User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:10:42 PM EDT
[#1]
Lowest denominator of the Democratic party....
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:11:06 PM EDT
[#2]
b/c dean had a melt down
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:11:24 PM EDT
[#3]
Dennis Kucinich was the only alternative
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:11:46 PM EDT
[#4]
Because Terry McAuliffe wants Hillary to have a clean shot at 08'
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:12:31 PM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:14:09 PM EDT
[#6]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:14:37 PM EDT
[#7]
Yep, thereby making Kerry look like a moderate. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:15:36 PM EDT
[#8]
YAAAAAA |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:22:35 PM EDT
[#9]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:24:01 PM EDT
[#10]
You forgot about the diehard Kucinich fans. NOW they weren't bothered by electablility. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:24:24 PM EDT
[#11]
wouldnt have lieberman been the most electable?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:26:07 PM EDT
[#12]
+1. I thought the most sane choice for them would be him. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:27:43 PM EDT
[#13]
NOOOOO! He supported the war a lot. Plus he is not a veteran like Kerry. CRC |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:27:53 PM EDT
[#14]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:28:02 PM EDT
[#15]
I dont think most of the younger crowd likes him |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:29:26 PM EDT
[#16]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:30:10 PM EDT
[#17]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:30:15 PM EDT
[#18]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2004 8:32:36 PM EDT
[#19]
Basically for the base Kerry has the right amount of liberalism and military experience.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
