I notice that you guys who like Edwards aren't from NC. He's been an ineffective senator at best and a slimy trial lawyer for most of his career. Like or hate Helms, you always knew where he stood and he wouldn't take a focus group poll before making a decision. He didn't get reelected numerous times for being a soppy, flippy floppy. I've met him personally and he's the type of guy who would look you in the eye and tell you what he thought, not what he thought you wanted to hear. That's also the appeal for Bush. I really don't like his immigration policy nor his trade policy with regards to China, but what's the alternative? The plastic man who lives in the flag factory- Algore? This election, the other choice is Flipper the Mass Liberal, who incidentally bears a curious resemblance to Lurch from the Adam's Family and is about as interesting.

Flipper the Mass Liberal...love it!!!

W v. Flipper

Agree...can't stand W's immigration policy. That is a step backwards and the votes he trying to get will still vote for a liberal anyway...

I never respected Edwards jm, I just think he would have made a stronger candidate. Just like Clinton, ultra slimeball, but I'll be damned if that cack sucker couldn't campaign!

You guys are very interesting. Here's what I've heard recently: Kerry joined the military and got stationed in Viet Nam because it was a deliberate attempt to pad his resume' for a future political career he was planning. You accuse him of this, at the same time you call him a go-with-the-flow chameleon. I suppose you also believe that Bush knew he'd be such a towering, mythical legend figure that he got involved in drugs and alcohol for a time so that his resume would appear more "human" and accessible. Either that, or he's not as shrewd a planner as kerry. You guys crack me up.

And now, you're suggesting that the democratic party is deliberately throwing this election so as to pave the way for an election more than four year away. This is the same party whose platform has been invisible to American voters for a dozen years. The same party that has allowed the other party to steal ideal like "we're for families" and "we represent freedom." (remember, freedom has anew meaning since that other party has adopted it. It means freedom from taxes) Okay so the party that appears to have been sitting on it's hands all these years, the party that no one knows what it might stand for, particularly compared to the very efffective platform/theme work done by the Republicans, has actually been engaging in a shrewd game of throwing elections. Hmmmm. I think it's fair to say that I've never thought of it quite that way.

Here's an explanation that probably sounds pretty goofy to folks who espouse the above ideas: For many years now, the Democratic party has not been as good at fund-raising, nor has it been as good at broadcasting its platform, as the Republican party. It is asleep at the wheel. Liberals know why they think the way they do, but we rarely see it offered for public consumption. Another factor is this: The incumbent always has a HUGE advantage. After two terms (the limit), the other party has a good hcance. After one term and seeking another, the guy in the White House gets the job again, unless he's an even bigger idiot than W. Of course, that explanation is probably far too simple to be true.

Is it too late for a write-in? Can Pelican nominate NoStatic? I don't know about his foreign policy background, but it seems like there's no harm in making foreign dignitaries laugh until they pee themselves, which NoStatic is guaranteed to do.

(sigh) The big problem with these candidates is that they're both human. What we need is a government of angels over men. This whole business of men governing men is just too much of a hassle.

Dan

It is too simple. There is a strategy involved in politics. After being in D.C. for while you become sensitive to this kind of stuff. Everything is done for a reason and neither party is myoptic. They always are thinking about two election cycles ahead. If you can't win against the incumbent, why sacrifice your top dog (presumably Hillary)? Offer some lesser candidate and concentrate on a time frame when you have a much better chance. In the mean time you work on the Senate/House seats, work on your message and groom your candidates.

You will probably see Giuliani run for something, probably governor of NY or a Senate seat. This sets him up with Big Government experience since he only has mayoral experience.

I don't think the Dems have any trouble getting their message out at all. Maybe the issue is that Americans just don't like the message? Conservatives at the grass roots level tend to be less likely to protest, or march or make a lot of noise. They just vote.

IMO, Democrats are too scattered by what they stand for.

One group are for abortion rights but not necessarily for gun control.
Another is for environmental issues but not expansive social programs.
Seems they aren't united, rather a collection of different factions.

Therfore, it's very tough to appear to be a Dem candidate with a cohesive message.

(And some "dems" are just anti "Conservative"/Republican/Bush...no matter what the politics.)

If the dems didn't have an agenda to run Hillarious in 2008, Leiberman should, and would have gotten the nomination. This has been pointed out, and it's dead on balls accurate.

I especially like the liberal girl at the March for "women's reproductive rights" who said that she was marching to ensure that her rights to abort her children will be there for her kids and her kids kids...I almost spit my latte out when I read that one. But, you are right, most liberals have not really thought their positions out.

Hey, Republicans/Conservatives are not perfect, but I think at least we take our ideas and apply the "and then what will happen" concept to them. Because an idea is politically appealing to people, does not mean it is the right thing to do...like Bush's immigration policy.

Yet the supreme court still appointed him to the office of President...

Well, I understand you perception that the Supreme Court appointed him, but what they really did was APPLY Florida election law that was written years before the election. Courts don't appoint people, they interpret existing law. Period.

Even after the fact, many news agencies and accounting firms were hired to conduct audits and count the ballots...Bush still won by a very slim margin. That fact does not get reported. The libs simply tell you that Bush "stole" the election...this is an appeal to your emotion, not your intellect and I think that it is insulting.

Appealing to democratic supporter's intellect is really not an option.

I realize that was low hanging fruit...try to resist picking it...:D

Yup- I feel insulted every time I watch ANYBODY on the news.

Jesse Ventura for President!

I'd vote for Jesse.

"This stuff will make you a god damned sexual Tyrannosaurus, just like me!"

Interesting how in this election (or in this country) experience works against you. You go to Vietnam, get shot at, fish people out of the water and run and shoot after the bad guys--and you get hammered for doing out of political reasons. You reflect on your experience and decide to be against this war--you get hammered for being unpatriotic. You go and serve in the Senate for decades and run up a long voting record--you get hammered for perceived inconsistencies. In short: better not to have any medals for valor than throwing them over the fence. What a strange country....

Guess what: experience comes over time, and times, my friends, they change. You reflect, and you adapt to change. There's nothing inconceivable about you changing your mind from a vote, say, in the 1970's to one in the 1990's. Just think about your own haircut twenty years ago...
The point is, experience should change you, unless you're God. Of course, that's who Bush claims to be talking to whenever he's not talking to Cheney.

So, youre saying; Kerry is trailing because Bush has Cheney & God as consultants. (?)

I'm saying Kerry is trailing because the Bushies manage to portray is experience (and the necessary change that comes with it) as waffling. Voters don't like experience--it's too complicated. They rather go with the guy with no experience but strong convictions (Carter, Clinton, W. Bush)--as history teaches, that's a crap shot, and this last time just crap.

I did vote for Jesse in MN. I would vote for him as Pres....at least we would know who is driving the bus, where the bus is going, and who we are going to drive over....

This election is all about minimizing you maximum regret....people will vote Kerry just to get W out of office, and people will vote for Bush just to keep flipper out.

Last time I checked, Bush was neither of these things. Kerry's hair definitely qualifies for the former, though.