrats had been smart, they would've nominated Edwards in the first place. Honestly, even with Edwards, I'm not 100% sure Kerry can win, since he's still the face of the campaign, and he's still the one who has to debate. Also, with Kerry's record for flip-flops, Edwards charisma and upbeat personality may not be enough. This should be a helluva fight.

/karp
 
Edwards definitely should have been the pick, no doubt. I think they were just a little scared of the fresh-faced youthful appearance and lack of experience with foreign affiars, but I feel he probably could have overcome this with careful charm and charisma. If this doesn't workout I see him as running again next election.
 
jrkarp said:
[/i] Honestly, even with Edwards, I'm not 100% sure Kerry can win,
/karp
Click to expand...

I'd be very suprised if Kerry won
 
Vice Presidents don't matter at all.
If you believe they do matter than the Democratic ticket just got more liberal. Kerry is the most liberal (by US senate ranking) and Edwards is 4th.
But I don't think they really do.

Edwards will add some energy to the ever-dulling Kerry campaign - but at the end of the day the vote will be for Kerry - not Edwards. (or not for Kerry)

All in all, it doesn't matter.

The biggest story of the day is Kerry's most recent flip-flop on abortion. (saturday) He believes life begins at conception now but claims he is pro-choice. Can you have it both ways? Maybe - but it certainly doesn't look legit.
 
Kerry is now running against Bush and the Clintons. It's going to be a close election but there is no way Kerry is going to win now, unless he makes some really shrewd political moves in his own party. Hillary is wants to be president and is going to run in 08.
 
I know she wants to be president, but I think she has too much to hide. If she ever does run, the dirt they will dig up on her should be interesting.

/karp
 
VanillaGorilla said:
Kerry is now running against Bush and the Clintons. It's going to be a close election but there is no way Kerry is going to win now, unless he makes some really shrewd political moves in his own party. Hillary is wants to be president and is going to run in 08.
Click to expand...

I hear she has some great property in White Water ;)
 
Vice Presidents don't matter at all.
If you believe they do matter than the Democratic ticket just got more liberal. Kerry is the most liberal (by US senate ranking) and Edwards is 4th.
But I don't think they really do.

Edwards will add some energy to the ever-dulling Kerry campaign - but at the end of the day the vote will be for Kerry - not Edwards. (or not for Kerry)
Click to expand...
The VP pick does matter. Kerry is viewed as a north eastern limousine liberal which he is. Getting someone from the south will counter act that some what. What would happen if he picked Ted Kennedy as his VP? lol
The biggest story of the day is Kerry's most recent flip-flop on abortion. (saturday) He believes life begins at conception now but claims he is pro-choice. Can you have it both ways? Maybe - but it certainly doesn't look legit.
Click to expand...
Did he really flip on that? He is a horrible politician. The reason he flip-flopped was because the church was going to ostracize him because of his position on abortion.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
The VP pick does matter. Kerry is viewed as a north eastern limousine liberal which he is. Getting someone from the south will counter act that some what. What would happen if he picked Ted Kennedy as his VP? lol

Did he really flip on that? He is a horrible politician. The reason he flip-flopped was because the church was going to ostracize him because of his position on abortion.
Click to expand...

It was a pretty smart move in that Edwards did comparatively well in the south. That and he knows the Hildabeast will have him assasinated :shoot:
 
VanillaGorilla said:
Kerry is now running against Bush and the Clintons. It's going to be a close election but there is no way Kerry is going to win now, unless he makes some really shrewd political moves in his own party. Hillary is wants to be president and is going to run in 08.
Click to expand...

That's funny, I was just reading her statments from months ago up until Bill's today denying that she would accept it even if offered and does/did not want it (although admittedly it's absurd to take everything straight from any politician).

I think saying Kerry is running against the Clintons is quite overdramatic, even if she would want the presidency in 2008. But please continue with the unabashed BS, it never stops around here. :rolleyes:

I'm not a Hillary fan by any stretch (in fact I really can't stand her), but the theories that she would basically sell her soul to Satan and do anything necessary for the presidency are getting laughable. I'm sure she wants a shot at it in 2008, but at this point the DNC is not dumb enough to be sabotaged by it's own two figureheads (Clintons). JMO
 
VanillaGorilla said:
The VP pick does matter. Kerry is viewed as a north eastern limousine liberal which he is. Getting someone from the south will counter act that some what. What would happen if he picked Ted Kennedy as his VP? lol

Did he really flip on that? He is a horrible politician. The reason he flip-flopped was because the church was going to ostracize him because of his position on abortion.
Click to expand...


VP can hurt you like you said, but as long as you don't pick an extremist or someome who is unpopular - it wont help or hurt. (i think)

as for abortion - tune in the fox news tonight :thumbsup:
 
Jeff said:
It was a pretty smart move in that Edwards did comparatively well in the south. That and he knows the Hildabeast will have him assasinated :shoot:
Click to expand...

Edwards was the correct pick. Kerry still won't carry North Carolina (Edwards wasn't going to be re-elected there) - or any of the south... Florida? who knows.... But my money is on Bush in the Sunshine state.
 
That's funny, I was just reading her statments from months ago up until Bill's today denying that she would accept it even if offered and does/did not want it (although admittedly it's absurd to take everything straight from any politician).
Click to expand...
Exactly. They don't exacltly have a good track record for telling the truth. She said she wasn't going to run for the senate and she did.
I think saying Kerry is running against the Clintons is quite overdramatic, even if she would want the presidency in 2008. But please continue with the unabashed BS, it never stops around here.
Click to expand...
BS? Lets she could have run from her home state which would have been a cake walk but choose to run in NY. Why would she do that? They installed their puppet Terry McAllife as head on the DNC. If you look at the Clinton M.O for operating it fits. Their first pick for attorney general wanted to bring her own team in, thus Clintons put Janet (Chewbacca)Reno in as A.G. by herself. That way they could basically control it and they had web Hubble in there running things. They did the same kind of thing with travel gate. They fired the people that have been in there for years to get their own people in. They did the same thing with the DNC. You need to look at the moves they are making behind the scenes. She is trying to appear as a moderate instead of the far left. If you look at them all indicators point to Hillary wants to be president.
I'm not a Hillary fan by any stretch (in fact I really can't stand her), but the theories that she would basically sell her soul to Satan and do anything necessary for the presidency are getting laughable. I'm sure she wants a shot at it in 2008, but at this point the DNC is not dumb enough to be sabotaged by it's own two figureheads
Click to expand...
If they control the DNC than they would be that dumb. Why would they release Bubba's book right before the election? He has been completely over shadowing Kerry. Why wouldn't they take a step back and let Kerry take the lime light? The Clintons are smart shrewd politicians. Gore was complaining that Hillary used too much of the DNC funds during the 2000 election. What is laughable is that you honestly believe that Clintons care any other democrat in office other than themselves. They don't care about the good of the democratic party. They care about taking power for themselves and they care about taking back the Whitehouse in 2008. They let people go to jail for them for god's sake. There is no way Kerry is winning this election. If he wins she doesn't get to be president.
 
Edwards was the correct pick. Kerry still won't carry North Carolina (Edwards wasn't going to be re-elected there) - or any of the south... Florida? who knows.... But my money is on Bush in the Sunshine state.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling Edwards is going to get hammed for his lack of experience. He is a good speaker and charismatic though.
 
There is an article on BBC about the over 1 ton of enriched uranium found and secreatly removed from Iraq in the last few weeks.
 
the only thing that is making me vote for Bush is that he is the only one that will (in a fucked up round about way) avenge the deaths of 3000 people, whose only shortcoming was going to work in the towers on 911.
Click to expand...

...by sending 1000 more to their deaths and another 4000 to the hospital with injuries varying from loss of limbs to psychological trauma.

Bush is a fucking tool. Kerry's an asshole. I can't stand either of them; the politicians in this country are running it straight into the fuc*ing ground. I hope they all burn in hell.


You guys see Alien Vs Predator? Remember the catch phrase on the movie posters?

WHOEVER WINS, WE LOSE!

BV
 
53 - 38%
15 point difference. That's pretty close to the latest gallup poll.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top