Kerry Should Have Picked Hillary As His Running Mate
 

That would have completely changed the dynamics of this election.

As much as I like Edwards, I think his "trial lawyer" image didn't sit well with many voters.

Hillary is someone everyone knows and she would have have pulled the female vote like crazy.

You're wrong, KRL. She wouldn't have swung ONE state for Kerry. Not one. The southern vote and religious evangelicals propelled this Bush victory. She wouldn't have changed a thing. And that is ominous for us in this industry. Very ominous.

Actually I think if Edwards was running for president and Kerry was VP, I think Democrats would have won easily.

No, I think he's right. A lot of people voted by judging the appearence. Women like women, and will vote for women. But on the other hand I think that they had there reasons not to go that way hehe.

nah, i think that would have been as bad as putting jesse jackson in there, lol

america isnt ready for a minority or a woman as vice president. its gonna be 50 years till we see it.

also, i think the only issue that really hurt kerrys popularity was his outspokenness about vietnam and his medals. unfortunately, people dont realize that an experienced vet has the right to speak about war since he served, but a wanna-be like BUSH has no clue about war

Also true, but know one knew who Edwards was prior and that's hard to get over so quickly.

I still think she could have grabbed a lot of women.

fuck that...Hillary should have run for president.

Kerry is perfect for the job - its just that his personality doesnt come across as much and people do tend to vote for personality.

I just wish they voted on merit - if they did, Kerry would be at the white house.

I just thank god that I don't have kids of age to be drafted because now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election it's going to happen...

I would have preferred Kerry/Clark

And turned off as many men as she would have gained women. This country is not ready for her. Evidence? We elected Bush over a far superior alternative. Not to sound like a broken record, but the new model for getting elected is to appeal to your religiously conservative base, and that means Republicans appealing to religious evangelicals.

These religious maniacs will be drunk with power now because they KNOW they won the election. They know their power. Remember the 80s with the rise of the Moral Majority, and the subsequent Meese Commission and the war on porn?

Its likely to happen again.

The democrats should have picked a viable candidate.

This guy supposedly won all three debates, had an award winning movie reaming his opponent, had democrats signing up new voters like crazy and he still lost.

You're right, and sadly anyone who's religious puts that at the top of their decisions, and Bush used that with his wanting to ban gay marriage.

It will be interesting to see the amount of votes Bush got from people who also voted for banning gay marriage.

Matt

i think the problem was more with kerry than it was edwards

kerry and hilary. interesting combo.

I did, he's from NC. I thought they had a chance to get NC because of him but that didn't work out that way.


:(

Hillary 2008 !! :1orglaugh :thumbsup

I think that she should have run as well. I would have voted for her. I think that she is ten times better than the two idiots that just ran.

Who's that guy doing CMI updates over at iBill? Kerry/CMI guy would've pulled this off. :Graucho

Hillary is a LAWYER, MORON. Kerry would have lost worse. Bush would have REALLY played up the "evil liberal" stuff. And would have brought up Clinton getting his dicked sucked again.

There are a lot of Democrats out there that need a reality check. Evidence of this is this wistful longing for Hillary. She will not be the nominee in 2008 because, by then, the Democrat elite will realize she is unelectable. I'm not thrilled to say this. But I believe, especially after yesterday, that this is the reality we are forced to deal with.

The Dems will be looking for a southerner, who is slightly right-of-center in his social attitudes, and that also precludes John Edwards, who will be seen as too liberal. And it will be a man, not a woman. And definitely not Hillary.

You're right I think.

Anyone who could not beat Bush on his record has to be seen as a failure. One of his failings, as I see it was he could be easlily attacked on his record in office. You need a man who can show what he's done in power as well as in uniform.

He was always a bad candidate, like Gore before him.

Other than Zell Miller. ANY dem will be labled as "too liberal" Edwards has a Chance. Edwards/Clark might have had a chance.

Impossible...there are 2-3 women for every man in the world.

Jesse Ventura needs to run :)

Exactly. Bush is already talking of reversing Roe vs Wade to *thank* the religious nuts that voted him back in. His offering last time was to bring Asscrap on board. I see lots of witch hunts in our future.