Dem. Presidential Candidates

[channonc 466]

I love Wesley Clark!!! Clark '04!!

[CarolinaTiger 0]

i voted for lieberman...

after that, i'd vote for clark.

after that, i'd go buy alec baldwin's house oversees on the cheap and live elsewhere

ct

[Tiger Al 0]

Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean!!!

Hey, channon, quick question. Do you think Clark's lack of political experience will help or hurt him? I was hoping Howard Dean would pick him to be his VP if he wins the primary.

[Tigermike 3,065]

I voted for Sharpton, he is the most honest of all the democratic canditates.

[TitanTiger 20,527]

I voted for Sharpton, he is the most honest of all the democratic canditates.

Saying someone is the "most honest" of the Democratic candidates is about like saying one particular pig is the "best smelling" at the county fair.

[Tigermike 3,065]

I voted for Sharpton, he is the most honest of all the democratic canditates.

Saying someone is the "most honest" of the Democratic candidates is about like saying one particular pig is the "best smelling" at the county fair.

You DO have a point there!

[Jenny AU-92 0]

I chose Al Sharpton - the question WAS who would I most like to see win - not only would Bush put an A**-Kicking on him, the campaign would be HYSTERICAL!!! The debates would be SNL fodder for MONTHS!!! We might as well get some fun and humor out of this.

[CCTAU 3,351]

I chose Al Sharpton - the question WAS who would I most like to see win - not only would Bush put an A**-Kicking on him, the campaign would be HYSTERICAL!!! The debates would be SNL fodder for MONTHS!!! We might as well get some fun and humor out of this.

Me too Spanky!

[channonc 466]

Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean!!!

Hey, channon, quick question. Do you think Clark's lack of political experience will help or hurt him? I was hoping Howard Dean would pick him to be his VP if he wins the primary.

I think it will help him big time. Let's face it, Americans are sick of hearing the same thing from both sides of the asile. The rhetoric gets really old. I think he offers a refreshing new perspective. Hey if Arnold can win the recall, anything's possible.

A side note: Of the major candidates, Dean is by far my least favorite. It is so clear to me he is after complete power (not that all politicians aren't-- hey, I am not that naive) but he projects an attitude that is more about winning than about what he likes/dislikes or would change as a President. He doesn't really seem to have solid ideas other than attacking Bush on everything. Hey, debate is good, but just disagreeing because that's what you think other Dems want to hear is not good. I would like a candidate with thought out ideas and not just a script from a political consultant. That's my take TigerAl.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

My main beef abt Clark is that he seems to be doing this as some kind of revenge factor because the Republicans dissed him. That and the fact that he has Bill and the Hildabeast pulling his strings.

They are setting him up SO BAD. Clark is EXACTLY who Hillary wants to be the Dem nominee because he is not as pinko as Dean and therefore won't totally alienate the moderate Dem voters that she will need in 2008. But the important point for her is that he does not stand a legit chance at winning - the absolute worst thing that could happen in her mind is for a Dem to win in 2004 and then be an incumbent for 2008! Either party in most instances will not allow other people in a primary against a sitting President. That is how I know none of the Dems have a legit chance - if the Hildabeast thought for one minute that GWB was beatable, she would be in this race like white on rice.

VOTE FOR AL!!! SHARPTON, that is, not that wooden white boy that got beat last year!!!

[channonc 466]

As much as I am not a fan of Bill or Hillary, why must their names come up in every debate? Hillary is a NY Senator, so unless you live in NY, her politics really don't affect you all that much. Bill, is sitting back enjoying his celebrity status and thinks his name alone will be enough to pull other Dem candidates through.

Hillary doesn't want to run this election merely because she doesn't want to alienate her constituents in NY. Many on the Hill from NY have expressed how upset they would be if she were to run for Pres. not serving out her entire term. That, I think, is the real reason she is not throwing her hat into the ring. But who cares anyway, the more of an issue you make of the Clintons the more power and free media exposure they get.

I don't think Clark is trying any sort of revenge on the Republicans. He has always leaned a little left of center (ever listen to his commentary on CNN???).

Speaking of Republican dissing, one of your best Congressman (former now) chose not to run for re-election because he was alienated by the party. This is word I got directly from one of his former aides who stated that they could not get the party to directly support him, in his climb up the party ladder. That former congressman is J.C. Watts.

[TitanTiger 20,527]

I think what drives me nuts is how there is no room for a true middle ground candidate. Political independents are novelties that make it here and there as Congressmen, but almost never as Senators (unless they change after an election) and forget about it as President.

Give me a pro-life Democrat who makes decisions not based on a party ideology, but issue by issue (he might make Dems happy on one thing, Repubs on another), and I'd probably vote for him. I vote Republican because they seem to be the only ones willing to stand for the unborn (which is an even bigger deal to me now that I've watched my daughter come into the world) and they generally keep taxes down. But I don't agree with them on everything. If a Democrat came through with enough views of importance to me where I liked them, I'd flip the switch for them.

In fact, I have voted for a Democrat mayor here in Nashville twice now, and came so close to doing so for governor, but couldn't in good conscience because of his pro-choice views.

I just despair at the choices we always seem to get.

[channonc 466]

I think what drives me nuts is how there is no room for a true middle ground candidate. Political independents are novelties that make it here and there as Congressmen, but almost never as Senators (unless they change after an election) and forget about it as President.

Ok, here is where I will correct you. Senators are actually much more middle of the road, despite what you hear in the news (another reason I loathe the media). By nature, Congressmen only represent a small portion of a state, and therefore only have to keep that small group of people happy. Hey Charles Rangel could never be a NY Senator, way too left and not as willing to negotiate. Senators represent an entire state (obviously) and do not have quite the room to be so far right or left as you might think. Esp. those from bigger states such as NY, NYC is very liberal, but upstate NY is much more Conservative.

I know whenever we have markups in Committee (I work on the Senate side), I actually see much more votes by region than by party. For example, one of the bills that came through Committee authorized more money for NOAA. Naturally, Senators from coastal states (we have SC, CA, OR, AK, VA, NH, MA, HI, FL, WA, NJ) all voted for it, while the inland states naturally had major questions and were not inclined to vote for it. These are things the media doesn't tell you.

So, what the media portrays and what the candidate actually stands for are 2 totally different things. Issues such as media consolidation has become more a big state vs. little state debate. I mean who would have ever thought that Trent Lott and Robert Byrd would ever agree on an issue. Anyway, for more on this issue check out S.1046. And like I have said several times on this forum, research what your representatives and Senators are doing. Also, check out alternative sources of media, and not just Rep. or Dem. oriented. Mainstream media leaves out what they either don't want you to know or what they feel isn't interesting.

[Ranger12 46]

Well, if I was to vote for a democrat, which I will not be, it would be Gen. Clark. If Bush is to somehow lose, I would feel better about this country if Clark was the winner instead of the other wannabes running. I do have some issues with Clark's duplicity, but it is one of those "lesser of two evils" choices when it comes to the democrats.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

My main beef abt Clark is that he seems to be doing this as some kind of revenge factor because the Republicans dissed him.  That and the fact that he has Bill and the Hildabeast pulling his strings.

They are setting him up SO BAD.  Clark is EXACTLY who Hillary wants to be the Dem nominee because he is not as pinko as Dean and therefore won't totally alienate the moderate Dem voters that she will need in 2008.  But the important point for her is that he does not stand a legit chance at winning - the absolute worst thing that could happen in her mind is for a Dem to win in 2004 and then be an incumbent for 2008!  Either party in most instances will not allow other people in a primary against a sitting President.  That is how I know none of the Dems have a legit chance - if the Hildabeast thought for one minute that GWB was beatable, she would be in this race like white on rice. 

VOTE FOR AL!!!  SHARPTON, that is, not that wooden white boy that got beat last year!!!

Very well put, Jenny. IMO, Clark is nothing but another lying, flip-flopping, swayed by public opinion, Clinton hack. His whole "I would have voted for the war", "I would never have voted for this war" two faced game is very old. I knew this joker from his days on active duty. I doubt very seriously that there is a more indecisive man on the face of this earth. Look at the Balkans and Somalia and see what kind of leadership qualities this man has. I'd rather vote for Gore