Which Democrat would you vote for in 2008

By OrangeSoul
in Real World News

 Share

Which Democrat would you vote for in 2008  

41 members have voted

  1. 1. Which Democrat would you vote for in 2008

    • Hillary Clinton
      17
    • John Kerry
      5
    • Russ Fiengold
      0
    • Al Gore
      4
    • John Edwards
      5
    • Joseph Biden
      4
    • Evan Bayh
      0
    • Tom Vilsack
      0
    • Wesley Clark
      5
    • Mike Warner
      1

Recommended Posts

Mentor

NTUsEr Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Neither, all of them are terrible. though Wesley Clark isn't bad. though I pray to what ever god there is that Hillary Clinton doesn't run and that if she does get thet ticket, then i hope she loses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Fred Derf Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Why are John Kerry and Al Gore even listed? I thought that in US politics once you run for President and lose that you are pretty much done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Fotix

Posted
Posted
Why are John Kerry and Al Gore even listed?  I thought that in US politics once you run for President and lose that you are pretty much done.

586768930[/snapback]

Vice President Nixon lost in 1960 to JFK and then came back in 1968 to win. Adlai Stevenson II lost in 1952 and ran again (and lost again) in 1956. William Jennings Bryan ran 3 times as the Democratic nominee for President in 1896, 1900, and 1908 and lost all three times. Grover Cleveland ran for President in 1884 and won, and then lost in 1888 while winning the popular vote, and then won the Presidency again in 1892. Those are some examples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Fred Derf Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Vice President Nixon lost in 1960 to JFK and then came back in 1968 to win.  Adlai Stevenson II lost in 1952 and ran again (and lost again) in 1956.  William Jennings Bryan ran 3 times as the Democratic nominee for President in 1896, 1900, and 1908 and lost all three times.  Grover Cleveland ran for President in 1884 and won, and then lost in 1888 while winning the popular vote, and then won the Presidency again in 1892.  Those are some examples.

586768977[/snapback]

Well, it was just a pattern that I thought I had noticed. In Canada, the leader of the party tends to stay the leader unless they screw up in some way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mentor

GoogleNinja

Posted
Posted
Neither, all of them are terrible. though Wesley Clark isn't bad. though I pray to what ever god there is that Hillary Clinton doesn't run and that if she does get thet ticket, then i hope she loses.

586768862[/snapback]

No, I hope she wins, and then they find out she had an affair in the oval office, and she had semen on her dress, and... and... and... :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

LOC Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
I don't think this country could take another clinton in office...

586773380[/snapback]

Better than another Bush in office if you ask me. Could you imagine if Jeb was President, my word.

Hillary all the way for me, though if it was between her and say, McCain or Giuliani that would be a much tougher choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Aaron Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

From a strategic standpoint, I can't understand why Democrats would want to go with Hillary. Movie star idoltry aside, why would you want someone who is personally involved in so many alleged illegal activities? Why not look for someone who has a bit of a "cleaner background" than she has? Seems like a recipe for failure again if she gets the nod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mentor

3beanlimit

Posted
Posted
From a strategic standpoint, I can't understand why Democrats would want to go with Hillary.  Movie star idoltry aside, why would you want someone who is personally involved in so many alleged illegal activities?  Why not look for someone who has a bit of a "cleaner background" than she has?  Seems like a recipe for failure again if she gets the nod.

586778937[/snapback]

Prove it.

This country spent more on invetigating the Clintons than they did bin Laden...

You've made the allagations so I'm waiting for proof.

Just because Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Jerry Falwell, Savage, and Fox News says so, (all right wing nut cases and Bush apologists) sez so, doesn't make it true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Dave Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Prove it. 

This country spent more on invetigating the Clintons than they did bin Laden...

You've made the allagations so I'm waiting for proof. 

Just because Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Jerry Falwell, Savage, and Fox News says so, (all right wing nut cases and Bush apologists) sez so, doesn't make it true.

586778997[/snapback]

He stated alleged illegal activity which simply means that she was accused. She was accused of wrong-doing in Whitewater. Nobody said she did anything, but an alleged crime can be a damning as a commited crime in politics. Which is exactly what was stated.

Relax. Breathe. Read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Aaron Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Prove it. 

This country spent more on invetigating the Clintons than they did bin Laden...

You've made the allagations so I'm waiting for proof. 

Just because Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Jerry Falwell, Savage, and Fox News says so, (all right wing nut cases and Bush apologists) sez so, doesn't make it true.

586778997[/snapback]

Read my post slowly... I said "alleged" activities. I know she hasn't been found guilty of squat. But today an allegation is almost as good as a conviction (see: Tom Delay). I never even hinted that she was guilty, just that she has a lot of angles from which to be attacked. It would make sense that Democrats would instead choose someone without such baggage.

Man, don't be so defensive...

PS-For the record I don't lsiten to any of those pundits you listed, so your point is moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Aaron Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Wasn't it made pretty obvious that Whitewater was a Republican witchhunt?  Or was that just the Canadian perspective?

586779042[/snapback]

I don't know one way or the other, to be honest. But that was never the intention of my statement. The Democrats have been having their asses handed to them for several election cycles now, and to go for a candidate that has so many points of attack and so much hitorical baggage to account for is just not a good idea (regardless of her "true qualifications"). Simply put, she is too controversial to trust with the "big one".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.