• Well I am not black  and I am not white. So i get to hear from both sides. I can guarantee you there will be whites who support Bush and who cheer Rice on right now, who won't vote for her as President. It's a big step for some of these southerners to make the leap from electing a black as governor or senator vs President.
  • I dont think Condi Rice will have it easy. She may steal a few black votes(not as many as the repubs think she will get), but she will lose some redneck votes in the south who may not turn out. Bush is pretty colorblind when it comes to people who listen to him blindly, however the southern voters are not as "openminded". Bush Sr and Bush Jr both don't have a problem personally dealing with blacks, but they have won elections pandering to people who are racist. I just don't see Rice getting that segment of the population to vote for her. I was against democrats nominating a southern candidate just to pander to the redstaters. But if Rice runs and John Edwards is nominated(I normally dont like Edwards), dems have a good chance of stealing a southern state or two.
  • Media keeps harping on the dems not doing enough to win moderates. Well, here is McCain who could have won 2000 and 2004 by bigger margins that bush did yet those republican idiots went for Bush because they are ruled by that evangelical fringe who turn out in huge numbers and dont become fringe when it comes to the polling booth.

    If republicans had a brain, they could seal 2008 by nominating McCain even if McCain's stock has fallen  a tad for his being Bush's bitch during the reelection campaign and a couple of recent statements.

  • on a comment on Martin Frost joins FAUX news over 9 years ago
    Alan Colmes at some points has actually had to feed some good responses to clueless democrats whenever one of Hannity's buddies would challenege them to defend Howard Dean or why Michael Moore was invited to the DNC.

    When one democratic guy was on and acted defensive and evasive(as if he was trying to protect the black sheep of the family) when the Dean name was brought up as an example of the direction of the party, it was Colmes who had to ask the guy "wasn't dean the same guy who balanced budgets, part of the NRA, blah blah" and this guy just ignored Colmes despite the help he was getting from him.

    Can we get a lineup of people who supported Frost as chairman ? Wasn't plastic surgery victim Pelosi one of them, or did she support someone else.

  • comment on a post Close the Primaries over 9 years ago
    I think we need open primaries because we are saddled with a system that discourages third parties very strongly. I personally identify with the democratic party  but I feel strongly against teacher unions and am pro charter schools. I believe strongly in free trade, but at the same time feel government needs to make sure corporations don't abuse their power by encouraging transparency of information and increased shareholder rights.

    So we should be allowed to have a chance at influencing both parties. While I have never voted Republican, I would like to have that option open. If McCain(the older version, not the one who kisses Bush's ass) ran against Hillary in 2000, I would have voted for McCain and I would have liked to have selected McCain in the Republican primary and someone like a Dean type in the Democratic party who would satisfy different areas of my interest.

  • on a comment on Defend Dean over 9 years ago
    You claim to be in the middle. Yet Gore in 2000 who used someone like a "safe" candidate such as Lieberman was way too lefty for you? And yet you find Hillary Clinton just right? Gore has been more outspoken on issues than Hillary. Being outspoken doesn't correlate to lack of moderate stands. One reason Gore lost in 2000 was because he played it too safe. I voted third party because I thought democrats would learn a lesson in case they win by a tiny margin or lose to Bush.
  • You think Clark made less sense than HIllary on the war on iraq? It is silly to say the invasion was brilliant but the followup terrible. Yes it's true. But you can't separate the two. Did Hillary speak up once about possible post invasion problems that could happen before the war started? People were predicting this. Yet Hillary never demanded from anyone how they intended to deal with Iraq post invasion. When idiots like Cheney were talking about being greeted with flowers, people like Hillary were silent. A lot of people in the know who were not biased knew this obvious fact that post invasion was going to be a bitch. It was a no brainer that we could take over that country easily. Were you really surprised that they finished phase 1 in a month?

    If hillary was smart, she would have done what she and other dems should have done by now. Take the lead in giving veterans and active soldiers increased benefits. Put the burden of rejecting those proposals on the republicans.  So if she wanted to not commit career suicide but want to appear tough on defense, she would do this bit of smart politics. Take the lead in pandering to the army and this will give them more room to question leaders like Bush in the future.

  • Do you think people thought Clinton was a moderate? What won him the election was charisma. The fact that he turned out to be a fiscal moderate was a welcome surprise to those who didn't study his background closely.

    Clinton won reelection despite some terrible nominations (Janet Reno, for godssakes MissChokesOn** was a terrible Attorney General).
    And it wasn't his moderation that won the voters over. A lot of people still thought he was a lefty like Kucinich with the only difference being Clinton gets laid in one week than Kucinich has in his lifetime. Clinton's foreign policy wasnt that great either. He did a commendable job at times and it looks great compared to Bush's.

    Bayh looked OK on some talk show. But if Harry Reid who is no liberal is being baited by the republican Party, do you think Bayh's moderation will save him?

  • I agree. I think Gore has learned from his 2000 play it safe strategy. It's funny. I was against him in 2000 and supported 3rd party( i have a weird preference for many kinds of 3rd party - from Nader to Libertarian). But he was preferable to other candidates not named Dean to me in 2004. With Gore, at least we will have someone competent manning the EPA.
  • If Edwards couldnt win Southern States against Kerry, what makes you think he is going to win them against some republican?
  • I am going to play Devil's advocate here. For the record, I have a better feeling with Bayh than with Edwards who always came off a little too lightweight for me.
    However, let's be honest. How many people even know what Bayh stands for. I think people are touting Bayh at this point because they have heard that he was moderate. Not the way to win an election. Republicans have shown that moderates like McCain are not needed in their party to win. What the dems need is someone who can fire up their voters to counter the immense turnout from the other side.

    Right now, all I know about Bayh is that he looks a little like Ferris Bueller's dad and a little like Malcolm in the Middle's dad.

    Let me be clear though. I am not ruling out Bayh. I just want to see the democratic party faithful motivate Bayh to come up with a strong platform(it doesn't have to be very liberal, but it has to stand for something). Same with Hillary. Playing it safe does not necessarily work unless you have a lot of charisma.

  • on a comment on Defend Dean over 9 years ago
    I agree that the amount of hate for a candidate is immaterial as long as the candidate can inspire offsetting amounts of devotion. I just don't see that with Hillary. If McCain runs against Hillary, I am voting McCain. I am personally against family dynasties in politics unless you got a person who can outperform clearly the alternatives. Bobby Kennedy - I would have supported, Ted - no. Not that Ted is the worst, but he is simply not good enough for me to take part in the propping up of a family dynasty.
    With the Clintons, I liked Bill's presidency even if he disappointed me(BTW, Monicagate was the least of my disappointments). Hillary is not nearly as bad as the right wingers claim, but she has done nothing that has inspired me to vote for her, let alone feel guiltless about being part of an electorate that can potentially hand over the country to two families over a 28 year period.
  • on a comment on Defend Dean over 9 years ago
    Wow that bio is impressive. I guess she got lucky in life because none of that intelligence is on display when she is frequently overmatched by O Reilly and Hannity when she is on those shows. She frequently has no comebacks and just nods her head in agreement only because she can't come up with anything better.
  • on a comment on Defend Dean over 9 years ago
    And you think Hillary will win in 2008 with that signature line of yours? While the right wing hate machine will try their best to ridicule Dean , just watch the inspired right wing masses that turn out to vote in 2008 just because of their spite for Hillary. I don't like Hillary, but even I will admit she inspires hatred far more than she deserves. She got shafted as this cold bitch by the right wing talking pundits while Laura Bush gets away with her Stepford creepy demeanor.

    Nevertheless,  Hillary has done NOTHING in the last 10 years that would be considered noteworthy. She couldn't handle the republican pressure when she tried to come out with her health care plan. She supported the Iraqi war without giving a concrete rationale as to why she was doing so. And later on , she never expressed even the tiniest regret over the decision to go to war, but just mentioned she would execute it better when she was on Meet the Press. She never put any pressure on the President to explain himself.
    The only noteworthy thing Hillary has done is raise Chelsea to be a more worldly citizen compared to the spoiled Bushie twins.

    What did Hillary to do help democrats in 2004? She did more than Lieberman. But did she work as hard as Dean to help Kerry win? She is only concerned about her position.

    And let's not forget her terrible speaking style. Just watch the right wing hate machine tear apart her shrill public speaking style the same way they ridiculed the scream.

    Sure Hillary has moved to the center as a senator, but she doesn't reach me on the issues that I consider sensible but not leftist- such as charter schools and those stupid teacher unions(I have no respect for our public school system). What is hillary's stance on tort reform? I dont think she is moderate enough for me on that issue. I hope it is not as disengenuous as Edwards out of the blue statement on tort reform during the debates. I think the only areas I trust Hillary over  a republican are the environment and the supreme court balance.

  • comment on a post Defend Dean over 9 years ago
    What's killing Dean's reputation more is the pettiness or plain cluelessness by many democratic talking heads who show up on tv. Frequently, they have shown either an unwillingness or cluelessness in defending Dean against smears in guise as legit questions on these talk shows.

    And who the hell is Mary Ann Marsh? She is not as bad as Susan Estrich, but she is an awful rep for the dem party when she shows up on these FOX shows such as O Reilly and Hannity & __.


Advertise Blogads