Your memory is fading. Kerry actually ran an incredibly positive campaign until about the last three weeks. That doesn't mean he didn't criticize Bush, which can be done without being negative. Do you remember the thread that had the two official candidates website? Kerry's talked almost exclusively about his plans, what he would do etc. Bush's official website had negative charactiture drawings of Kerry using the inaccurate flip flopping on IRaq label. Of course Kerry actually kept a consistent view saying all along that a vote to authorize troops shouldn't be the final step before a full scale invastion. It was in fact Bush who told Congress that a vote to authorize troops was a vote in order to KEEP THE PEACE. Kerry's stance was in keeping with that. It was Bush who didn't use the vote to keep the peace but to make war. It was Bush's campaign that put out the falsehood that Kerry voted to cut billions from intel funding. Of course the fact came out that Kerry only voted to have money refunded from a cancelled airforce satellite that was NEVE LAUNCHED. This is what the GOP labelled as a vote to cut billions in intel funding. The GOP was negative and inaccurate in a way that Kerry's campaign didn't approach at all. Remember the voted for the 87 billion before voting against it false negative charge? Of course it turns out that almost 9 billion dollars went missing from the GOP version of the bill wich passed. However Kerry's vote for the 87 billion which he did make would have eliminated that waste and put accountability. Remember the Bush camps claim that a vote for Kerry would put America in danger? Kerry wasn't entirely positive, and did use some numbers that weren't totally up to date. But even that didn't come close to what the Bush camp was doing. I think the biggest piece of evidence was the picture of the front page of the two official websites. Bush's was more negative than positive, and Kerry's scarcely mentioned Bush at all. Do you also remember the study done that was in one of the threds that showed how overwhelmingly the GOP side went negative than the Democratic side? I will add that Bush's tactics worked, and that he did do a better job than Kerry of articulating a message and vision. But to pretend that the Democrats were more negative goes against reality and fact.
I didn't vote for Kerry in the primaries. I voted for Edwards, who promptly fell off the face of the Earth after getting the 2 spot. (I don't understand why some Democrats think he would be a good choice in '08. Why?? He was a bad choice last year for VP!) Kerry was a better choice than Bush. Kerry had a terrible convention, however, and he ran a lousy campaign. He still would have made a better President. It's easy for me to say that it isn't even close. You clearly disagree. Bush/Rove ran a campaign of excrement and fear, wrapped in a shiny patriotic glow. Democrats can be critical of other Democrats, and the state and national Democratic Party apparatus. I frequently am. It's usually drowned in the kind of hate filled BS you're pushing at the moment. In my opinion, of course. You obviously see a different picture. Keep D&D Civil!!
basso: You threw the stone. It is up to you whether you will henceforth be considered a liar or a decent guy. You threw the stone. Back it up or back down. As is your wont, you accused me of a thing I never did. Twice. And you still refuse to answer for it, after various calls to back it up, even when search is on (and even when I gave you the link) -- You have all the time in the world to deflect and no time at all to back up your position. Interestingly, I've never done the same to you. And this, in a nutshell, is how the D's lose to the R's. The D's accuse the R's of things they actually did and they say, "You're so hateful!!!" instead of answering for the things they actually did (NOTE to GOP interns: basso refuses to acknowledge or accept responsibility for the inital accusation -- instead he talks about how hatefully the accused behaves once accused. Good work, basso!). The R's accuse the D's of things they never did and the D's play above it all and never respond. And then they lose. No more. I'll happily answer all your other crap (like I always do) when you've answered for your baseless accusation. Welcome to the new Democratic party. We don't let negative, baseless, made up slime and character assassination fly without defending it anymore. You made a baseless accusation (of whatever size) and now you're trying to weasel out of it or deflect into how I've responded to the baseless accusation. Never mind how many chances you've had to back it up since, after all, you can't. Regardless of your weird tactics, you will NEVER catch me playing your game. You will never catch me accusing you of something you didn't do. In the unlikely case I made a mistake and you did though, I'd man up and admit it. You wouldn't and you haven't. And that, my friends, is the difference between today's Democrats and today's Republicans. Prove me wrong, basso. Please, prove me wrong. I am BEGGING you to back up your baseless claims even while I know for a fact you won't and you can't.
p.s. to bobrek: Thanks for clearing that up. That means, as I've said, there are nine threads including this one for basso to look for evidence to back up his claim. Who's taking bets?
Personally, I consider McCain to be more liberal than I would like, but he would be better than anybody the Democrats would throw out there, so I would vote for him.
Great question. The liberals recently have been trumpeting his stellar credentials and experience, yet nobody had even heard of the guy back in 2005. Oh well I guess he really must have done a lot in 2006 & 2007
Why does it matter? So the "longer" you've heard about a candidate the more valid a choice he/she is?
I wish it weren't so though. There's only NO WAY Hillary wins because people hate her for no real reason at all. Most people cant give you a real reason at all, to why hillary shouldnt be president. I'd vote for Hillary, but i know she has No chance, so i gotta vote for Obama. (not that i dont like obama. he should win, but im pessimistic. i have no faith in the American people)
Man, there have been many good presidents in the past who "came outta nowhere".......and if you paid attention to politics in 2005, you'd know who he was. Mix in Meet the Press on sunday mornings, instead of nfl pregame.
You're right. The Republicans are damn good at winning elections. Dont forget about Gay Marriage, even though that was a stupid issue. You gotta admit, there were more important things going on at the time, and there still are. For some people that was the most important issue during the election...
Pundits were expecting him to run in 12 or after. His candidacy and meteoric rise is a definite surprise.
Longevity tends to lend itself to ability and perseverance, especially in leadership. The test of time also tends to rid the public of the wolves in sheep's clothing. A track record speaks for itself... But not for Obama? Dude shows up, gives one big speech at a convention (oh yeehaw!), and picks up where he left off "waxing eloquent" on the national scene during this campaign... And in 3-4 years we're all just supposed to elect this guy we've never seen run a state, or city, or a small town for that matter? All we've seen him claim to have down, by and large, is "vote correctly" according to the views of leftists and anti-war activists and tree huggers (in hindsight no less) -during a time when America was attacked? Some big defender of the constitution and country that is! Umm... some people need to look at basics again. What makes him capable of running our entire country? His diversity of elementary educational institutes attended? His service in Illinois - in congress? His "membership" to a church in Chicago? What is it? I don't see it... He can "speak well" or "give a speech?" So what? I see nothing in the way of enough information about this guy who just popped up on the political scene in recent years... He popped up because he saw a wave of negativity against the sitting president he could ride... NOT because of his great ability to bring a new hope. Sure I can go to his website and read his suggested policy... but come on, how should I trust that? He's riding a wave of cynicism and frustration. He is all about negativity. In his view the country is in desperate shape... He does not feel it is necessary for us to help seal a victory in the war, because he thinks it's a lost cause... He is telling us all that we should have change - but for what? The sake of change? I'm just amazed at the rock star status he's gained.... based on a lack any evidence. The normal evidence you'd want in a candidate... Longevity, proof of stick ability and perseverance, some sort of a publicly proven track record other than "See? I told you I voted right!" Anyone can use hindsight as a "proof" that they've done something... But hey, that's always 20/20... it's clear to everyone what's happened in the past -especially when you're trying to prove you didn't choose a perceived negative for a path. But... so? Why does that mean he'll automatically choose correctly in the future? And for that matter the conflict in Iraq is not over... hardly completely able to be "called" at this point. In every chapter of American history no final judgment has ever made with a clear understanding until that time frame was over - and usually much later, when those times were more understood... As far as that goes we are still studying the entire history of our nation, trying to still make sense of decades and centuries long gone... perhaps one day this era will be one of the better ones in history... And who's to say it won't. The civil war era was our nation's darkest hour, yet perhaps her finest results began their cycle, or seasons because of those moments. To me it merely looks like Obama's saying he picked the popular road... but what about the protective and defensive road, as the Commander in Chief would be required to choose? It's easy to be the front runner and pick against the loser, or run with the winner... And this board, of all communities, should realize that. We see it in sports all the time... We dog bad decisions made by GM's in hindsight. We say what we would've done in a trade in hindsight. We make up hypothetical "what-if's" about gone era's... in hindsight. But in sports it is fantasy. It cannot be treated as fantasy when it comes to our nation's leader. Don't vote based on your fantasy of what a former or present leader should have done. You have no guarantee that someone with no track record is anything more than a fantasy or buzz or fad. America doesn't need a one hit wonder for president... the MTV crowd mentality won't cut it leading the nation. MTV is fickle anyway, just give a great hit song a few weeks or months, and then they buzz, the fad, is over... Society is fickle. Shoot, Bush's approval rating was very high after the 9/11 attacks... and only eroded based on totally uncontrollable events in a war. Fickle. What have you done for me lately? Short amounts of time in the public eye do not a president make. Yet that's all anyone has given Obama. Weeks and months by comparison to other candidates out there. You want him to be president... why not 2012 or 2016? It doesn't have to be now, just because we need a mysterious "change" for the sake of it. Last I looked, IN THE MIDST of a post 9/11 world, America's stock market went to record heights, tax cuts happened, the unemployment rate dropped, housing boomed... sure there were problems... but I don't need a newbie trying to turn this thing around. I'd prefer experience. This is a presidential candidate we're talking about here, not the latest sandwich at Quizno's, or the latest new band that went to the top 40 over night. I can't just toss it out, or turn it off if I get tired of it. This is a 4 year stint, minimum. Not a month or two. I'd like someone in the office that can show me at least a year of public service in an office with more to show for themselves than second guessing and told-ya'-so's. Please? I'm not telling anyone who to vote for... I just want people to think about the "why" -with a great deal of thought, not a fleeting "we want change!"- before the lock us into 4 years of total inexperience.
If you vote for Hillary she might beat Obama. You don't have to worry about it until the General Election.
If Obama had an 'R' next to his name you would be touting him as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Should McCain be elected you and the rest of the religious right are in for a rude awakening.
it really started to fall apart after this thread didn't it? Looking back, off all the things that exposed mr. bush, he will never live down the katrina fiasco.
So I imagine you're a big fan of James Buchanon and would have been strongly anti-Abraham Lincoln, eh?
