Have you read none of the conspiracy theories? Did you read newamerican century( the neo-con plan) when it arrived on the scene in 1994, signed by the people that began the Iraqi war with no basis other than to give the US the "right" to place an armed forces base in most countries in the world? Most of the rest of the world did read it, including the terrorists of Yemen, 9-11, and the rest.
No. There would not have been a 9-11, IMO, with Gore or another Democrat with a sense of the American responsibility in the rest of the world, and I am not the only one who would have believed that. Bush's cohorts alienated the world even before this idiot was "elected". And there's another conspiracy theory.
Where was your beloved President following 9-11? Certainly we do not need to go there again.
If I am wrong about any of this, it will take someone with more of a sense of history to call me ignorant. Not you.
Obamamania
--camGore probably would not have faced 9-11. You have to remember that it was BECAUSE of Bush, I think there have been six incredibly bad years for US policy, lots of money in Haliburton and therefore , Cheney's, pockets, and the war over oil which Bush began.
9/11 was because of Bush? What planet do you live on?
This ignores years of terrorist activity before Bush ever got near the presidency. Read your history. Your statement is simply ignorant, arrogant, unsubstantiated and complete crap.
9/11 was planned years in advance. The hijackers had been here for a long time, planning and learning to fly planes. It was not a result of what Bush did or said. He was in office a mere 8 months.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
99-1100896887
Somehow all this posting did was offend me, and I am not even American. I believe the Gore has a big chance--global warning is a very hot issue, with dire predictions that our world will exhaust itself in two or three generations.criddic3 wrote:My mother, who voted for Perot in 1992, thought that Edwards would have been a better candidate than Kerry. I agree with this. Kerry had no business running in 2004 on that crazy "i was a Vietnam vet, so i know better than you" campiagn.
However, Edwards is no longer in the senate. He served one term. He was a failed candidate for President during the Primaries and failed VP candidate in the general election. What can he run on?
This is one of Kerry's problems, too. He failed in 2004. In addition, many will not forget his 2006 gaffe. Telling students that "if you study hard..." While he could try again, I think the combination of these two things will derail any effort to get back in the race.
Feingold was probably smart to bow out now, knowing that Hillary Clinton has the money and backing to make a very strong run in the Primaries.
Reid can't make it. Biden can't make it. Pelosi can't make it.
I think it's Hillary unless Gore gets back in the race. But he'll have trouble, being that his one issue will be global warming and he hasn't held any office in what will be 8 years. Yes, he's made speeches damning the Bush administration, but he's not as strong a contender as people think. Democrats, in particular, forget that despite his popular vote win in 2000, he was not very well liked as a candidate. He was perceived to have lost the debates because of his huffing/puffing manner. Many felt he was a bore and a know-it-all, but really doesn't know it all. While he occassionally shows a sense of humor and sometimes reaches out to the general public, it is fair to say that he is more off-putting to most voters than anything else. Besides, when 9/11 happened a lot of people said "Thank God Bush is President." Proceeding afterwards would be ruminations on what Gore would have done and how he would have handled the overall policy on terror. Even today, despite perceived mistakes, I don't think Gore would win over too may people on this issue.
So I think it's Hillary. Either McCain or Guiliani will run against her. Exciting race I think. Wonder who vp.s will be.
Maybe Barack Obama as vp democrat? Maybe Michael Steele republican? hmm. Guiliani/Steele! Of course there's always Pataki or Gingrich, but neither is bound to want the job.
Gore probably would not have faced 9-11. You have to remember that it was BECAUSE of Bush, I think there have been six incredibly bad years for US policy, lots of money in Haliburton and therefore , Cheney's, pockets, and the war over oil which Bush began.
Please don't talk to us of the Democratic "strategies", when you really did not undertand the GOP very well, or know enough about even Bush and his cronies--you have been defending them for a long time without understanding, obviously, much about it.
My mother, who voted for Perot in 1992, thought that Edwards would have been a better candidate than Kerry. I agree with this. Kerry had no business running in 2004 on that crazy "i was a Vietnam vet, so i know better than you" campiagn.
However, Edwards is no longer in the senate. He served one term. He was a failed candidate for President during the Primaries and failed VP candidate in the general election. What can he run on?
This is one of Kerry's problems, too. He failed in 2004. In addition, many will not forget his 2006 gaffe. Telling students that "if you study hard..." While he could try again, I think the combination of these two things will derail any effort to get back in the race.
Feingold was probably smart to bow out now, knowing that Hillary Clinton has the money and backing to make a very strong run in the Primaries.
Reid can't make it. Biden can't make it. Pelosi can't make it.
I think it's Hillary unless Gore gets back in the race. But he'll have trouble, being that his one issue will be global warming and he hasn't held any office in what will be 8 years. Yes, he's made speeches damning the Bush administration, but he's not as strong a contender as people think. Democrats, in particular, forget that despite his popular vote win in 2000, he was not very well liked as a candidate. He was perceived to have lost the debates because of his huffing/puffing manner. Many felt he was a bore and a know-it-all, but really doesn't know it all. While he occassionally shows a sense of humor and sometimes reaches out to the general public, it is fair to say that he is more off-putting to most voters than anything else. Besides, when 9/11 happened a lot of people said "Thank God Bush is President." Proceeding afterwards would be ruminations on what Gore would have done and how he would have handled the overall policy on terror. Even today, despite perceived mistakes, I don't think Gore would win over too may people on this issue.
So I think it's Hillary. Either McCain or Guiliani will run against her. Exciting race I think. Wonder who vp.s will be.
Maybe Barack Obama as vp democrat? Maybe Michael Steele republican? hmm. Guiliani/Steele! Of course there's always Pataki or Gingrich, but neither is bound to want the job.
However, Edwards is no longer in the senate. He served one term. He was a failed candidate for President during the Primaries and failed VP candidate in the general election. What can he run on?
This is one of Kerry's problems, too. He failed in 2004. In addition, many will not forget his 2006 gaffe. Telling students that "if you study hard..." While he could try again, I think the combination of these two things will derail any effort to get back in the race.
Feingold was probably smart to bow out now, knowing that Hillary Clinton has the money and backing to make a very strong run in the Primaries.
Reid can't make it. Biden can't make it. Pelosi can't make it.
I think it's Hillary unless Gore gets back in the race. But he'll have trouble, being that his one issue will be global warming and he hasn't held any office in what will be 8 years. Yes, he's made speeches damning the Bush administration, but he's not as strong a contender as people think. Democrats, in particular, forget that despite his popular vote win in 2000, he was not very well liked as a candidate. He was perceived to have lost the debates because of his huffing/puffing manner. Many felt he was a bore and a know-it-all, but really doesn't know it all. While he occassionally shows a sense of humor and sometimes reaches out to the general public, it is fair to say that he is more off-putting to most voters than anything else. Besides, when 9/11 happened a lot of people said "Thank God Bush is President." Proceeding afterwards would be ruminations on what Gore would have done and how he would have handled the overall policy on terror. Even today, despite perceived mistakes, I don't think Gore would win over too may people on this issue.
So I think it's Hillary. Either McCain or Guiliani will run against her. Exciting race I think. Wonder who vp.s will be.
Maybe Barack Obama as vp democrat? Maybe Michael Steele republican? hmm. Guiliani/Steele! Of course there's always Pataki or Gingrich, but neither is bound to want the job.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
John Edwards could be an intriguing candidate. But I wonder how many people are willing to throw big money his way. But he is a very good speaker and campaigner.
I know many people on this board do not like Christopher Hitchens but he paid Edwards a compliment in 2004. He said Edwards was his favorite of the Democratic nominees because he spent his pre-political career trying to hold corporations accountable for their actions. Hitchens admired that.
I know many people on this board do not like Christopher Hitchens but he paid Edwards a compliment in 2004. He said Edwards was his favorite of the Democratic nominees because he spent his pre-political career trying to hold corporations accountable for their actions. Hitchens admired that.
The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving. It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living. Oliver Wendell Holmes
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Has anyone here ever listened to John Edwards? He's a spectacular speaker. I heard him here in Springfield back in 2004 and as we were leaving and with many Dems I've talked to since then, we all agree that had Edwards been the top of the ticket, we might have seen a Dem victory. He's fantastic. He'd get my vote because I like him instead of just to oppose to Republican fascist regime.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8006
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
He's way too conservative to garner my vote. At this point, Russ Feingold is my man for 2008, and, although I have reservations based on his past history, I love that John Edwards is focusing on poverty and the plight of the poor in this country, because as far as I'm concerned that should by far be the most important issue in any election. But, hey, I'm just following Jesus's teachings.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19350
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8006
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Sure. Obama saw all the speculation about Condoleeza possibly making a decision to run for president, so he thought "Wait a minute. I'm black, too! Maybe I can head off her campaign announcement." Uh-huh. Yup.
People are so willing to hoist him up as a figurehead, they're willing to ignore how boringly middle-of-the-road he is. I wish he kept his mouth shut. But Republicans shouldn't mind if becomes president with only four years of public office experience. After all, he can always "learn on the job." Right?
People are so willing to hoist him up as a figurehead, they're willing to ignore how boringly middle-of-the-road he is. I wish he kept his mouth shut. But Republicans shouldn't mind if becomes president with only four years of public office experience. After all, he can always "learn on the job." Right?
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
99-1100896887
I wonder what you guys think of Barack Obama. He has been called the "Great White Black Hope" here.
Questions: Is it too early for a presidential candidate to "come out"? Doesn't it give the Opposition more opportunity to dig up something--anything--about you?It's a long time to be "up" for anyone.
How do you think that , throwing his hat "toward" the ring, not exactly in it, is going to affect the November elections?
Do you think that his recent announcements "one-up" Condoleeza Rice?
IMO: Yes, I think any kind of announcement from Rice about her ambitions in this regard will not happen, unless Obama stumbles. Is this a pretty fair observation?
Questions: Is it too early for a presidential candidate to "come out"? Doesn't it give the Opposition more opportunity to dig up something--anything--about you?It's a long time to be "up" for anyone.
How do you think that , throwing his hat "toward" the ring, not exactly in it, is going to affect the November elections?
Do you think that his recent announcements "one-up" Condoleeza Rice?
IMO: Yes, I think any kind of announcement from Rice about her ambitions in this regard will not happen, unless Obama stumbles. Is this a pretty fair observation?