Anonymous |
Presidential Race 2008
Apr 12 2006, 7:52 PM EDT
If the Democratic Party doesn't come up with someone better than Hillary or Kerry, I will be voting Independent! When is this party going to wake up and come up with a personable, charasmatic , intelligent candidate?!!! All we hear about is Hillary and Kerry and Gore and the like! None of them have a chance of winning! How about Warner or
Obama - they or politicians like them will be the key to success in gaining back the White House. Bush and his cronies are "killing" the Republican Party but its still going to take more than that to win back the White House and Congress!
2
out of
3 found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Do you?
|
Anonymous |
RE: Presidential Race 2008
Apr 15 2006, 10:31 PM EDT
I Agree We Need Some Like Mark Warner For Get The Rest Of Them New Blood Is Need To Win The White House In 08.
0
out of
2 found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Do you?
|
Anonymous |
RE: Presidential Race 2008
Apr 21 2006, 11:22 AM EDT
That's exactly how the Republicans could win the Presidency again....they will be united to keep control of the white house...While democrats will be feeding on each other. Any...I mean any democrat would be better than what the Republicans can offer. Guilianni...McCain? No spank you....I'll back whatever horse I think can win. Have the last 8 yrs not taught us anything...I think Nader was brave....but come on....What if Kerry or Gore had Naders' votes? I dare say the last 8 yrs would not have happened. United we stand divided we fall.
0
out of
2 found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Do you?
|
Anonymous |
RE: Presidential Race 2008
Apr 27 2006, 11:01 PM EDT
Who needs Republicans when Dems are so sure about themselves losing? Let's not forget that Gore actually won the election in 2000, and Kerry had an uphill battle against an entrenched incumbent. Obama, Edwards and Warner might look good on TV, and may be the future of the party, but are not, in my opinion, accomplished enough to beat John McCain in the next election. And while I love Hillary, it is my opinion that having such a polarizing figure as the next presidential candidate is akin to party suicide.
I think the Dems ONLY chance in 2008 is Gore. Look at what Nixon did in 1968. He had lost an extremely close and bitterly fought election to Kennedy in 1960, then wisely sat out the next election. After Johnson decided not to run again, mostly due to the political fallout from the Vietnam war, Nixon stepped into the spotlight again, running on the legacy of the Eisenhower administration (in which he served as Vice President). And nobody could honestly call Richard Nixon charismatic.
Gore has the opportunity to step into the exact same situation if he chooses. He is the ONLY candidate who can truly run on the Clinton legacy of positive economic growth, and can also claim to have the experience it takes to lead the country during wartime. Hillary might be able to take a similar stance, but the American people just aren't going to buy it. That leaves us with one real choice in 2008: Al Gore.
He's tanned, bearded, and ready. Go Al.
0
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Do you?
|
Anonymous |
RE: Presidential Race 2008
Apr 30 2006, 12:51 AM EDT
"Who needs Republicans when Dems are so sure about themselves losing? Let's not forget that Gore actually won the election in 2000, and Kerry had an uphill battle against an entrenched incumbent. Obama, Edwards and Warner might look good on TV, and may be the future of the party, but are not, in my opinion, accomplished enough to beat John McCain in the next election. And while I love Hillary, it is my opinion that having such a polarizing figure as the next presidential candidate is akin to party suicide.
I think the Dems ONLY chance in 2008 is Gore. Look at what Nixon did in 1968. He had lost an extremely close and bitterly fought election to Kennedy in 1960, then wisely sat out the next election. After Johnson decided not to run again, mostly due to the political fallout from the Vietnam war, Nixon stepped into the spotlight again, running on the legacy of the Eisenhower administration (in which he served as Vice President). And nobody could honestly call Richard Nixon charismatic.
Gore has the opportunity to step into the exact same situation if he chooses. He is the ONLY candidate who can truly run on the Clinton legacy of positive economic growth, and can also claim to have the experience it takes to lead the country during wartime. Hillary might be able to take a similar stance, but the American people just aren't going to buy it. That leaves us with one real choice in 2008: Al Gore.
He's tanned, bearded, and ready. Go Al." Finally someone shares my opinion. Gore in my opinion is the obvious choice. He is eviromentally, economically, and scientifically minded. These are all areas in which this republican administration has failed to advance our nation. The U.S. has had fewer degrees in science fields awarded than ten years ago. I am from Texas, Mr. Bush's "home state"; while he was govenor, Texas experienced some of the worst enviromental legislation and conditions in our state's history. Mr. Bush has carried those policies over into his presidency. Also, people have less money and fewer job opportunities. This was not the case when Clinton / Gore were in control. While serving as Vice President, Mr. Gore helped make many of the foreign policy decisions because of his military background. He also has the knowledge and capabilities to push our nation forward technologically. He is a senior advisor to Google and on the board of directors for Apple Computers. Overall, Mr. Gore is best choice. I hope history repeats itself and he is elected as President.
1
out of
2 found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Do you?
|
Anonymous |
RE: Presidential Race 2008
May 9 2006, 6:50 AM EDT
Mark Warner is the answer......
1
out of
2 found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Do you?
|
