I recommend you check out the current New Yorker magazine. They have a profile of Democratic Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. He is intelligent, thoughtful, attractive and is running for President. He may be our best hope to win in 2004. Another Gore candidacy would be a disaster......

Not to be confused with John Edward, who seems hellbent on making a fool of himself with all that "Crossing Over" nonsense.

I like his politics (liberal-progressive), his razor-sharp mind, and the facxt that
he's no poll-beholden, shrinking violet. I can't see him collapsing like a jelly roll, as Gore and Lieberman did when confronted with combative Republicans. (Gore turned into Norman Bates for the debates, while Lieberman folded long before that during *his* debate with Cheney. I won't vote for either of these two again.)

Pair Edwards with a moderate-to-left Democrat from the Midwest or Northwest, and they could win in 2004. I'd love to see him run with a woman, though that's pretty unlikely. But they need to win the Midwest to win the country; nearly all the northeastern (save New Hampshire) and pacific states will vote Democrat again, so winning last election's states plus one other notable swing state like Missouri will be crucial.

Does the phrase "empty suit of clothes" mean anything? Quick! Name an issue that John Edwards has taken a stand on? Clocks ticking ... tick tock tick tock.

Edwards is another one giving speeches on how the Bush tax cut ruined the economy and destroyed the surplus, but ... HE WON'T VOTE TO REPEAL IT! Profiles in a whiney version of courage. Maybe's he's got convictions, I don't know, but he's been a trial lawyer all his life so I kinda doubt it.

The only Democrat running in 2004 that seems to be willing to take stands on issues is Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. Dean (a physician by training) is a left of center for my tastes, but I like him. He's destined to be the Paul Tsongas or Bruce Babbitt of the 2004 Democratic primaries. Media darling ... straight shooter ... hopeless loser. Edwards looks good, but if that's the only qualification for president, I'd vote for Mike Hampton or Mike Alstott instead.

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:
Does the phrase "empty suit of clothes" mean anything? Quick! Name an issue that John Edwards has taken a stand on

---

How about preserving the right of the wronged "little guy" to sue for damages, by opposing the oligarichal business-elite's attempt to smash and eviscerate such rights under the hypocritically-named "tort reform" movement? Hey at least he's upfront about it!

Saw JE on Meet the Press yesterday, and he seemed to hold his own against Russert (who I thought was moderate in his approach, not an attack dog but neither a lobber of softballs (a la Larry "Loan Me $50" King))..... My main concern is his rapid-eyeblink tic as he prepares to answer a question - in this day of 100 percent campaign via visual media, you have to think of everything (like Tricky Dick and his 5 o'clock shadow)

Only a fool or a very secure Democrat (like Teddy Kennedy) would vote to repeal Bush's tax cut, though it is one of the worst measures to be enacted in the last 20 years. It's back-loaded, tilted towards the top 1% richest Americans, and a terrible restraint on the government's ability to raise money for necessary purposes without incurring a deficit, among other serious issues. To give a sense of how inept the whole thing was, the DEMOCRATS had to push through the $600 temporary stimulus package since the Republicans had no provisions for immediate cuts, especially for working-class and poor Americans, yet who took credit for this giveback (which was then taken right back this April 15, 2002)? Bush and Republicans!!!

Edwards, though popular at home, is from North Carolina, and I don't doubt he'd be punished for doing the correct thing (repealing the idiotic tax relief bill), so he and every other Democrat should allow this thing to work its awful magic and let someone who's a bit more immune to the ballotine take the steps necessary.

I like Howard Dean of Vermont a lot, but I think he may be (easily) painted as too liberal by the national media for having signed into law civil unions in Vermont. Vermont also has very few electoral votes. With Edwards they could win a state that they absolutely need to push them over the electoral hump.

Great post, Wurm.

most people don't realize what a threat to the common man, environment, and people's health and safety that tort reform (in actuality should be called corporate protection from wilful and wanton negligence act) is. Edwards is a fighter for the little guy and steadfast against tort reform.

I like him and I plan on supporting either him or Dick Gephardt in the '04 primaries.

And, btw, if you visit some conservative websites, you'll find out that it is Edwards whom the Right most fears.

I like Edwards a lot, hes got a lot to offer, very good on tv and would carry some of the southeren states. hes my choice along with John Kerry who i think would be a very stong candiate also, especially with is strong military background. i pray that gore stays at home. we will see

I was impressed with Edwards as well and would like to find out more about him. He certainly has a sharper mind than W. As for Gore, I think that before he even declares, he'll find that the money has dried up for him. Gore barely beat W. in the popular vote even with the power of the White House at his disposal. Now W. has that power and would kick Gore's butt. (Due to the recently passed campaign finance reform, Bush could easily raise 2-4 times as much money as he did in 2000.)

Here's a more neutral view of Edwards's amateurish performance on Tim Russert from Stuart Rothenberg of the (relatively) non-partisan Roll Call:

Golden Boy Edwards Needs to Do More Than Promise to Lead

Back to my opinion: The spineless trial lawyer Edwards will be lucky to win re-election to the Senate in 2004, let alone be elected President.

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

Thanks to CitT for the Rosenburg/Roll Call link.

I took the time to read some of his back columns,
and also some opinions about his general nonpartisan look at issues (especially in detailed analysis of Congressional races) and I've added his site to my Bookmarks.

I stand by my purposely surface opinion that Edwards was perfectly OK for a very early outing - Rosenburg goes deeper into detail and raises a number of valid issues (it's his job, after all), but in no way does he dismiss Edwards or his 2004 chances out of hand (it was more a gauntlet to challenge Edwards to back up his words - fair enough).

I also love the fact that Rosenburg, as recently as mid-2000 was referring to Bubya as "a typical country-club Republican"

I wonder if the spin doctoring is in response to an early realization that a Democrat is emerging who will have lots and lots of money (from many of his fellow trial lawyers, and others) who will have no problem with exposing the shennanigans of the business-oligarchy and their political puppets?

I like Edwards but he's way to inexperienced to run for the WH. He also can come across as too much of a blow-dried phony politician.

He's okay, though. I'll probably end up backing Dick Gephardt of even Bush for re-election. I'm not so left-wing that i can't recognize that our president has done a wonderful job on the war on terror. Even though i didn't vote for him (much to my father's chagrin), he has made me proud.

Well the problem with the Bush tax cuts is that only the rebate portion has actually been implemented. So it's a little ridiculous to blame the economy on that.

Besides, the government doesn't need any more money. It's got plenty as it is. The rest should go back to us.

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:
Does the phrase "empty suit of clothes" mean anything? Quick! Name an issue that John Edwards has taken a stand on? Clocks ticking ... tick tock tick tock.

Edwards is another one giving speeches on how the Bush tax cut ruined the economy and destroyed the surplus, but ... HE WON'T VOTE TO REPEAL IT! Profiles in a whiney version of courage. Maybe's he's got convictions, I don't know, but he's been a trial lawyer all his life so I kinda doubt it.

The only Democrat running in 2004 that seems to be willing to take stands on issues is Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. Dean (a physician by training) is a left of center for my tastes, but I like him. He's destined to be the Paul Tsongas or Bruce Babbitt of the 2004 Democratic primaries. Media darling ... straight shooter ... hopeless loser. Edwards looks good, but if that's the only qualification for president, I'd vote for Mike Hampton or Mike Alstott instead.

---

And that's the point - to cripple the government's ability to grow spending year after year. Bush is a shrewd cookie. His tax cuts weren't just about giving money back to the people, they were also about crippling the government's ability to spend.

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Only a fool or a very secure Democrat (like Teddy Kennedy) would vote to repeal Bush's tax cut, though it is one of the worst measures to be enacted in the last 20 years. It's back-loaded, tilted towards the top 1% richest Americans, and a terrible restraint on the government's ability to raise money for necessary purposes without incurring a deficit, among other serious issues. To give a sense of how inept the whole thing was, the DEMOCRATS had to push through the $600 temporary stimulus package since the Republicans had no provisions for immediate cuts, especially for working-class and poor Americans, yet who took credit for this giveback (which was then taken right back this April 15, 2002)? Bush and Republicans!!!

Edwards, though popular at home, is from North Carolina, and I don't doubt he'd be punished for doing the correct thing (repealing the idiotic tax relief bill), so he and every other Democrat should allow this thing to work its awful magic and let someone who's a bit more immune to the ballotine take the steps necessary.

I like Howard Dean of Vermont a lot, but I think he may be (easily) painted as too liberal by the national media for having signed into law civil unions in Vermont. Vermont also has very few electoral votes. With Edwards they could win a state that they absolutely need to push them over the electoral hump.

---

[quote]Originally posted by Treebeard:
And that's the point - to cripple the government's ability to grow spending year after year. Bush is a shrewd cookie. His tax cuts weren't just about giving money back to the people, they were also about crippling the government's ability to spend.

---

Oh yeah. Great point, Treebeard. Thats why our whipsmart President is about to sign the most expensive farm bill in the history of the United States. This farm bill is a disaster for fiscal responsibility. Coupled with his completely unresponsible tax cuts, this dimwit is going to send our nation back to Reagan era deficits.

Yes, Harkin wrote the majority of the farm bill with Daschle over his shoulder. Yes, Shrub is sinking to his knees to please the farm states he'll need to re-take the senate. Yes, its politics as usual and its disgusting.

(I won't even address the huge increase in defense and security related expenditures since the 11th. I actually support most of those expenditures.)

So don't even try to pretend that Shrub's tax cuts were anything but payback to the rich that got him elected. Our one and only president is spending us back into deficits like a drunken sailor.

ah, the farm bill -- $180 billion of pork and waste and unsound economics. But does it really surprise anyone that Bush signed the bill? After all, this is the same guy who supported steel tariffs (how close was Bush to taking Pennsylvania in 2000?) and mandated ethanol in California (this will mean zillions of dollars for ADM, one of the largest GOP contributors, plus it makes the Greens in California, with it's 50, count 'em, FIFTY electoral votes, happy).

Before 9/11, I lost almost all faith in Bush because with his support for steel tariffs and ethanol in California he violated fundamental principles of free markets and states' rights, two of the main reasons I tend to vote Republican. While I'm happy with the way he's acted in the war effort, I will very seriously consider voting Democrat in 2004 (well, as long as the Dem candidate's not Al Bore).

John Edwards hails from my home town of Seneca, South Carolina, where he lived until age 12. He wanted to play football at Clemson (8 miles from Seneca) but wasn't able to win a scholarship and transferred to N.C. State.

What scares the Republicans about Edwards is that he is a moderate-to-liberal Democrat who has a demonstrated ability to connect with (white) southern voters. Coupled with 90% support from black voters, if he can take 40% of the white vote he can put several southern states back into the Democratic column. If they can do this, the presidency is theirs.

I have been impressed with him ever since he defeated Lauch Faircloth (a Jesse Helms clone, ideologically) in 1998. He did it not by tacking to the center right, like Zell Miller, but by sticking with an essentially liberal message, centering on HMO reform. Faircloth's attempts to label him as an "ambulance chaser" didn't stick-- though a trial lawyer by profession, his working class roots are genuine, as both his mother & father worked in the textile mills. So he can't easily be tagged with the "liberal elitist" label. Though he has tended not to focus on divisive social issues, his stand on gay issues is as good as one can expect from a senator representing a culturally conservative state.

As for lacking experience, we need only remind ourselves that the present occupant of the White House, before being selected president, had only served one and a half terms as governor of Texas, after an utterly undistinguished career before entering politics.

I would be happy to have John Edwards as the Democratic nominee or as part of a Kerry-Edwards ticket in 2004.

Well, hey, if you think that the government can totally be separated from politics, you're crazy.

So give Bush his due. He's done a great job so far and people are already forgetting skankbag Clinton and Gore the loser.

[quote]Originally posted by SFHoya:


Oh yeah. Great point, Treebeard. Thats why our whipsmart President is about to sign the most expensive farm bill in the history of the United States. This farm bill is a disaster for fiscal responsibility. Coupled with his completely unresponsible tax cuts, this dimwit is going to send our nation back to Reagan era deficits.

Yes, Harkin wrote the majority of the farm bill with Daschle over his shoulder. Yes, Shrub is sinking to his knees to please the farm states he'll need to re-take the senate. Yes, its politics as usual and its disgusting.

(I won't even address the huge increase in defense and security related expenditures since the 11th. I actually support most of those expenditures.)

So don't even try to pretend that Shrub's tax cuts were anything but payback to the rich that got him elected. Our one and only president is spending us back into deficits like a drunken sailor.

---

It'll end up being Gore, trust me. Kerry is too liberal, Edwards isn't ready and Leiberman would make a terrible candidate. Mark my words, it'll be Gore.

And he isn't getting MY vote again.

[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
ah, the farm bill -- $180 billion of pork and waste and unsound economics. But does it really surprise anyone that Bush signed the bill? After all, this is the same guy who supported steel tariffs (how close was Bush to taking Pennsylvania in 2000?) and mandated ethanol in California (this will mean zillions of dollars for ADM, one of the largest GOP contributors, plus it makes the Greens in California, with it's 50, count 'em, FIFTY electoral votes, happy).

Before 9/11, I lost almost all faith in Bush because with his support for steel tariffs and ethanol in California he violated fundamental principles of free markets and states' rights, two of the main reasons I tend to vote Republican. While I'm happy with the way he's acted in the war effort, I will very seriously consider voting Democrat in 2004 (well, as long as the Dem candidate's not Al Bore).

---

[quote]Originally posted by azairforce:
I like Edwards a lot, hes got a lot to offer, very good on tv and would carry some of the southeren states. hes my choice along with John Kerry who i think would be a very stong candiate also, especially with is strong military background. i pray that gore stays at home. we will see

---

AZAirforce, I like John Kerry too, but he can be a bit too blue-bloodish and reserved at times. He does have a distinguished military record, unlike the pResident, and money to spare (he's married to the Heinz heiress *and* comes from a Brahminish background--the Boston Forbeses, not the New Jersey ones--they own Naushon Island in Massachusetts, etc.). Edwards would have little trouble winning over working-class whites, most Black voters, and many Latinos. The GOP will try to destroy him, and people have talked about his lack of *experience,* but then Shrub, as others have pointed out had little experience, as he served his gubernatorial post was "weak" compared with that of other U.S. states (like New York, for example, or California), his record as governor was undistinguished except for his ability to pass through legislation amenable to big corporations and his previous career as a business was generally a failure (though he got his father's friend to bail him out with his oil debacles and the taxpayers of Texas to enrich him out with the Rangers, just as we ALL bailed out his brother Neil for his savings and loan shenanigans). At least Edwards doesn't have that baggage to carry around--but he's a DEMOCRAT from the South, so the media will try to TEAR HIM APART.

Gore really should try to formalize his posts at Vanderbilt or Columbia, and STAY OUT OF THE RACE. His namby-pamby approach in Florida was confirmation enough he really didn't want to be president. Lieberman is a conservative towel-wringer and should set his aims no higher than a post with the DLC. (Connecticut can keep him.) I'd vote for Daschle, who has shown considerable, quiet backbone against the Bush juggernaut.

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

While Kerry's political legacy and his war hero status are impressive, I think that Kerry is not LOVED, even among Massachusetts Democrats. He's seen by many as haughty (blue blood and more) and not too likable personally. I've heard comments like "I hope he wins by one vote". Also, "another Massachusetts liberal?" He would have that stigma to overcome; he won't play well outside New England just like Phil Graham didn't play well outside Texas.
The problem with Dachsle is that his rhetoric is kinda old and stale, an old-fashioned liberal talk that mainstream America is bored with. We're a country of change, new things. Commercials don't last long. People who hate Sen. Kennedy, IMO the greatest Senator in the history of the U.S., usually come up with lame comments like "can this guy retire, already?", to appeal to the prevailing sentiment that new is better. Dachsle has major hair issues too.
Gephardt has the same staleness factor, plus old protectionism bagage that won't go away.
I'm willing to go with Edwards, although I'm not as impressed with him as some of you, and groom him to be our next prez. Go for it John!

I won't comment on the merits of Sen. John Kerry other than to point out:
1. Republicans are absolutely salivating at the thought that the Dems might nominate another Massachusetts liberal as their candidate. (Wasn't Kerry once Lt. Gov. for Gov. Dukakis? Fire up the tank for one more ride around the block!)
2. Peter Gammons HATES John Kerry. I've never read him comment directly on any other Massachusetts pol.

Another point about Edwards: people like their presidential candidates to have some executive experience. The last two Dems to win were former Georgia GOVERNOR Jimmy Carter and Arkansas GOVERNOR Bill Clinton. Senators tend to make lousy presidential candidates (e.g., Bob Dole), because they tend to have no record of real, TANGIBLE accomplishments. A governor can single-handedly do something. What can a senator do? Well if he (or she) gets the support of 50 other colleagues, he might be able to pass a bill in one chamber of the legislature. And that's it. The senator has nothing to do with how the law is implemented or enforced. Governors do. Senators talk.

So if you're looking for electable Democrats, look to the state houses, where, unfortunately for the Dems, the farm team is looking weak. Gray Davis is finished as a national candidate, unless (possibly) he wins re-election by an overwhelming margin. The other mega-states have Republican governors, although that will change after the 2002 elections when Illinois and maybe Pennsylvania or Michigan elect Dems. But those winners will be too new to run in 2004.

So that leaves three current governors and one former governor as plausible national candidates for the Dems:
1. Evan Bayh of Indiana. Now in the Senate. Very popular two-term governor of a very Republican state. Young, and way too smart to challenge a sitting president.
2. Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. The media hint that he might run, but other than an ability to win the Iowa caucuses (which was SUCH a boon to Tom Harkin's campaign), he's got nothing going for him.
So that leaves two:
3. Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.
4. Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes.

If Al Gore doesn't run, one of those two men will be your 2004 Democratic nominee.

[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:
Fire up the tank for one more ride around the block!

---

Yeah, but at least Kerry is a bonafide war hero -- any military reference wouldn't be as goofy as Dukakis' tank pic -- and would bring more comparisons to JFK (the last sitting senator to win the presidency). You're right about Beige Davis -- he'll probably win reelection this fall but can't see him going national. Howard Dean can't win -- just because of his support for the gay civil union law. It's a shame, but, I fear, true.

Charlie in the Trees discusses Gray Davis, current Gov of California. He is extremely lucky that the Republicans voted for Bill Simon to face him; even diehard never-gonna-vote-Republican-my-arm-would-fall-off-Democrats are not pleased with Davis. He has been only moderately successful in getting his agenda across and is so lacking in ANY charisma that he turns people off. Additionally, there are now reports that he asked leaders of the teachers union for $$$ in the Capitol (not smart.) Add this to rumblings that the stae budget shotfall, publicized as being approx $20 million will actually be far greater--and announced only after the election.

~Adam

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:
So if you're looking for electable Democrats, look to the state houses, where, unfortunately for the Dems, the farm team is looking weak. Gray Davis is finished as a national candidate, unless (possibly) he wins re-election by an overwhelming margin. The other mega-states have Republican governors, although that will change after the 2002 elections when Illinois and maybe Pennsylvania or Michigan elect Dems. But those winners will be too new to run in 2004.

So that leaves three current governors and one former governor as plausible national candidates for the Dems:
1. Evan Bayh of Indiana. Now in the Senate. Very popular two-term governor of a very Republican state. Young, and way too smart to challenge a sitting president.
2. Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. The media hint that he might run, but other than an ability to win the Iowa caucuses (which was SUCH a boon to Tom Harkin's campaign), he's got nothing going for him.
So that leaves two:
3. Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.
4. Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes.

If Al Gore doesn't run, one of those two men will be your 2004 Democratic nominee.

[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

---

Well, don't forget Don Siegelman of Alabama (ha ha ha!--he's fighting for his job) and Ronny Musgrove of Mississippi--wouldn't THAT be something! (Musgrove actually appears to be pretty decent as a governor, or so I hear--and he's a moderate Democrat.) Neither of these states has ever produced a president, and I don't think they will this time around.

In addition to the states you name, there are actually Democratic governors in Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii (big surprise!), Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri (no $$ in trouble), New Hampshire (may be running against Sen. Snuffaluffagus, Bob Smith, or the Sununu son), New Jersey (left with a horrific fiscal mess by Republicans), North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia (he's pretty conservative too), Washington (the first Chinese-American governor, I think), and West Virginia. So the Dems actually do have more to choose from than the folks you mention. The top choices appear to be Edwards, Kerry, the bore, Lieberman, Daschle, and Gephardt.

I really don't think Dean has a chance, Charlie. I mean, the Domestic Union bill will prevent him from any national elected office. He wouldn't win one state outside the northeast, Hawaii and California, if even these (I could actually see him winning Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island). The Democrats HAVE TO WIN at least five-six of the midwestern states, the Pacific northwest, and one other big swinger because the Republicans have rolled in the south and the southwest the last few elections. Clinton did win Georgia, and a Democrat could win Florida (Gore did, but...), West Virginia, and Missouri, but definitely not Dean. A Southern Democrat might also win another of the southern states--I could see Edwards winning North Carolina and possibly Georgia. Some states (Indiana, Arizona, Wyoming, Montana, almost automatically go into the Republican column.)

Evan Bayh is too bland and a bit conservative, though he's quite photogenic. As for Senators becoming president, don't forget that before Carter, the last two Democratic presidents were Senators: Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy. I do think gubernatorial or Vice Presidential experience usually weighs more in voters' minds, but if a candidate is appealing (or has good spin doctors and press) he can overcome this.

[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
ah, the farm bill -- $180 billion of pork and waste and unsound economics. But does it really surprise anyone that Bush signed the bill? After all, this is the same guy who supported steel tariffs (how close was Bush to taking Pennsylvania in 2000?)

---

Not very, as I recall.

[quote]Originally posted by Treebeard:
So give Bush his due. He's done a great job so far and people are already forgetting skankbag Clinton and Gore the loser.

---

Duh-bya isn't doing that well, "war" or no "war."

[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
... Bush ... this will mean zillions of dollars for ADM, one of the largest GOP contributors, ...

---

In all fairness, ADM gives buckets of money to Dems too. It is an equal opportunity corporation. Can't remember the head honcho's name - Andreas?, something like that.

[quote]Originally posted by Billy:
I have been impressed with him ever since he defeated Lauch Faircloth (a Jesse Helms clone, ideologically) in 1998.

---

Famed for his hog lagoons.

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Sen. Snuffaluffagus, Bob Smith, ...

---

Worst combover in the Senate by far. Find a picture. Eeeek.

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
As for Senators becoming president, don't forget that before Carter, the last two Democratic presidents were Senators: Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy.
[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

---

Only three men -- in the entire history of the American Republic -- have been elected president directly from the U.S. Senate. None served more than one term (albeir because two died in the third years of their presidencies). These three include our two worst heterosexual presidents: Franklin Pierce (D-NH) and Warren G. Harding (R-OH).

The third, of course, was John F. Kennedy, a man who proved true that old rock and roll adage about death being a great career move. Kennedy was a rather undistinguished fellow (not even the most qualified for the presidency in his own family, which would be the great Bobby Kennedy, I say as a conservative Republican without irony). His record of accomplishments are quite thin, unless you want to credit him with the escalation of the war in Vietnam and the implementation of a strategy that would render that conflict unwinnable.

Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman, both X-Senators, don't count, as they were Vice Presidents who became president upon the death of others. Neither was elected to the presidency directly from the Senate. They were elected president only as incumbents.

History pop quiz: When I say that Franklin Pierce and Warren G. Harding were America's two worst HETEROSEXUAL presidents, who is the Homosexual-American that I believe was the worst president in American history?

(Clue: Bill Clinton has proved his heterosexuality sufficiently and irrefutably that there is no way I put him in this category.)

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:

History pop quiz: who is the Homosexual-American that I believe was the worst president in American history?

---

My answer would be James Buchanan (who was incredibly ineffective in the years prior to the Civil War) -- I'd put him among the worst -- but can't be certain of his orientation ... however, he has been our only bachelor president (don't know if he was cruising in Lafayette Park!)

Regarding southern Democrat Governors: when Ray Mabus was in Mississippi there was talk about his bright future. What happened to him?

~Adam

Uh oh! Hillary Clinton for V.P.? The idea of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) for VP in 2004 "is being peddled quietly" by some Democratic "powerbrokers, including her husband."

[quote]Originally posted by DCBucky:
My answer would be James Buchanan (who was incredibly ineffective in the years prior to the Civil War) -- I'd put him among the worst -- but can't be certain of his orientation ... however, he has been our only bachelor president (don't know if he was cruising in Lafayette Park!)

---

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING

We have a winner. Yup. Having the union fall apart on your watch certainly qualifies James Buchanan as America's worst president.

As far as his orientation goes: Buchanan -- America's only bachelor president -- once shared a boarding house room with a perfumed Pennsylvania senator known to his colleagues as "Miss Nancy." (Buchanan's explanation for his bachelorhood: the old dead-fiancee-in-the-way-distant-past story.)

Oops ... am I engaged in inappropriate outing??

If Buchanan was the worst homosexual president, I guess Abraham Lincoln was the greatest homosexual president! Actually, he's one of the five greatest, along with Washington, TR, FDR and Clinton. (And Washington, TR, FDR and Lincoln all rank among the top five in terms of the briefest inaugural speeches in U.S. history!)

Kennedy's accomplishments are greater than the few you list. Johnson completed many of his civil rights initiatives and expanded them. Under his watch the Peace Corps was founded; his initiatives eventually led to our space program; and his fiscal achievements (including cutting taxes) as president were considerable. The JFK myth is overblown, but I'll take him over some of our other chief executives any day. Had Kennedy lived I think he would have accomplished quiet a bit more, but as things go, he was decent enough.

One President that the beloved Raygun adored was Calvin Coolidge. He's one of the most interesting characters ever elected; I don't think it could have happened in the age of TV, but as presidents go, his terms were unalloyed successes (that came right before Hoover's inept approaches and the Depression....).

I hope Hillary Clinton smells some epsom salts and gets a clue. She is doing a fine job as U.S. Senator from New York, but she will SINK THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC TICKET LIKE A TORPEDO!!! Just say no, Hillary! What is Kitzhaber of Oregon like? Is he a viable VP candidate? What about O'Bannon of Indiana?

Hillary Clinton will never get a national nomination for the Dems (either Pres or VP), for the same reason that Jesse Helms and Pat Robertson would never get a Republican national nomination - they're way too polarizing and they would energize the opposition beyond belief.

As for Democratic gubernatorial candidates, you can count out Washington Gov. Gary Locke (first Asian-American governor). He's WAY too wishy-washy and unwilling to take bold stands on even slightly controversial issues. He's better than a Republican, but no one to get excited about.

As far as a sitting senator winning the presidency, I disagree with the argument that something can't happen just because it hasn't happened before (or in a long time). Bush the Elder was the first sitting VP to be elected President in over 100 years, I believe. W. was the first presidential son to be elected since John Quincy Adams. There's a first time for everything.

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: Lots-of-us ]

did someone just list CLINTON as one of our five greatest president's??? OMG! to mention Clinton in the same sentence or breath as Washington or Lincoln...i am too staggered by its absurdity to continue typing...I'm out!

The Clintons, though highly intelligent, seem to have no political savvy. I was shocked by their slow learning curve when he was President--so many of the problems they faced were of their own doing & they kept giving their opponents ammo--and now they STILL haven't learned. Somebody slap them and yell "What are you thinking!?!?"

~Adam

[quote]Originally posted by Adam:
The Clintons, though highly intelligent, seem to have no political savvy. I was shocked by their slow learning curve when he was President--so many of the problems they faced were of their own doing & they kept giving their opponents ammo--and now they STILL haven't learned. ~Adam

---

I think many liberals feel that their opinions are so obviously correct and they look down on conservatives so much they can't imagine anyone with half a mind disagreeing with them. So they always underestimate the opposition.

[quote]Originally posted by copman:
I think many liberals feel that their opinions are so obviously correct and they look down on conservatives so much they can't imagine anyone with half a mind disagreeing with them. So they always underestimate the opposition.

---

Odd, I've always thought of that as a conservative fault.

Right on point, Copman! While Team Billary Lan Lee - let's not forget they were all law school pals at Yale and provided pro bono efforts on behalf of violent black radicals as part of their pre-Washington apprenticeships - is composed of a bunch of very clever minds, what they all lack in common is the common sense to either consider that their ideas might not work or to learn from the mistakes that their hubris brings down upon them.

AND WHOA! Guys, we just had a pretty good little earthquake here in SF! A good 5 second shake at first followed by a decent aftershock. But I stray from the matter at hand ...

Quake Update: 5.2 centered at Gilroy, Garlic Capital of the World, south of San Jose.

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]

IMHO, the failure of the incoming Clinton Admin in January 1993 to build effective partnerships with the Congressional Dem leadership (and the Governors as well) was the single biggest failing of Clinton term I and "fostered" the divisive spiral that contributed to the 1994 electoral disaster.

Whether you blame arrogance, ineptitude or a paranoic mindset (or a combination od those, which is my opinion), all of the attack-dog demagouges who emerged and made a profitable cottage industry of Clinton-hating were just a sideshow - the real damage was self-inflected.

Or, scratch all that - it was probably having to dodge flying table lamps in the family living quarters that distracted Bubba from seeing the "light"


= = = =

gmg - that area around Gilroy / Hollister / The Pinnacles is a fault-line infested zone - sometimes I'd cut through there when driving from the SJV to the Coast and drive over uneven pavement, which was caused by swarms of little quakes that Clatrans hadn't gotten to yet.....

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
One President that the beloved Raygun adored was Calvin Coolidge. He's one of the most interesting characters ever elected; I don't think it could have happened in the age of TV, but as presidents go, his terms were unalloyed successes (that came right before Hoover's inept approaches and the Depression....)

---

Given Coolidge's nickname of "Silent Cal" it's no wonder that the scrambled-eggs-for-brains Grate Kommunikator felt a bond with the 30th President

(Also, CC gained office after the death of Warren Harding in 1923 - hard to say if he would have gained INITIAL election to the White House on his own (as opposed to his 1924 re-election)).

And also keep in mind that there are STILL theories that Mrs. Harding poisoned old Warren to spare him being impeached for the Teapot Dome scandal - good thing Hillary didn't keep arsenic in the Executive Mansion

Bonus points if you can tell exactly where Harding croaked ......


Edited for missing word

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: Wurm ]

[quote]Originally posted by Wurm:

Bonus points if you can tell exactly where Harding croaked ......

---

On a ship in Alaska ?

So close, copman, so close.

Harding was returning from a trip to Alaska, probably fell ill shipboard (especially if you believe the "Florence Harding poisoned her man theory"), but he actually died in the Palace Hotel in San Francisco (which, I believe, is still standing).

Yes, the Palace Hotel still stands, even after last night's temblor, and that's exactly where WGH died. Flo Harding always scared me as a kid whenever I'd come across her ugly mug in history books. Grace Coolidge, on the other hand, looked like the Jackie O. of the '20s.

As Alex Trebec says, "More specific information is required"

CitT and gmg have the correct building, but Outsports Jeaopardy is looking for the exact room (suite) number

The original Palace, deemed the most opulent hotel west of New York, was built in 1875 by the Donald Trump of his day, William Ralston (after going bust, Ralston committed suicide by going to the beach very near what is now Fisherman's Wharf and walking in a straight line into the Bay, letting the waters envelop him).

The Palace was built so well it survived the '06 quake virtually undamaged, however it was consumed by fires in the afternoon of April 18th. The rebuilt edifice (what we see today) opened in 1909.

Wurm -- I cheated with a google search (you won't tell Alex, will ya?) -- "when President Warren G. Harding was dying in Suite 8064 at the Palace ... Mayor James Rolph ordered streetcars passing in the vicinity of Lotta's Fountain to quiet their bells in order that Harding could rest."

DCB - cheater (Well, in fairness, I didn't say "no open book")

Sorry to take the Edwards thread off-track, but as a 4th-generation Northern Californian, this is a subject that intrests me to no end.

It's also funny (and eye-opening) that on a travel board I participate on, people discuss this hotel and are more concerned about whether there are in-room coffee machines and whether elites are offered upgrades than they are about the historic ambience of the hotel