What is wrong with the Democrats?
 

First they elect Howard Dean as their party leader, and now, one by one, they all seem to be putting their support behind Hillary Clinton for president. Didn't these people learn ANYTHING from the election? Hillary Clinton CAN'T WIN, PERIOD. Too many people hate her. If she runs, it will just enure that a Republican holds the white house in 2009. Does anyone in here think she would have a chance in Hell of beating McCain, the likely Republican nominee?

The ONLY chance the Democrats have in 2008 is to convince Gore to run again. If Gore had run in 2004, he would be in the white house right now. Clinton and Kerry are too right of center to have any chance at all. The Dems are smart people, on the average. Why can't they see the obvuious?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...hite_house2008

Politics aint about the obvious......... quite the opposite in fact lol

Not that I care either way, but Hilary would have the best chance in the democratic party for one simple reason, she's a woman with the last name of Clinton. Bill's politics got him two running terms in the office so I don't think that would be a problem for her. Gore isn't a fresh face for president, and with two consecutive losses, even if he's the best overall choice, no one wants to see Gore lose it twice. Also, it's not set in stone that McCain would even be her opponent. There's still alot of grumblings about Gulianni(sp?) running for the Republicans.

Democrats want to be the first to put a woman in office.

Best years of my life happenned during the Clinton years.

65% of Americans said they are ready for a female Pres.

You guys are referring to Democrats in the third person. Please don't tell me your Republicans who push porn.....oxy moron.

Hillary can do it.

:thumbsup

I think...if Hillary chooses to run...she may very well get the nomination...but I do not think that she is electable. Al Gore is washed up...he ran twice for the Presidency and failed. The ones I would like to see throw their hat in the ring are retired and will not be running...for various reasons. I would like to see Gary Hart give it another shot...and/or Sam Nunn.

Oh boy, where do I start?

The problem with the Democrats is that they have sold their future over the past 3 decades to fringe special interest groups, radicals, and etc. Their "base" is actually an amalgamation of groups with often-contradictory views. Since, taken together, the adherents of these groups add up to a minority of the American electorate, the Dems must woo the 20% in the middle (as do the Republicans) -- Bill Clinton, cur that he was behaviorally, did a brilliant job of this. Therefore the only way for a Democratic politician to succeed is to be a centrist.

But even this is a problem for Democrats. They have only half-heartedly and with generously disingenous ploys (do they really think Americans are that stupid?) tried to win back their moderate base which they lost in the '80s. The Democrats are seen now as being about as reflective of American values as ice cream is of health food. A hefty portion of their votes come from those who wish to vote against someone else. One Gallup poll (forgive me, I don't have a link to it) run during the campaign showed that only about 25% of likely voters planning to vote the Democratic ticket were actually voting for John Kerry. The rest were voting against Bush. Very telling.

In short, Democrats have ideologically cut themselves loose from the American electorate over the years. Only their longstanding organization and recognition as a party keep them ahead of the Greens.

Hillary's politics are not Bill's politics. Hillary is an extreme leftist who disguises herself as a moderate. Remember her Health Care Reform debacle? Americans do, and you can bet the Republicans will waste no time in exposing her socialist ideology. Better not pick her.

Even if Gore were a fresh face, the simple fact is that he is viewed as somewhat unstable and as an environmental extremist compared to other presidential hopefuls. He wouldn't stand a chance.

I think the Republican nominee will be either Bill Frist (I hope not) or Rudy Gulliani. McCain shot his future to hell and gone when he let his ego get out of control over Campaign Reform. I like the guy, but he hung himself politically, as GW demonstrated during the primary season. That being said, who knows who will arise? Carter came from nowhere for the Dems in '75. GW himself was not a well known national political figure until he organized his campaign just a couple of years before the 2000 election. Dark horses are out there.

Your missing the boat. M. Romney vs. H. Clinton

If she can win New York she can win the United States. And I wouldnt be at all against her running. I think as of now you cant say wether or not she would win or not. She plays centrist very well.

this coming from you? :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh
are you fucking serious ? :1orglaugh :1orglaugh
your probaly one of the most ignorant nicks on here. :thumbsup
you must be a mass murderer

I think a lot of the dems speculation on hillary comes from a recent poll that showed she had a 68% favoribility rating in new york and that her job apporoval rating was even through the roof with the more rule/conservative/republican areas of the state. But new york is not texas.

there have been many threads about her in the last few months. Some say she could win and some say she has no chance. One common thread I see is how the more republician leaning people seem to buy into the repub belief that they own the country right now and that they have a mandate and will be very hard to remove from the whitehouse. If they continue to belive thier own press, they will lose. They did win the white house and they did win both the popular and electoral votes. But not by much. In the history of this country we have never failed to re-elect a sitting president during a war. We are in a war in Iraq, afghanistan and the with terrorism in general and yet bush came within about 100K votes in ohio of getting thrown out. 49% of the people voted to remove him from office. And they did this with Kerry as thier candidate, who probably wasn't the best cadidate in the world. So for them to continue to think they have a stranglehold on the country is just not correct.

But back to the point. Can hilliary win?

the answer is yes. Will she? It's hard to say. There are many factors including how Bush does during his second term, where the country is 3 years from now and who the repubs put up to run. Also, the dems do need to get themselves together and come up with a party platform so that what they belive in is clear and is repeated by and backed up by everyone in the party so it becomes a national message. That is how Bush won the first time. They didn't focus so much on what he could do for the country, but what the party could do for the country. It's all smoke and mirrors and the dems need to figure out how to do that. another factor is who the dems end up running. If there are no other really strong candidates it will help her. If she has to scratch and claw and have all her dirty laundry drug out during the primaries, it would hurt her.

But in the end the question is can she win? Yes. The polls show that over 60% of the country is ready for a woman president. She has connections to the south which will help her and she has Bill who, love or hate him, is one of the great campaigners in the history of politics.

I'm not saying she will win, but I could see many scenerious where she could.

I would stab you

www.webmasterknifefights.com

You listen to way too much talk radio. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Everyday im more happy im registered to vote under NO PARTY.

Not by much? Wasn't it one of the largest if not the largest spread ever?

Shit Ill vote for her

The division of the human family into its two distinct branches occurred some 10,000 years ago, a few hundred years after the flood. Humans coexisted as members of small bands of nomadic hunter/gatherers.

In the pivotal event of societal evolution, beer was invented. This epochal innovation was both the foundation of modern civilization and the occasion of the great bifurcation of humanity into its two distinct subgroups: Liberals and Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain, and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle or aluminum can had yet been invented, so it was necessary to stick pretty close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days killing animals to barbecue at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of the conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting, learned how to live off conservatives by showing up for the BBQs every night and doing women's work like sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the liberal movement. Later, some of the liberals actually became women.

Liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, invention of group therapy and Democratic voting to see how to divide the beer and meat that the conservatives provided. Women were not interested in democracy at that time because most of them were still women back then, and the conservatives fed them.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat, and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, soldiers, athletes, and generally anyone who works productively outside government. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals do not produce anything. They like to "govern" the producers and decide what is to be done with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals just stayed in Europe when conservatives were coming to America.




Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, and group therapists are Liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule in baseball because it wasn't "fair" to make the pitcher also bat.

If you want to be a GOOD Democrat, there are some prerequisites you must have first. Compare below and see how you rate.

1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

2. You have to believe that guns, in the hands of law-abiding Americans, are more of a threat than U.S.nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese communists.

3. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

4. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

5. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand.

6. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

7. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but activists from Seattle do.

8. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

9. You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians start wars.

10. You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

11. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

12. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

13. You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady.

14. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in charge.

15. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and sex offender belongs in the White House.

16. You have to believe that illegal Democratic party funding by the Chinese is somehow in the best interest of the United States.

no it wasn't

they won the whitehouse by about 3 million votes.

Clinton beat dole by 6million ( to be fair perot got about 8million that year though)
clinton beat bush sr by about 5 million ( again perot was involved and got about 19 million that year )
bush beat dukakis by 7million
reagan beat mondale by 17million.
reagan beat carter by 8 million ( anderson ran that year and got 5 million votes as an independent )
Eisenhower beat Stevenson by 9million

so bushes win over kerry isn't even near the top in margin of victory.

That was probably the most slanted list, in the history of lists.

Way to describe left-wing extremeists.

What's wrong with the Democrats, you ask?

See above for the answer. They have no issues, no values, and no platform. The only thing they have is "hate Bush".

So many Rush Limbaugh and CNN and Fox brainwashed sheep on GFY.

Most of the right wingers in this thread probably still believe that Saddam was behind 9/11. :1orglaugh

Not to get off topic, but you'd geta few more sign ups if you weren't giving the whole damn movie away on the main page.

wow. You're a smart fart aren't ya?

democrats gotta focus on who everybody else like, not who THEY like. Kerry was too much of a snobby intellectual...

Completely irrelevant. NY is a Dem state through and through. If she could win TX then she could win the United States. She can't and she won't.

WTF I was thinking? You are indeed right.

So many dumbass democrats dont know what to think until they get that marching orders that morning.


?One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.?
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

?If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq?s weapons of mass destruction program.?
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

?Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.?
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

?He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.?
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

?We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq?s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.?
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

?Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.?
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

?Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.?
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

?There is no doubt that ? Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.?
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

?We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.?
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

?We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.?
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

?Iraq?s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.?
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

?We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.?
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

?The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons??
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

?I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force? if necessary? to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.?
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

?There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ? We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.?
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

?He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do? Rep.
Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

?In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.?
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

?We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.?
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

?Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ? And now he is miscalculating America?s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction? So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ??
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003

I have a serious question for you. Was the results of the last election a surprise to you? Did you think Kerry was going to win?

If you were really wanting to be fair you would have to admit that conservatives got a lot more votes than Clinton did. Clinton didn't get a majority.

So, comparatively, President Bush has a tremendous mandate.


I guess we would have to look back 30 years to find the presidental election when democrats recieved the majority of the American Votes.

So you're saying that being a republican means you're a harder worker? I don't know about you, but I work 60+ hours a week - I know many proactive, wealthy, hard-working dems and know of many lazy, welfare, trailer trash redneck Republicans. Nice theory though. :321GFY

I wouldn't take the story to literally.

by the way, if you understood the democratic core principals, and you work 60 hours a week in your own business, you would have a very hard time pulling the lever for a democrat cadidate.

gore2012.com :thumbsup

Just keep repeating what you hear on right wing talk radio and CNN. It's easier than thinking for yourself. http://www.gofuckyourself.com/images.../xyxthumbs.gif

In return, you'll keep believing what Michael Moore and Hollywood tells you? Fair trade I guess.

The thing is, lately the Democratic party is FAR more fiscally conservative then the Republicans so that whole argument is a moot point. We went from a balanced budget with Clinton to where we are now :Oh crap
In addition I am against the war in Iraq, pro-choice, against censorship and against having the government dictate to me what they think is moral or immoral.
I don't give a shit about affirmative action or some of the Dem's other special interests, but other then that my decision is real easy.

There are a lot of very intelligent people in the Democratic party, many of whom have very liberal points of view. The recent election showed that middle America does not share far left views. If anything, the Democrat should have learned that they need to move a little more to the center in order to have any kind of chance in 2008. To her credit, Hillary Clinton has at least begun to make overtures to the middle and right. Unfortunately, she can't win. The reason I suggested Gore is that he is a moderate from a red state. He doesn't scare conservatives the way that Kerry and Hillary do.

The sad reality here is that while the Democrats complain about how the Republican party has been taken over by right wing nuts, it has become all too clear that the Democratic party has been taken over by left wing nuts. As 2004 showed, right wing nuts usually beat left wing nuts in elections.

How could anyone understand that Democratic core principles? Nobody ever talks about them. I know the Democrats have a three time purple heart winner, that's about it.

If the Big G runs gor prez, he will win. But if not, Hillary has a pretty damn good shot. There are a lot of women in the country that would love to see her win.

And John Kerry was a lock, right?

I can't believe the number of people in this thread who think that Hillary Clinton getting the nomination would be a good idea. SHE CANNOT WIN. Too many people hate her.

It might be unpopular to say, but in this country at this time, noone has a chance of winning a presidential except a straight white male. I would love to see a woman or minority in the white house, but it won't happen in our lifetime. Too many poeple will vote against Hillary JUST BECAUSE she is a woman, as sad as that might be to say. Moreover, Hillary KNOWS this. She will be forever fameous if she wins the Democratic nomination. She would be the first woman to ever do so. But she will be clobbered in the general election, regardless of who the Republicans put up against her. She is a strong woman, which to most right wing conservative men (and women) means that she is a bitch. I'll say it again ... SHE CAN'T WIN.

If she really cared about the party, she would recognize this and NOT RUN. But she is too intent on becoming fameous and outdoing her husband to care.

Actually, women voters would be her BIGGEST problem. Women hate Hillary too. SHE CAN'T WIN.

The democrats dont realize but they are claiming the right wing has been taken over by the center. They are just calling them nuts.


Hillary has no chance and here is why. She has been backed into a no-win situation with her senate seat.

If she doesn't run, it will portrayed as a concession. However, if she does run, the repulican party will force her to move way to left to get elected. Every left wing quote and speach will be heard by america over and over again.

The democrats she will have to cater to in New York are not the democrats that decided the presidental elections. (southerners)

I think Hillary can win, especially if Barack Obama is her running mate.

The Democrats don't talk about their 'core principle' because they know how unpopular they are in red America. Any Democrat who openly supports gay marriage and abortion rights will not win a single state in red America.