|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 536 responses total. |
klg
|
|
response 407 of 536:
| 
Dec 10 17:10 UTC 2003 |
Algore has issued his presidential endorsement. "I've seen a candidate
who has what it takes to reach out to the independent, mainstream
Americans who will make the difference . . . particularly in the
South," Gore said. "He's going to send George Bush packing and bring
the Democratic Party home."
(It didn't seem to help a lot when he said that about Michael Dukakis
in 1988. Any reason to think it'll be more use to Dean this time
around?------By the way, at least in 1988 he didn't stab his loyal,
former runningmate in the back.)
|
twenex
|
|
response 408 of 536:
|
Dec 10 17:19 UTC 2003 |
Be sure to put that in Al Gora.
|
gull
|
|
response 409 of 536:
|
Dec 10 18:42 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:406: A lot of fringe types believe that the mercury in
silver-amalgam fillings is dangerous. They also won't get vaccinated
because of mercury-based preservatives used in some vaccines. I'm not
aware of any mainstream medical science backing up those claims.
|
tod
|
|
response 410 of 536:
|
Dec 10 19:24 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 411 of 536:
|
Dec 10 20:37 UTC 2003 |
Shucks!
|
richard
|
|
response 412 of 536:
|
Dec 10 20:47 UTC 2003 |
#410..tod why do you say that? I think Gore's endorsement only helps Dean.
Gore got 500,000 more votes than Bush in the last election, he won the popular
election. He is the uncrowned champion. His endorsement carries a lot of
clout within the party. That said, Dean didn't really need Gore's
endorsement, he was already doing just fine without it
|
klg
|
|
response 413 of 536:
|
Dec 10 20:57 UTC 2003 |
(Certainly it must, Mr. richard! Look at how effective Gore's
endorsement was in the 1988 election. Didn't Mr. Bush lose that
election, too?)
|
gelinas
|
|
response 414 of 536:
|
Dec 10 21:23 UTC 2003 |
(Fifteen years ago, Gore was just another senator. Things have changed a bit
since then.)
|
tod
|
|
response 415 of 536:
|
Dec 10 21:26 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 416 of 536:
|
Dec 10 21:47 UTC 2003 |
A Clark vs. Bush race would be interesting. Or Lieberman vs. Bush.
I've always wondered what would happen if two Republicans ran against
each other for President.
|
scott
|
|
response 417 of 536:
|
Dec 10 23:36 UTC 2003 |
Interesting, anyway. Lieberman tends to rub me the wrong way for some reason,
but not as much as Bush. Dean or Clark would be interesting.
|
jp2
|
|
response 418 of 536:
|
Dec 10 23:59 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 419 of 536:
|
Dec 11 01:03 UTC 2003 |
Lieberman is too sanctimonious for me. He is less so, though, than
Bush.
|
richard
|
|
response 420 of 536:
|
Dec 11 07:10 UTC 2003 |
The problem is that Kerry, Lieberman, and Gephardt are traditional democrats.
They symbolize the Democratic leadership in Congress in the nineties when the
Demcrats became the minority party there. They do not inspire any passion.
People don't care about them, they see them as politics as usual, and I do
not think they will vote out Bush in favor of someone who represents the
same-old same-old
Dean inspires a great deal of passion, particularly among younger voters.
Gore recognizes this. He recognizes that the party can't beat Bush without
a candidate they can get passionate about. They can't get passionate about
and aren't getting passionate about these others. It is Dean that has the
grass roots movement behind him and that means it is Dean who has the best
chance to beat Bush. General Clark is the only alternative IMO and I think
there is too much distrust of the military among the party's rank and file
to nominate a general.
But what does that leave for the strongest ticket, the ticket that could
inspire the most independent voters, and the most new voters, logically a
Dean/Clark ticket. Face it, if Gephardt or Kerry run against Bush, a lot of
voters won't care. They'll stay home. They'll see the same-old same-old.
Why replace Bush with one of the Democratic leadership in Congress when many
voters think both sides have failed in recent years? To win, to beat Bush,
the Democrats must give the voters someone different, someone outside
Washington who has shown political skills and the willingness to get right
in Bush's face and stare him down. That is Howard Dean.
|
remmers
|
|
response 421 of 536:
|
Dec 11 12:30 UTC 2003 |
According to a story in today's New York Times, Bush's advisers are
now assuming that Dean will be his opponent in 2004.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/politics/campaigns/11REPU.html?hp
|
other
|
|
response 422 of 536:
|
Dec 11 15:29 UTC 2003 |
I'm assuming America will be his opponent.
|
twenex
|
|
response 423 of 536:
|
Dec 11 15:51 UTC 2003 |
rotflmao. How true.
|
remmers
|
|
response 424 of 536:
|
Dec 11 17:15 UTC 2003 |
(We can hope...)
|
klg
|
|
response 425 of 536:
|
Dec 11 17:24 UTC 2003 |
One word for Mr. richard: George McGovern
(Go, How-weird! Go, Weasley! Our "dream ticket.")
|
rcurl
|
|
response 426 of 536:
|
Dec 12 02:07 UTC 2003 |
Don't you wish.....
|
bhoward
|
|
response 427 of 536:
|
Dec 12 03:19 UTC 2003 |
So which word was it Mr. Klg, "George" or "McGovern"?
|
klg
|
|
response 428 of 536:
|
Dec 12 03:32 UTC 2003 |
(Hey. We ought to know. We campaigned for him.)
|
remmers
|
|
response 429 of 536:
|
Dec 12 15:18 UTC 2003 |
(Yet more confirmation of my long-standing observation that ex-liberals
make the most tiresome conservatives. ;-)
|
gull
|
|
response 430 of 536:
|
Dec 12 15:20 UTC 2003 |
Not surprising. The most annoying and overly evangelistic religious
people are always the freshly converted, as well.
|
klg
|
|
response 431 of 536:
|
Dec 12 17:09 UTC 2003 |
(We gotta make up for the foolishness of our youth.)
|
