I think they should nominate Edwards and Kerry (if they can't get Regis and Oprah to run), with Kerry for president and Edwards for VP. Then run Edwards for president in 2008 (Once we are slaughtered by Dubya in 2004). I think Kerry has the best chance against Bush because he is a veteran, right? I'd like to see Bush say Kerry is unpatriotic (the 2002 republican strategy).

Eight words: Kerry is another member of Skull and Bones.

On the whole, I'd prefer another four years of Bush. Well, okay, that might be overstating it a bit, but he and Kerry share an agenda. With Bush, it's a bit more obvious. Given the choice between a wolf and a wolf in sheep's clothing, I'd have to look exclusively to the fringe party candidates.

To all real Democrats, I'd say start opposing Kerry now - the sooner he's out of the running, the sooner you might find someone who is not bent on world domination.

I agree that Kerry is a money driven suit but he is a money driven suit that I would be pround to call my president!

Good Lord, man, they're all money-driven suits. If that were the only problem with Kerry, it'd be a different story. He's also a global power-driven suit - another crypto-fascist, like Bush père et fils. It's just that Kerry is a bit more "crypto". Were he to replace Bush in 2004, there would be no discernable difference - just a slight change in personnel.

Does that mean you are indorsing the Regis, Oprah ticket? Should we just give it all up and put Gore up again. He did get more votes. The very mention of Liberman running for President sends shivers up my spine. Liberman is about as presidentical as Urkel.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c.../25/ED13817.DTL

Read it and weep.

MT

Those republicans they make me so mad !!! First Clinton took their politics and now they are taking ours. Politics stopped being about the issues in about 1960 when television was introduced into politics. Why should we pretend that we care about the issues. Why have debates when we can have the candidates participate in a reality TV show. Then we can really get to know them. Wait a second... That's a great idea!!!

First you need to force all the candidates to live in a house. Even Ralph Nader and Ezola Foster. There are no advisors, no speeches and no politics. The debates are so boring anyway. Since nobody cares about issues having a reality TV show will eliminate them. This could be a window into the candidates real personality. We might also want to include some humiliating games for them to play.

Gore can't win. It would be a mistake to nominate him. The Congressmen that voted for the Homeland Security and the Presidential War Powers should just step down in disgrace. They have shown they would be easily crushed by Bush's as they already have.

I watched the congressional debates over the Iraq war powers and one guy stood out as being serious but smart. Russell D. Feingold (Wis.) and was impressed. Anyone know about him?

Yes, he is my state senator. Nobody buys him. Though I think Gore would be a great president, I just don't think he could win. I think Feingold might have ideas about running for president, but I'm not sure he wants to do it yet.

MT

I don't understand...they don't 'buy him?' Does he seem phony or incompetent or something like that? I only saw that one speech so I may have only been impressed because there weren't many who had the nerve to vote against those issues. Plus he didn't seem weak, which is what most people assume a Democrat is.

Gore is a nice man. But these days you have to have a little more spark then he or Kerry have. Sad but true that voters can be shallow. I don't only want someone to win I want them to pick someone to beat him so badly that he is humiliated. So far they don't have anyone that can do it.

The democrats know Gore will lose. They need to pick somebody new. Once a candidate has been around a few years people start to realize how much they hate him. We need somebody who makes Bush look tired and boring. The democrats should also try to nominate someone from the South. The democrats also need a guy who won't just sit and nod while Bush talks about how much he hates Bin Ladden. The best candidate is Edwards. Maybe Edwards will make the race about economy and social issues. Edwards is also a smart and personable. If the issue is Bush's foregin policy the democrat's candidate will be kill by a wink of Bush's eye.

Alright, here's the deal... I won't break down all of the contenders as I've already done in another post, but I'm going to... Right here, right now, before your very eyes, predict for you who exactly will win the Dem's nomination for 2004.

Gov. Howard Dean (VT)

I believe, that in a Clintonesque fashion, he will go from virtually unknown, to win the nomination. I also predict that he will take the White House. With the economy in its anemic state, it is not outlandish to think we could see a repeat of 1992, no matter how hard Bush tries to distract people with 'Gulf Wars: Episode II, The Clone of the Attack.' (That's not my joke, btw... Got it from democrats.com. Like to give credit where it is due)

At any rate, that's what I think is going to happen.