President Bush's mistake

[Coral Rhedd]

To be honest' date=' looking from the outside, the campaign on both sides was a joke. Swift boaters, generals writing letters supporting Kerry. "Shrub".

 

There was more time and effort put into insulting the other side than discussing the issues. When the issues did come up, they were always described in hysterical terms. (Remember, I'm in Australia so I didn't see all that you saw. My viewpoint is probably scewed. but that's how it looked.)

 

But I mean, really, you people were arguing about who would make a better President on the basis of what each had done or not done during a war [i']30 years ago.[/i] You've got to be kidding. "War record" was a big part of the debate, and you wonder why some people think you may be warlike?

[Extremely broad brush mode]

"Middle America" has an ingrained dislike for "Washington", "Government" and "People from big cities telling us what's best for us". If Hillary Clinton gets the Dems nomination in 2008, she will go down, big time.

 

 

It was a pretty hysterical election all around. I only wish I were laughing.

 

I too got tired of all the Vietnam War era stuff. It really seemed to me like people were all over the place and the candidate couldn't decide how to appeal to them and so they replayed Vietnam. You know our candidates today don't know how they think until they take a poll.

 

I agree that Hillary will go down. She is the only potential candidate for 2008 who already has a solid block voters who hate her guts, but this is not because of liberalism. This is because of she is a powerful woman connected to a powerful man and both of them have way too much past baggage.

 

At one time the Dems stood a pretty good chance if they nominated a candidate from the South. But I think that time may be past. The South was so solidly for Bush. Here you are correct inasmuch as gay issues and religious issues played a powerful role.

 

But the word 'liberal' will be used to label any Democrat who runs because like the word 'feminism' it has been tainted. The term 'liberal' taken the place of 'communist' as an all purpose bash label to be applied people who believe that our government should be run by the constitution and not the Bible.

[The Nacho]

The dems put their money on the wrong horse. If they wanted to win the election, they should have nominated someone more charismatic, and looked less like a tree.

 

[WAVING AMERICAN FLAG IN BACKGROUND]

The democrats didn't choose Kerry for looks, they chose him for smarts,[END OF NATIONAL ANTHEM] and willingness to succeed in making America a better place.[/WAVING AMERICAN FLAG IN BACKGROUND][/END OF NATIONAL ANTHEM]

 

I just wish that Bush had lost. I didn't really care who won, just as long as it wasn't Bush. I think I'm more of a "Bush-hater" than a "Kerry-supporter".

[budullewraagh]

maybe he did lose

[Ophiolite]

Was that philosophy or electoral irregularities?

[atinymonkey]

I agree that Hillary will go down. She is the only potential candidate for 2008 who already has a solid block voters who hate her guts' date=' but this is not because of liberalism. This is because of she is a powerful woman connected to a powerful man and both of them have way too much past baggage.

[/quote']

 

If only men voted, you might have a point. But half the population of America should vote for the strong female canditate over Geb Bush. The 'baggage' won't be anything compared to that carried by Geb Bush, and the 'Liberal' and 'feminist' tags can't be played, due to 'sexist' being the obvious response.

[budullewraagh]

dean obama '08!

[JohnB]

It's not really about the Rep or Dem platforms anymore. It's about where the biggest money is. Always has been, really, it's just that media availability and spin science are at an all-time high.

You're right of course. The problem is perhaps worse in the US with only two major parties. In Oz, there are three major and around five minor parties. They all put up candidates in most electorates, so for the pollie who wants to keep his job, things can get a bit hairy. We had a party start in Queensland that pulled 23% of the primary vote in their first campaign. Scared the daylights out of some pollies.

It was a pretty hysterical election all around. I only wish I were laughing.

Yah. I actually felt sorry for most Americans, it seemed the moderates on both sides weren't getting a look in. I sort of got the feeling that if a moderate party had appeared, they'd have romped home. People would vote for them just to shut up the major parties.

It's not necessarily corruption, simply a matter of who is in your face showing an interest in what you're doing.

The voters are not, the lobbyists are.

We have saying down here. They kiss our arse for three weeks and we kiss theirs for three years. Same everywhere I suppose.

[Coral Rhedd]

If only men voted, you might have a point. But half the population of America should vote for the strong female canditate over Geb Bush. The 'baggage' won't be anything compared to that carried by Geb Bush, and the 'Liberal' and 'feminist' tags can't be played, due to 'sexist' being the obvious response.

 

Actually, it will be the liberal tag that will be used again. Hillary is more liberal than her husband. We will never wear out the liberal tag here I am afraid because the right has managed to define liberals as being unpatriotic.

 

I don't think we can assume the Republican candidate will be Jeb. I think we can assume, thank God, that it won't be Cheney. There are lots of possibilities. Perhaps Colin Powell will attempt to redeem himself. A black Republican moderate candidate would be a powerful draw. Powell however would shake up the South and would give a moderate Dem real a chance. It's the currently solid South that makes it so hard for a Democrat to win and in my humble experience as a Texas woman by rearing, a Southern Bible Belt female voter is not that much different from her male counterpart when it comes to voting.

 

We could change the Constitution to elect Arnold. It seems many young Republicans are eager to put a Republican in the White House who gropes women. Every dog must have his day.

 

Also, there are women who actively dislike Hillary and there are many more who are made uncomfortable by her.

 

I feel a little queasy explaining this but the personal can be the political and I am a woman who is uncomfortable with Hillary. How to explain . . . ?

 

She's a sellout.

 

I suppose there was no good way she could have handled it but I would have thrown the bastard's clothes out on the White House lawn and told him not to come back until I had managed to move out and I would have divorced him very publicly. Every woman who has ever dealt with the pain of infidelity in her marriage, will be made uncomfortable by this loyal woman who stood by her man even though he is a sleazebag.

 

You have to understand that what Bill Clinton has been accused of is much worse that playing around with Monica. There is a long and very sordid line of even worse behavior. Hillary, by standing by her man, is a woman who betrays other women.

 

I am a die hard liberal Democrat and a feminist and I can't begin to tell you how it pains me to take this point of view.

[ecoli]

[WAVING AMERICAN FLAG IN BACKGROUND]

The democrats didn't choose Kerry for looks' date=' they chose him for smarts,[END OF NATIONAL ANTHEM'] and willingness to succeed in making America a better place.[/WAVING AMERICAN FLAG IN BACKGROUND][/END OF NATIONAL ANTHEM]

 

I just wish that Bush had lost. I didn't really care who won, just as long as it wasn't Bush. I think I'm more of a "Bush-hater" than a "Kerry-supporter".

 

I agree with you. I didn't like Kerry, but I dislike Bush more.

 

Unfortunatly, the american population is influenced on a polititican's appearance. The Democrats should know this. Do you realize, we have have never had a bald president. And, since the advent of television, all our presidents have been varying degrees of good-looking.

[Coral Rhedd]

I agree with you. I didn't like Kerry' date=' but I dislike Bush more.

 

Unfortunatly, the american population is influenced on a polititican's appearance. The Democrats should know this. Do you realize, we have have never had a bald president. And, since the advent of television, all our presidents have been varying degrees of good-looking.[/quote']

 

Eisenhower was practically bald when he was elected but, strangely, he actually looked good bald. Lyndon Johnson was ugly as whipped hound but we didn't actually have to vote for him.

 

Kerry's problem wasn't that he wasn't good looking. It was that he looked cadaverous.

 

Maybe we should think about Edwards in 2008 if we want a looker.