Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/2/2004 7:01:07 PM EST
The only thing I can think of is because Kerry is a veteran, which looks good considering we are in 2 wars right now and support for soldiers is way up. But why did they pick such a dumbass. Did they research into his past at all or did they just pull his name out of the hat. I beleive the democrats could easily win the white house if they didnt nominate such a complete idiot.
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 7:10:42 PM EST
Lowest denominator of the Democratic party....


Link Posted: 10/2/2004 7:11:06 PM EST
b/c dean had a melt down
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 7:11:24 PM EST
Dennis Kucinich was the only alternative
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 7:11:46 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 7:12:31 PM EST

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
Because Terry McAuliffe McAwful wants Hillary to have a clean shot at 08'

Link Posted: 10/2/2004 7:14:09 PM EST
Two reasons:

(1) He is a socialists wet dream. If they get him elected, they win.

But he is so over the top leftist that it will hurt his chances to be elected, which brings us to

(2) He loses, but this sets them up to run Hillary next time, as a more "middle of the road dem". So, even if he loses, they win.
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 7:14:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:


b/c dean had a melt down



Yep, thereby making Kerry look like a moderate.
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 7:15:36 PM EST

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:
b/c dean had a melt down





YAAAAAA
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 7:22:35 PM EST
Remember the big buzz word of the primaries? It was "Electable". They weren't interersted in voting for who who they agree with (the Deaniacs excepted), but rather with who they thought was more "electable" - who was the most likely candidate to get them their power back. Very few Dems actually like Kerry - many of them really dislike him. All they have to offer - and to vote on -is hatred for Bush, and to them, anyone other than Bush is an improvement. They would vote for a Castro/Bin Laden ticket if they thought they were more "Electabale" than the other Democrat candidates. And they would certainly vote for Castro/BinLaden over Bush. Thats how Kerry got nominated. He was percieved as "more Electable" - not necessarily better (in any way except for being more electable) than the other Democrat candidates.
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 7:24:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By Special-K:
Remember the big buzz word of the primaries? It was "Electable". They weren't interersted in voting for who who they agree with (the Deaniacs excepted), but rather with who they thought was more "electable" - who was the most likely candidate to get them their power back. Very few Dems actually like Kerry - many of them really dislike him. All they have to offer - and to vote on -is hatred for Bush, and to them, anyone other than Bush is an improvement. They would vote for a Castro/Bin Laden ticket if they thought they were more "Electabale" than the other Democrat candidates. And they would certainly vote for Castro/BinLaden over Bush. Thats how Kerry got nominated. He was percieved as "more Electable" - not necessarily better (in any way except for being more electable) than the other Democrat candidates.



You forgot about the diehard Kucinich fans.

NOW they weren't bothered by electablility.
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 7:24:24 PM EST
wouldnt have lieberman been the most electable?
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 7:26:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By WI_Rifleman:
wouldnt have lieberman been the most electable?



+1.

I thought the most sane choice for them would be him.
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 7:27:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By WI_Rifleman:
wouldnt have lieberman been the most electable?



NOOOOO!

He supported the war a lot.

Plus he is not a veteran like Kerry.

CRC
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 7:27:53 PM EST
1. Basically they chickened out of going with their heart with the anti-war Howard Dean. They were afraid the passion of their Bush-hatred would turn off the American public. They were right.

2. Thinking as Democrats do, they needed someone who could fool the American public into thinking Democrats could be trusted with national security and the war on terrorism, something the Democratic base doesn't care about much. That meant two possible candidates: Wesley Clark and John Kerry.

You see, in their minds, the mere fact these men served in the military means they're more qualified than Bush to be president. He's a "Chickenhawk" who took the country into war, but never served himself. In fact, all of them except Powell dodged the war. Yet here they are pushing for war while they're in charge. Put them up against men who actually served, and all their national security cred is gone.

And that's what a schmuck like Kerry is doing as the Democratic nominee.
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 7:28:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By WI_Rifleman:
wouldnt have lieberman been the most electable?



I dont think most of the younger crowd likes him
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 7:29:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By WI_Rifleman:
wouldnt have lieberman been the most electable?



The problem is, Liberman favors a strong aggressive line against terrorism and re-ordering the Middle East. The Democrats absolutely despise him for that. He has the crazy idea that terrorism and failed arab dictatorships are the problem, not America and Israel.
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 7:30:10 PM EST
I think this issue is the thing that amazes me the most, I'm in total agreement. What were they thinking? Couldn't they find ANYONE who is even somewhat more tolerable?

I can't believe they are setting up hillary, cuz if that was true, they are determined to fail, and are running the risk that he could win, which means Hellary must wait until '12.

I remember in the beginning when Clark was running, I thought, "that's the guy who will win the nomination, he's actually got mil experience" Not that i'd vote for him anyway.
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 7:30:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2004 7:30:32 PM EST by CRC]
Raven,

Rumsfeld was an active Navy fighter pilot in the late 1950's.

They thought- except in Oklahoma- that Clark was too weak on domestic issues.

CRC
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 7:32:36 PM EST
Basically for the base Kerry has the right amount of liberalism and military experience.

Top Top