Just found this website off a forum on craigslist. I found it pretty interesting in the way it talks about the strengths and weaknesses of potential contenders.

[ March 23, 2006, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]

Funny they consider Warner to be like Bill Clinton - a good-looking version of Clinton in the White House? There would be visions of Monica Lewinsky dancing in the eyes of Dems and Repubs. That could be a killer for Warner.

I really think, and hope, the candidate would be John Edwards if those are the only choices. But ideally a more committed progressive like Dean (without the scream) will come out of the woodworks and catapult these Iraq War supporters.

My vote would go to Evan Bayh. He did screw up Indiana pretty badly, and I would prefer his father over Evan, (Birch was a much better leader), but I find Evan kind of hot. I know, it's a silly reason.

I think Democrats need to give this a lot of thought. The main thing I'm thinking is: How will this person sound giving a concession speech?

LXN

Steven,
What's happening to you?! What's all this talk about "kind of hot" You know you can't base your vote on that.I'm shocked and appalled wink

Evan was actually in a Political Science class with me at IU circa '73.I remember we formed groups to work on a political campaign,and our group was involved indirectly on working on Birch's reelection effort.I was fresh from my "Republicans For McGovern" stint in high school,which involved meeting and shaking hands with Eunice Shriver.Indiana is not exactly a battleground state,nevertheless it was heady stuff. wink

[ March 26, 2006, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: Tim ]

Indiana is the most reliably Republican state in the Midwest, but George W. actually has low approval ratings and high disapproval ratings, and the Republican governor, a former administration henchman, is also quite unpopular. Indiana is unlikely to throw all its Republicans out of office this fall (it's not Illinois or Minnesota or even Michigan), but George W. is making bland, moderate Democrats look Evan Bayh look increasingly attractive--politically attractive, that is. I still would rather have someone like Schweitzer, or Clark, or Edwards in the top slot, but if it's to be Bayh, Warner, or anyone other than Hillary Clinton, I'm not going to complain. Any of them, as well as Clinton, would mark a sea-change of positivity over the disaster-in-chief we have now.

In addition to everything else the current administration has screwed up in the country, I think an issue the Dems may have on their side going into '08 will be the environment. I just saw a report on World News Now this morning said said that a clear majority of Americans are very concerned and cognizant about the global warmning issue and also concerned about what exactly needs to be done. My sincere hope is we get a solid Dem. front runner who will have the environment at or near the top of his agenda. And there are a few out there already that are either considering running or have not ruled it out. Its been known that for some time now going back many years the Dem.s have always had the environment more on their side than the Repugs. as it relates to the voters.

[ March 27, 2006, 06:16 AM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]

The thing with Warner is he's connected to D.C., but doesn't have the baggage that goes along with being in Congress. Kerry lost because they painted him as some extreme liberal. That would be tough to do with Warner since he was a popular governor in Virginia, where you obviously can't be an extreme liberal.

Who knows what the main issues will be in 2008, so it's hard to go off of what people's strengths or weaknesses are. But I just think the Democrats need to stay away from a 'liberal state' candidate because it's just too easy to get people paranoid.

Evan Bayh is way too bland. And it's not going to change Indiana. At least Warner would have a good shot at getting Virginia too.

Howard Dean guarantees a GOP presidential victory come November 2008. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Hillary would probably produce the same outcome. Warner, on the other hand, would have a good chance. Remember, governors fare much better than do senators. And Kerry or Edwards? No way. They'd be toast.

Which only proves that if you hype something with greater amounts of bullshit, people will believe anything.

Lawd have mercy Judge--you just revealed the George Bush Manifesto!! wink

Aside from Feingold, they all suck.

From a "furner" point of view, the best one in my estimation, and the most electable, is Warner.

As for the dominatrix from New York, I doubt she'd be any friend to Canada. The rest I don't know.

Kerry was the "most electable" in '04, and he couldn't beat a corrupt liar who was botching a war of choice.

Most electable = most like a Republican.

Warner would have no trouble in VA. My parents are very Republican and they LOVE him. He did so much for the Commonwealth in only four years. (Remember VA only allows one term)

Warner is an outstanding choice for the DNC nomination. While Hillary is intriguing on many fronts, she simply is stuck on 40 percent of Americans love her and seems it would be difficult to garner much more support than that percentage.

Lets face it, Kerry was a Massachusetts Liberal who threw medals of honor during anti- nam protests. He also wrote a book where the American Flag was on the front turned upside down emulating the battle of Iwa Jima. Americans voted for GWB and his goofiness because they can relate to his simplicity more than they could with a complex Kerry. Rememeber Kerry premise initially was his a strong Military Background ( see DNC convention) as America was warming up to him. THis exploded in his face as his past actions struck many Americans as odd for someone that now wanted to be Presiden of the UNited States.

That being said, I voted for Kerry. It was a hard decision to vote for Kerry. I would hav done slips with for John Edwards, Leiberman, or Wes Clark posters during pre election hoopla. Even though I dislike W's corrupt administration with a passion, I actually thought about not voting because of my displeasure of Kerry and the DNC huge fumble in being so trigger happy in seeing someone that looked good on paper, but has a shaky background.

Democrats need to be honest with ourselves. Do we want to win a battle and make a statement or win the War? Im all about winning the war. That means calling our own out for outlandish behavior. You know what? Democrats need to call out Cynthia Mckinney. Democrats need to tell Rev. Jessee Jackson he taks a good game, but what does he deliver besides self serving agenda.


We attempted to win battles by having Kerry negate Howard Dean. AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL. It was an awful move by Democrats as we wamred up to John Kerry without knowing his controversal background. Its my belief John Edwards was Leiberman was the only candidate that had a legitimate opportunity to beat W during a wartime election.

What does this mean?

We need a candidate like Warner. He united a state that is deeply conservative like Virginia. It was voted the most efficently run state in America during his 4 year term. As Card alluded to, VA only allows one term. Also, Warner has no baggage and is adored by 80 percent of Virginians He would win VA by a landslide and most likely states like West Virginia. A state that has a 2 to 1 ratio in Democrats over GOP'er, yet voted for GWB. NOt only did Tennessee cost Gore in 2000, but WV did too with its small electorale college that had been viewed as a DNC lock until 2000.

Also, states like Arkansas, LA, FL, and TN are southern states that would be open to Warner. Those states have given Southern Democrats some important past presidentail election victories.

While Warner isnt the most Liberal and most likely not going to be in a pride parade, he certainly is not conservative. Winning the War is better than winning a battle at this point. He wold certainly not allow for an admendment into the Constitution regarding banning same sex marriage. Also, I think he is possibly open to Civil Unions.

After GWB, I think we can all agree a switch left is better than status quo. A status Quo where the religous right feels they are have the control to America's navigational system.

Its time to take back the operations.

[ April 05, 2006, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: GymMountainEER ]

You know, MIB, your analysis of Hilary Clinton is the conventional wisdom...But remember what the Dems thought about Reagan in 1980? The conventional wisdom was that the guy "couldn't win." Too CONSERVATIVE, out of touch with the mainstream. Only popular among the base...

Difference there is Hillary is liberal. Reagan was conservative. There are far more people who claim to be conservatives in the US than liberal...of course most liberals won't admit it anyways because most of them are embarrassed by it.

BTW Kerry didn't lose because he was "painted to be a liberal." He always WAS liberal. All the Republicans did was point out his attempt to move to the center during the campaign as exactly what is was, a political move. They displayed his voting records and such that clearly showed his true political beliefs. No democrat that runs and admits to being liberal will win a presidential election. Even Kerry, as ignorant and indecisive as he was, knew that. I believe Kerry was the one holding his own paintbrush.

This is what it comes down to. Will the Republican candidates suffer more because of Bush's bad approval ratings and democratic/journalistic criticism? -OR- Will the democrats suffer more because they have no balls, no agenda and rely on criticism of republicans to get them elected?

I'd say the latter.

A lot of factors, of course...but my main point is that Hilary is being dismissed too early, and is being underestimated in much the same way as Reagan was. The dems WANTED to have Reagan to run against. The Repubs want HILARY... I actually think this helps her. I am not a supporter--am totally uncommitted at this point--but am just analyzing the politics...And believe me, she would run a candidacy of ideas and Bill will be helping her formulate them. The whole Clinton machine should not be underestimated...

Hillary would probably win the DNC nomination. But, she wouldn't win the presidency. That is the reality of our plight regaarding Hillary. Do we send her to lose which would be devestating or do we hit the breaks and go another direction?

That is the end result and all the reason why we need to program ourselves in accepting another DNC candidate like Warner wbho would clearly take advantage of the the past 8 years of mismanagement, recklessness, and incompetency of GWB's corrupt administration and the other scandals of the RNC in Congress and the Senate. Its time to clean house.

As the DNC and all of America has a lot riding on the 2008 election, its not time to see if Hillary can recover with a demographic group that has never liked her or receptive to the idea of her in the Oval Office. Simply put, she has zero appeal above the 40 percent that adore her.


And lets be honest, Kerry was a Liberal, always was a Liberal, and always will be Liberal.Not that being a Liberal is a bad thing ( I'm one on most issues). Kerry's voting record which illustrates this perfectly. During the DNC primaries and afterwards Kerry did a makeover and suddenly became a moderate. The RNC had a feild day with this attempted transformation with assessing him as "flip flop", indecisive, and with an identity crisis. Forget his throwing of medals and writing a book blasting/protesting the government and its policies on Vietnam War in the 1970's and that books cover with a picture of the America flag upside down. That was frosting on the cake. His voting record alone spoke volumes and told most he was a candidate that wasn't clear and concise and would wallop. he was the worst possible candidate to take on GWB.

Regarding Derby assessment of most Americans are Liberal than Conservative, I agree with that. I would say 20-25 percent of Americans define themselves as Liberal. 25-35 percent define themselves aas conservative. However, I think more Americans if you scratch beneath the surface identify with the DNC platform once you educate them on issues and get past the simplistic emotions of the RNC and its strategy to Middle America. Dismissing Liberal and Conservative since they aren't the parties, most people identify with the DNC over the RNC and THAT is where we need to attack the RNC.

Some of America's issue with the DNC is most of the country has apathy or are ignorant to what exactly is the DNC's platrom or have been programed not to investigate it further. Actually the reality is these same people are probably more ignorant to what the RNC's platform is beyond emotional issues. The RNC has proven it openly discriminates against African Americans and played their game by using divisive politics in order attract the Southern White Male voter in the late 1960's and 1970's, This was after the Federal Government abolished Jim Crow Laws and terminated segregation allowing African Americans equal opportunities. This was a troubling time for the South. The RNC came in and played off this emotion by appealing to the Southern White Democrats and they converted to the Repubicans. The question is, what has the RNC done for them?

However, is you were to ask the typical Southern white male what their needs and issues were today, they would tell you escalating health care costs, income and employment issues, & providing educational opportunities for their kids. All these are on the DNC platfrom and not the RNC's.

Those issues are all on the Democratic Platform of seeking solutions to assist middle and lower middle income families so they don't suffer or do without to give the essential needs to their family.

However, the RNC has brilliantly played on the emotions of this demographic group by using "the white male is being discriminated against" and "faith based" recruiting. Emotions often win over common sense and it worked perfectly for the RNC.

Howard Dean made the best comment alone when he stated he wanted to openly talk with the " gun rack" and " confederate flaq" waving Southern White Male. He stated he wanted to visit in their homes and in their living room and scratch below the surface of this emotion. The RNC attempted to portray him as out of touch, but IMO it was a home run and something that needs to be addressed. This is a message the DNC needs to tackle and keep swinging on every pitch.

THE DNC needs to stand up and take on these issues. The RNC understands the best defense is a good offense and has already apologized to African Americans for playing divisive politics. Here is a message delivered from RNC Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman in Indianapolis to a Black Caucaus group.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-politics_x.htm


By attacking these issues in an intelligent way without alienating the DNC's groups by focusing on issues on Heath Care, various employment issues, the economy, environmental issues, and education. The DNC is the best party for America's future and emotions are not reasoning to vote for a party.

Emotions that were used as eye makeup to cover up the real power of the RNC which is the Wealthiest of America who could care less about Faith and Southern White man's well being other than he and his eagerly following wife voting RNC on election days.

[ April 05, 2006, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: GymMountainEER ]

Right now, other than having huge amounts of $$, I don't know that Hillary has that much advantage in the nominating process. She has ticked off a huge number of Democrats with her vague moves to center and her appearing to undercut her own beliefs for political expediency (apparently, she hasn't even had the guts to march in a gay pride parade since her campaign). More importantly, enough conservatives HATE her that any candidacy would simply motivate the anti-Hillary crowd.

I have no idea who will win the nomination, no one can really say, but I am hoping it is a Dem with a backbone to stand up to the GOP nonsense and fight back the way Kerry did not. There was no reason that Kerry could not have embraced BOTH his war record (which was basically as authentic as Bush's was a travesty) and his later anti-war advocacy. He should have come out hard against the GOP front groups that were lying about him, and called the GOP on the carpet for their disgusting (and successful) attempts to drive the voters through fear of fags and Arabs.

Something like a Feingold/Barack pairing (and I only put Feingold first because of his greater experience) would be my choice, but who knows. Warner was better than his successor on gay issues, but may be corrupted by the "moderate" police, just as Kerry was. One does not beat the GOP by becoming the GOP, one beats the GOP by defending real American values - the ones being trashed by our current administration. I really want to see a Democratic candidate who stands up for allegedly "liberal" ideals, and refuses to accept the negative connotations of those ideals that the PR whizzes at the GOP have managed to foist on the public for so long.

CPT_DOOM, you might want ( as I would) a candidate that would stand up and openly defend themselves as a LIberal, but the reality is that is a one way ticket to being destroyed on election day.

As I am Liberal, we need to be intelligent and winning the war is far more important than winning a battle of pride buiilt on past hurt feelings based off emotional divisive politics of the RNC.

America has shown its place is in the middle. I would much rather have a moderate Democrat that is pro liberal than a moderate Republican ( like GWB) who is pro conservative.

If we as a party don't unite, you can kiss the Supreme court goodbye if a couple more Republican presidents are elected over the next 12-16 years.

Liberal and progressive idealogy is America's future. But, you can't spoon feed America with a radical change. You have to illustrate our beliefs properly and the rest will take care of itself. A moderate Democrat is the first step. Then a coninue evolution to more progressive candidates could follow in a gradual progression. At that time, America can forget the past 8 years.

We have real solutions that are substantial that far outweigh issues based off emotions.

[ April 05, 2006, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: GymMountainEER ]

Here's a strange voice who thinks similarly to me as per Hilary. Don't count her out:

Buckley Calls Clinton a Contender to Be President (Update1)

By Heidi Przybyla and Judy Woodruff
April 3 (Bloomberg) -- William F. Buckley Jr., the longtime conservative writer and leader, said that while a strong Republican candidate for the 2008 presidential race has yet to emerge, the Democrats have in Senator Hillary Clinton a true contender to become the first woman elected U.S. president.

``I don't find a commanding presence sort of knocking on the door'' for the next presidential campaign, Buckley said in an interview broadcast today on Bloomberg Television.

Clinton, of New York, is ``a very consequential woman with an extraordinary background,'' he said. ``Her thought is kind of woozy left, not in my judgment threatening.''

She is ``a phenomenon, a woman candidate who might easily be president,'' Buckley said.

Arizona Senator John McCain, the most widely known of the potential Republican candidates, is ``a remarkable human being,'' Buckley said. ``I don't think that his name comes to mind automatically as somebody who over a period of years has addressed problems with fruitful thinking, let alone with consistent thinking.''

Neither senator has announced plans to seek their party nominations, though both have been raising money, making campaign appearances on behalf of other candidates and taking other steps to build a network of national support.

The 80-year-old Buckley, often called the father of contemporary conservatism in America, founded the National Review in 1955. His philosophy, articulated in the magazine, calls for small government, low taxes and a strong defense. Both Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater said they were influenced by his writing and that of others in the magazine.

Buckley also said he found the business community's contribution to society during most of the period from the 1950s to 1970s ``disappointing'' because of ``their refusal to encourage an intellectual light. Now, that has changed.''

``There are a number of foundations and colleges that take seriously the teaching of liberalism and libertarian life'' with the assistance of business leaders, he said. ``But I don't think a historian looking back on the last 50 years of the 20th century will have any reason to speak with convincing pride about the role of the American businessmen in public policy.''

Buff, you can count on it. Most democrats don't know what they believe, much like you. Indecisive and still searching for a political identity.

The only time they unite is on criticism, not issues. Also, there are too many kooks that are seen as democratic party leadership. Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Jesse Jackson, Barbara Boxer, Kennedy, Robert Byrd, etc... Howard Dean is just insane. Nancy Pelosi and Kennedy are both about as smart as a box of rocks. Then you have the other crazies like McKinney, who makes me seriously question the intellectual capacity of some voters.

None of them get along. None of them have their own identity. None of them have any clear plans. When they run, it is not about what they are going to do, but how much worse they can make their opponent look than them. Don't count on seeing a democrat in the oval office for a good while. Fine by me.

Now tell us about the "Republican" pedophile that got arrested earlier,today!Won't you?

I don't know what I believe in? LOL Oh, really? That assertion is sweet irony based off your contributions in the Gay Marriage thread.

That I know the difference between supporting a candidate I LOVE that doesn't have the opportunity to win in comparison to supporting a candidate I LIKE that actually has a very good chance to win makes me intelligent, not indecisive.

The reality is you are too stubborn to be open to the DNC and the issues it champions. Issues that would have a positive impact on your personal life. Issues such as health care, loans for small and medium size businesses, social security, and other issues assist with education initiatives that provide funding for after school activities ( ie gymnasts and cheerleading) that are part of your industry and profession.

All I have to do is reference some of your editorials from WVU's school newspaper where you were a Clinton basher wink back in the 1990's to understand all too well your fucntioning MO is one of " the best defense is a good offense", thus your assertions I am indecisive is of no surprise.

You still have difficulty understanding why I am Liberal after many years of friendship and are still of the midguided notion I fall more in line with Conservative/GOP ideology because your erroneous perception Liberalism and its someone that has Orange hair, 3 nose rings, or reads Karl Marx on a daily basis. Simply put, I don't think you understand what a progressive mind set really entails. Its one for the advancement of all people including not only minorities, majorities, black, white, any group of people. Its one of an even playing field. A playing field that has improved, but still hasn't progressed to the point to where all people have the same opportunities

As I stated above, if you could get over your pride and emotions, you would clearly see the DNC platform is logical and one that benefits ALL AMERICANS including ones that proclaim and define themselves as " self reliant".

[ April 06, 2006, 01:13 AM: Message edited by: GymMountainEER ]

"The only time they unite is on criticism, not issues. Also, there are too many kooks that are seen as democratic party leadership. Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Jesse Jackson, Barbara Boxer, Kennedy, Robert Byrd, etc... Howard Dean is just insane. Nancy Pelosi and Kennedy are both about as smart as a box of rocks. Then you have the other crazies like McKinney, who makes me seriously question the intellectual capacity of some voters."

Shawn, how in the world after all the GOP unethical dishonesty of the GOP with scandal after scandal can you even compare Byrd, Pelosi, Dean, and Pelosi to Delay, Trent Lott, and the other low life of the GOP. The difference is Democrats don't walk around with eye makep posing as conservative running on "family values", yet are the anti thesis of these values. Exactly what are "family values"? Can someone please explain to me? LOL!

McKinney actions versus Delay? Are you serious? What crime has McKinney commited? Sure she is loud, abrasive, and foolish. Democrats even admit this & understand she is not representive of our party. McKinney is not a DNC leader and would never be put to the top of our party. She was the victim of racial profiling and responded angry. She's only walked through those hallways and checkpoints 500 times in her life without ever being grabbed previously. Any of us would be angry too is we were treated like straggler when we are actually a member of congress.

Look at Delay. The president loved him (imagine that?) and he was the majority leader for the GOP and certainly one of the biggest criminals in politics in the last 20 years.

Also, you want to insult McKinney's distirct that elected her? Go at it. Its the same joke the rest of the world has been delivering directed at the Republicans and other voters that elected GWB.

Your argument is simply one of distraction and based off emotions of avoding the reality there is NO GOP platform when the eye makeup comes off and you dig beneath the surface and see its platform is to support the wealthy. Everything else is based to play off the emotions of its party.

Conservatives and the GOP run on emotional issues such as "family values" and "accountabilty", yet are in scandal after scandal which make them hypocties. DNC candidates run on progressive ideas to assist Americans with a goal of a better America.

There is a huge difference and one the DNC will expose this Fall.

[ April 06, 2006, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: GymMountainEER ]

Great comments, MountainEER!

You do know the "crime" DeLay committed was prior to it being made into law, right? It was not a crime at the time. That was why the DA that tried to accuse him had to drop the case due to the grandfather clause. This would also mean that the money laundering charges are also void since a crime has to be committed in order for the money to be considered illegal. Digging doesn't always result in paydirt. Ronnie Earle is not a friend of DeLay's, that's for sure. Ronnie Earle's has not exactly been ethical through his career as DA. That is unmistakably documented.

I will not defend Figueroa and the actions of an (accused) child predator, but let's not get too hypocritical. There are evil people everywhere. You can point fingers at one example of a republican doing it but you fail to remember that there are more than enough democrats that I could dig up as examples of the exact same thing. That is a personality flaw. It is not an action determined by your political party but a twisted mind as an individual.

Next up..Cynthia McKinney. She was a victim of racial profiling? Bullshit. I have been to airports several times and been stopped and frisked. It does not mean I was racially profiled. McKinney's problem is that she thinks she is privilged because she is a politician. That she doesn't have to abide by the rules with somewhat of an elitist attitude. It was her fault she forgot the proper ID that would allow her to pass without being searched just as much as she is at fault for putting losing control and punching a police officer. Did she not expect to get arrested for assaulting a police officer or did she honestly think that her political standing would get her off as usual?

To add to McKinney little rant you went on, I would say the same about the intelligence of people that elected the likes of Howard Dean and re-elect Kennedy term after term. So if you are somehow trying to accuse me of racism, give it up.

Now THIS is just a jewel. The DNC runs on progressive ideas to assist Americans? That's why Kerry is NOT in office...due to his \"progressive\" (liberal) idealogy. This is exactly WHY I DON'T vote for progressives (liberals)...because I DO NOT NEED the goverment's help to ASSIST me at anything. This is the problem with democrats. Democrats think government and throwing money at problems are the solution to everything. It's not \"progressive,\" it's socialism and social engineering pure and simple. Thanks, but no thanks.

Speaking of scandals...why not mention the ones that democrats have been involved in? They have certainly had their share. Chandra Levy, Chappaquiddick, the Rose Law Firm, Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky etc... Doesn't this make you seem a little hypocritical?

Both parties have their problems. Both have their crooks and scandals. An individual's integrity is defined by them as a PERSON not what political party they belong to. I'm not a fan of anyone that uses their position of power to gain personal benefits or bypass justice. This includes republicans that also break the law. A criminal is a criminal.

Lastly, I am not a Bush fan as many conservatives aren't. Most republicans were put in a spot in the 2004 elections where it came to voting for Bush to keep Kerry out of office or not voting at all.That's where I would say I stood. Members of both parties were left choosing between 2 less than desirable candidates and voting more against the other candidates than for their own.

We'll see when that time comes. Democrats are all about exposing and criticism. How about having a platform with solutions to substantive issues instead of trying to "expose" anything? Maybe some of them might actually get elected. Seems their plans haven't worked too well in the last few elections.

[ April 06, 2006, 03:39 AM: Message edited by: wvderby ]

You must not be a fan of the Sunday talk shows then, because many of the prominent Democrats are out there talking about the current issues right now, including Biden, Feingold and many others. There is plenty of time between now and Nov. for the Dems. to get their message out. The choice for the voters will be clear. More of the same corruption, big government and big spending, and defecits as far as the eyes can see? or a different direction, with more of a focus on taking care of America and Americans first for a change. Its time to take care of our ills, including the on going health care mess, the environment, and getting our spending back under control, and turn around the financial mess the current administration has gotten us into. By far and away when polled the majority of Americans keep saying over and over, we are headed in the wrong direction. The Repubs. time to shine has come and gone. Its time for change.

I think you have to give voters credit. While Kerry in the long run did not turn out to be the best candidate, he was NOT favored to win the Democratic nomination when it came to the primaries. At the time, Howard Dean had all the hype and attention. Kerry wasn't even 'second' at the time.

The first primary will be in New Hampshire, which is not a very 'liberal' state, even though it went to Kerry in 2004, it is not a regular Democratic state. So I don't see that as an easy Hillary win. The next is in Iowa, where once again would be a harder place for Hillary to win. Then 'Super Tuesday' is mainly a block of southern states.

Warner would definitely have the 'kickoff' momentum on his side. And usually states start voting how other states are. If Warner runs a solid campaign (and while Hillary may have a lot of money, Warner has quite a bit himself and is essentially staged in DC while having a few years to solely prepare for a run) I thinkk he will snag the nomination.

Illini,

I am with you brother. If Warner ( from living in Virginia) doesn't trip over his shoe string 3-4 times on camera and barring other majr errors, will win the nomination.

He's amazing at communicating and crossing the t's and dotting the i's in addition to being on Former President Clinton's level in communicating with all groups of people.

As Detby's post points out, its again a play at divisive politics. Its the only platform the GOP has going for it. What are the GOP issues? I hear accountabilty, but lets dig beneath that. What is this accountabilty? What are famly values? Warner will break each issues down in a clean and concise way ( something Kerry didn't have the capacity to do) and look to mend the bridge between the GOP and DNC. He did it in Virginia and its my belief he can do it for all of America.

Of course, Derby and the rest of the GOP want no part of progression. Just more emotional smoke screens of hocus pocus of distract. Too bad after these past 8 years most American are ready and eagerly anticipating a change. A change IMO Warner will provide that is good FOR ALL Americans. Which is something only the DNC platform provides after digging below the surface.

zzzzZZZZzzzzzZZZZZ

Democrats have been saying this since the Republicans took over the senate and the house over ten years ago. The democratic party better dig deep to find someone that really is moderate/semi-conservative with a voting record to prove it or they will not get elected...again. Chad, you sound like a pitt fan...wait til next year but "next year" will never happen.

Pitt Fan? So what we have here is a Mountaineer, GOPer...the "new breed of conservative." I think you are deluding yourself, bro', if you don't know how badly damged the republicans are. It's their old play book that is not going to work anymore. I don't like the dems much more, but change is gonna' be the paramount issue in the next two election cycles.

bucco,

As much as I value Derby as a friend, I do believe he is lost politically. But, at least he knows he has a friend that will show him the light, right? wink

I am of that belief. The divserions, magic tricks, and and eye makeup no longer will work for the GOP. America sees voting on emotional issues doesn't deliver the goods. Its time for ne2w blood in the DNC. Its of my belief you will see Warner, Obama, and other articulate Democrats come to the forefront that don't apologize or compromise, yet don't aleinate moderates who now feel embarrased of their voting record of the last two presidential elections.

WVDerby, has anyone ever told you the world doesn't revolve around you? I know this may come as a shock, but other people do have problems. I have noticed in several of your posts a tone of arrogance, most likely due to your youth. Youth fades, my dear, and someday, you too may find yourself in a situation in which you cannot handle alone. Kudos to you for making it this far, just remember not everyone is just like you.

[ April 06, 2006, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: millerbeach ]

Chad, you've been trying to get me to "see the light" for years. The difference between you and I is I know that seeing the same light you see can blind you. Sorry man, not a chance.

Miller, I am not exactly young unless you consider 32 young. I know what I believe, where I stand on issues and defend them as I have for a very long time. I am well aware of my personal conflicts with my ideology and my political party's platform concerning my sexuality.

I'm not going to dismiss the entire conservative philosophy based on a single issue when I am in agreement with an overwhelming majority of the other critical ideas encompassing it. There are issues and ideas that are more important to me than the ones relating to my sexuality.

Arrogant? No. Strong-willed, a bit defensive and argumentative, maybe.

I have been accused of being homophobic, denying my true gay identity, and being too youthful and immature. Why? Because I am told I haven't reached the same level of political and social "enlightenment" of the majority of the gay populace. Yet, you dare accuse me of arrogance?

Back at ya'.

The only Republicans I would vote for are Colin Powell and John McCain.

At least they have moderate views on equality.

I cannot believe that a homosexial could even respect, yet alone vote for a man who nationally states "I just don't know" when asked about whether homosexuality is genetic or biological. If he states that it isn't genetic, is he saying it is a choice, a disease?

I don't care what philosophy for money or international policy a Preseidential candidate has... if he states that I am a freak or worth less than other citizens- how do I explain that to myself or (maybe in time) my children?

Daddy voted for his bank account today so that he could be treated worse... but at least Daddy can afford to purchase more misery now.

Geez! These folks from Detroit are crazy! It must be something in the water! wink

Ooooh, Eddie. I love me some Huge Jack Me too wink

Was my post like I was smoking crack or something? Im not that loco am I?

I'm not from Detroit. I just live here. Unfortunately.

The Democrats will not take back the White House unless and until they figure out that a northeastern liberal cannot win beyond the two coasts. The last two Democratic presidents have been southerners. Think there's a message there?

I'm not that fond of the city myself so if you think that's a knock against me,you're wrong.Chances are neither you nor Kick actually live IN Detroit.

[ April 07, 2006, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: eddiecat ]

You know I was not talking about you.

[ April 07, 2006, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: eddiecat ]

Thanks babe!

Although I don't live in the city, I definitely feel as if I put my time in by working at a trauma center... so I feel as if I have a unique perspective of human life in the city- near daily experiences direct work with the homeless, drug-users, and poor does that...

Oh, the topic is Democratic Prez Contenders... well, our state has voted Dem in the last two elections- too bad so many people are moving out that we can't throw in a couple extra electoral votes.

[ April 07, 2006, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: kick ]

Actually the last three Democratic US presidents were Southerners. Moderate-to-liberals in their politics. Does that strengthen the message?

[ April 07, 2006, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

John Kerry and Jesus

I've previously also like Powell and McCain but the past few years have been a turnoff for me. They both just don't seem to have a backbone. Powell did all that crap when it came to the UN and Iraq stuff that apparently he didn't typically agree with but did it anyway. McCain has stood up for things in the past, but was a puppet for Bush when it came down to things, who he does not really agree with.

Illini, I'm very disappointed by McCain's "forgiving" the radical Xtian right and sidling up to the likes of Dobson, et al. as he has of late. I like CP, but just don't think he has the drive anymore, which is not to fault him at all for taking a deserved break. So who does that leave in the GOP? Rudy and Lindsey!