2008 Prez election contenders: Hillary Clinton (D) vs Diebold machine (R)

[savemefromdumbya]

Assuming she gets the nomination - Will Hillary beat the Diebold machine in 2008?

[high density]

1. The GOP doesn't even need Diebold for that contest.

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

16. That's right. This feminist says, this is not the year to run a woman.

[Up2Late]

2. No.

Democracy is doomed until we cam get rid of the RW criminals counting our vote. I lost mine in 2002.

[stepnw1f]

3. Election Fraud Should Part of the Platform

for any candidate. Place some focus on the election process itself. We need a jury out on GOP election fraud tactics and make this into a public debate on a national level. I hope politicos are thinking of using this idea, because I think it would be successful.

[FlaNoKerry]

4. Diebold will take care of Hillary...

and her NWO behind....

She is one of them....

[titoresque]

5. Yep!

And Welcome! :hi:

[bbinacan]

8. Pardon my ignorance but

what does NWO mean?

[oasis]

9. Another Hillary expert hits the boards.

:eyes:

[mtnsnake]

28. "She is one of them"? Meaning the other side? Back it up.

with some facts.

Hillary is a dedicated Democrat. She might not fit everyone's idea of perfection around here, but she isn't half of the crap that people claim she is.

[Mandate My Ass]

32. I'll agree to that statement

she isn't half of the crap that people claim she is.


No, she's less.:rofl:

[Up2Late]

70. I think it means "New World Order"

Any time I can't figure one of those out, I just Google it, it usually shows up on the first page.

[oasis]

6. Hill and Bill will have a top notch team in place trained to eliminate

Diebold cheating.

[Vincardog]

7. Hillary hasn't got a chance not even in a fair election. Where are the

Real Progressive Democrats? The only things in the middle of the road are paint stripes and dead Armadillos.

[Mandate My Ass]

10. GMTA

I can see all the snide, blow-dried talking heads on cable news announcing her defeat with glee saying "she's such a polarizing figure." It would take a lot of nose-holding for me to vote for her anyway, but why give them such an easy target to knock down?

[Vincardog]

11. Because she is the opposition they want. If they loose they win anyway

Why would we put up someone who will not stand for us?

[tatertop]

13. If we run Hillary get used to saying 'President Newt.'

Anyone they run will beat her.

[Mandate My Ass]

15. Even without Diebold

It sucks my will to live just conjecturing about a Hillary run at the WH.

[tatertop]

63. I agree, no Diebold required.

[mtnsnake]

38. You should stop being so petrified of the other side

and worrying about what the press or the right wing will do to her. She handles herself just fine.

[still_one]

12. I counldn't agree with you more

Not only is she a uniter for the repukes, she is a divider for the democrats. I personally believe she is well aware of this and will NOT run in 2008.

[mtnsnake]

18. Name one person who has a BETTER chance at this point in time

Yeah, tell me who has a better chance, in your mind, of winning the election, as things stand right now. Name some names.

[Vincardog]

20. Gore/ Edwards

[mtnsnake]

24. Since when did Gore throw his hat into the ring? Edwards? Gimme a break

As much as I like Edwards, he doesn't stand a chance and certainly not more of a chance at winning it than Clinton. Clinton isn't my first choice to become president, but she sure as hell stands a better chance at coming close than does Edwards.

[John Q. Citizen]

46. Why do you believe Clinton has a good chance to win?

Is it because she can raise the most money?

Is it because most Americans are in favor of the war she voted for?

Is it because Americans love family political dynasties?

Is it because she can turn out the Democratic base in large numbers?

Is it because she appeals to Republicans and will attract large numbers of Republicans?

Is it because Americans really want to elect a woman for President?

Sen. Clinton has not declared herself as a candidate, and neither has Gore, or Edwards.


Saying Clinton has a good chance to win is easy, but why do you believe she has a good chance?

[mtnsnake]

49. Where did I say that? Please show me.

I said, "Clinton isn't my first choice to become president, but she sure as hell stands a better chance at coming close than does Edwards."

Since when is comparing her chances with Edwards' chances the same thing as saying she has a good chance to win? It's not.

If I said "Clinton has a good chance to win" somewhere else, then show me.

[John Q. Citizen]

51. Here

"Name one person who has a BETTER chance at this point in time
Yeah, tell me who has a better chance, in your mind, of winning the election, as things stand right now. Name some names."

Why do you believe Sen. Clinton has the better chance of wining?

And I'm not anti-Clinton, I just don't believe she has as good of a chance as other possible candidates. As someone else on this thread pointed out, she divideds the left and unites the right.

[mtnsnake]

54. Sorry, that's not the case

I notice now you're at least changing your question, though, to "Why do you believe Sen. Clinton has the better chance of winning?", as opposed to your original question of "Why do you believe Clinton has a good chance to win?"

No where did I say that I thought she has a good chance of winning. I only compared her chances with the rest of the field, a field of candidates that isn't the most encouraging, IMO, as far as ANY of them busting out and taking command of the situation. I think this is why Al Gore's name always comes up, because so many of us think that even he would stand a much better chance than any of the rest of the current contenders.

My hopes are that someone, some unknown, will rise to the occasion and take the country by storm for us. Who that is, I have no idea. We're running out of time, though.

[John Q. Citizen]

57. Sorry for paraphrasing you, it wasn't a deliberate attempt to

misconstrue, just laziness.

I think Gore is leaving the door open. He's certainly staying viable and visible.

I think Kerry will run again.

And I think Edwards may run again.

I think Clinton would have a much harder time winning the general (and the primary) than any of those three.

Even Bill Clinton might not have won in '92 had Perot not gotten almost 20% of the vote. Both Kerry and Gore were much stronger candidates in their first runs than B. Clinton was in his first run, at least as determined by popular vote percentages.

-edit for speeling

[mtnsnake]

65. No problem. I think the 1 good thing about the "threat" of Hillary running

is that if she makes it official, then Gore might feel "obligated" to run because I don't see how any of our other candidates, with the exception of Gore or some unknown, can fare much better than Clinton at this point, when all is said and done. I honestly can't think of any candidate we currently have, other than Gore (if he decides to run), who could stand a real good chance of winning the primary and going on to win the election.

I agree with you that Kerry and Edwards will both be running for the primary again. I doubt that either one of them will stand a chance, though. I'm just hoping for someone else to emerge that completely takes us all off our feet, but it better start happening soon.

[Vincardog]

79. Gore would win over Hillary in a walk. When did Hillary announce?

The question I answered was "Who has a better chance then Hillary?"

I stand by my answer. Hillary has no chance. Al has a better one.

[xkenx]

27. Here it is.....AND IT IS WES CLARK

2008 is all about flipping a few red states into our column. Hillary certainly can't do it. Wes Clark is a progressive wolf in military uniform sheep's clothing. Many Republicans who didn't care for Bush, still couldn't vote for Kerry. Clark was the only Dem. they could consider. Clark has had more EXECUTIVE leadership roles than any Senator by virtue of his military commands where he had responsibility for the lives of hundreds of thousands of servicepeople and their dependents--the whole range of housing, education, training, healthcare, social services, sometimes in a dangerous spot. When Clark was Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Eisenhower's last military position), he had "Head-of-State" status, meaning that he dealt directly with prime ministers/presidents, not underlings. And Clark was virtually the only voice urging help for Rwanda. And Clark and Madeleine Albright were the ones who convinced Clinton to take action against the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, where Clark carried out the military action w/o the loss of a single American life. In this he stood up to the Pentagon brass who wanted nothing to do with "saving Albanians." And it was Clark who served for more than 30 years AFTER getting shot up and winning hero medals in Vietnam, when he could have gone for the big bucks in private industry. Try Swift Boating this guy--the smackdown will be heard around the world. Clark is all about duty, honor, country. When Clark's American Dream/American Hero story gets out to middle America, watch how many red states flip. And the beauty of Wes Clark is that HE IS A REAL LIVE D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T, with a progressive agenda equal to anyone.

[mtnsnake]

33. I would LOVE it if Clark was our prez, but I don't know if he has a better

chance at winning than Clinton. For one thing, I think they'll rake him over the coals for not having enough political experience, but I sure would love to see General Clark and his wife as President and First Lady.

[Meldread]

30. Gore.

That was the first one that came to my mind.

I'd support Gore.

[mtnsnake]

34. I think Gore's the only 1 who has a better chance. Too bad he aint running

or have I missed something today?

[Meldread]

37. Hillary hasn't said for a fact that she's running either.

We really don't know for certain who is going to throw their hat in the ring for 2008. Hillary may yet decide not to run. (Let's hope against all hope.)

Hillary Clinton is the Ralph Nader of the Democratic Party. Egotistical, self-serving, and someone who loves the spotlight. She's also a liberal sell out. She is, at best a moderate, but in reality she is a moderate with a slight lean to the right. It's unacceptable. The Democratic Party *CAN* do better.

I do not believe 2008 is going to be a challenge for the Democratic Party if we nominate someone - anyone - who is willing to stand up and speak in a strong an authoritative voice. After eight years of Bush do you honestly think the American people *WANT* to sign up for four more years of Republicans?

To win in 2008 they will need to run a populist candidate like Giuliani, who won't have the support of the far right for his stance on LGBT people (supports gay marriage) and I'm not 100% sure but I also think he's pro-choice. Hell... the fact that he supports gay marriage might actually make him more liberal than Hillary! (The bitch is anti-equal marriage, supports DOMA, and I am not entirely certain but may be against civil unions as well. Even if she isn't LGBT people can kiss the idea of even getting those goodbye under a Hillary Presidency.)

I propose to you this: Name a Republican who you think will be able to *WIN* in 2008, especially a Bush like Republican. Bill Frist seems or seemed like he might run for a time, but he has no chance in hell. Condi *MIGHT* have a chance if she can manage to rise above the failures of Bush (not likely), and siphon off black voters from Democrats. Cain is ruined after being associated with Bush as is Powell. Giuliani is the only person who comes to mind who has any hope of really putting a challenge to Democrats, but that's only because the man is more liberal than some currently elected Democrats (*cough*Tim Kaine*cough*).

[mtnsnake]

40. That's a lot different than when Gore said he ISN'T going to run again.

"I do not believe 2008 is going to be a challenge for the Democratic Party if we nominate someone - anyone - who is willing to stand up and speak in a strong an authoritative voice."

Yeah, just like it shouldn't have been a challenge to defeat George W Bush in 2004 in a landslide/runaway.

[Meldread]

45. It gets easier with each passing day.

They are shooting themselves in the foot. They don't even need an opposition party anymore, they are their own worst enemies. The loss in 2004 was primarily Kerry's fault because he was too afraid to stand up to Bush and put him in his place as a liar and a man not fit to be an American President. How hard is it to say to him when Bush brings up National Security, that 9/11 happened on HIS watch, that HE failed to protect Americans. How hard is it to say that LEADERS take responsibility, they don't point fingers and shift blame. That would have devastated Bush. That would have crushed him, and every American with a brain in their head KNOWS it is true.

If we enter 2004 with another weak candidate, then yes... it increases our chances of loss. It increases them greatly. However, after another three years of Bush and his never ending parade of scandals do you honestly think the American people are even going to want to HEAR the words "Republican" uttered again for at least four more years?

Again, I ask you name one possible Republican Candidate who could win if 2008 elections were held today? I think with today's climate even Dennis Kucinich has a fair shot.

[mtnsnake]

47. I share the same frustrations as you do about the campaign in 2004

"The loss in 2004 was primarily Kerry's fault because he was too afraid to stand up to Bush and put him in his place as a liar and a man not fit to be an American President."

I couldn't agree more, although I also place some of the blame on Kerry's campaign managers and advisors as much as I do him for listening to them. Worst campaign I've ever seen, bar none....one monumental mistake after another.

[Meldread]

52. Agreed.

I don't put it all on Kerry's shoulders. That would be unfair.

However, I'd also add that Gore's 2000 Campaign was almost just as bad. Listen to him back then and then listen to him now. If he didn't look the same, you'd swear it was two different people. I was very shaky about Gore in 2000, but since then he's really earned my respect.

I would love nothing more than to say the same thing about Hillary, but I can't. I believe she is an intelligent woman and a more than capable politician. I can respect those things, it's Hillary as a person that I don't like. I feel the same way about Bill, the difference being of course, Bill had a natural Charisma that just oozed off him and made it difficult to want to strangle him. Hillary lacks that, and therefore wishing to shake some sense into her is much easier.

I want to see a candidate in 2004 that we as a party can stand up and say "This is our leader, this is our representative, we are proud of this person, and we stand behind him/her. This person represents the values of the Democratic Party." That's what I want more than anything. Hillary can't do that, and is going to make the same mistakes Kerry made in 2004... the difference being she can't say she was a war hero. She won't even have that to stand on.

For me 2008 isn't just about winning the Presidency. It's about the future of the Democratic Party. Even in the midst of all this turmoil surrounding the Republicans they still can't mount a formidable opposition. It's not because they lack the intelligence or the ability. It's the fact that we lack a leader.

[mtnsnake]

55. You nailed it when you said

I want to see a candidate in 2004 that we as a party can stand up and say "This is our leader

Wouldn't that be nice. I think you just unearthed the secret, Meldread. Now we just have to come up with that mysterious candidate, who's out there waiting to be discovered (fingers crossed).

[Meldread]

61. Exactly.

I don't think it's out of the question that some mysterious candidate that no one is really paying attention to might step forward. If you remember correctly no one really knew who Bill Clinton was when he made his bid for President, he was just an obscure Governor of Arkansas.

I think if we can find such a candidate, that he or she will easily beat out the rest of the competition. Although, I have my fears that the media is going to heavily favor Hillary. They have been dying to play Kingmaker (Queenmaker?) with her since she first expressed political aspirations.

Although, truth be told, I don't hold out much hope. I fully expect Hillary will be the nominee in 2008, and I will be horribly disappointed... of course it wouldn't be the first time. If it wasn't for that certainty, I doubt I'd be so anti-Hillary at this early in the game.

Frankly, I am just hoping she decides not to run in 2008. The same goes for Mark Warner. Although I am pretty sure my nightmare ticket will become reality: Hillary/Warner 2008. Bet on it. Warner might make a good VP, but only with a progressive at the top of the ticket. Hillary would make a crappy VP because she likes the spotlight too much.

[wisteria]

72. She is amasing enough money to run for Queen. Any money from

her senate race-which she is soliciating for now- can be used for a Presidetal run. Her beg a thons have been frequent and she has recruited, Carville, Bagala and Bill to ask for money on her behalf.
She has no real well funded opposition in the Senate race, yet her fund raising theme is the Republicans are out to get her in 2006. So you tell me, why does she need that much money for the 2006 election?

[ChiciB1]

14. PULEEEEZE... Will This NEVER Stop???

I happen to think Hillary is quite capable of being The President, however... let's just NOT and say we did! If ever there was a real politician... she's it!

Between McCain & her, that's ALL anyone hears and I'm sorry but I just don't think this is a very wise move for the Democrats! I had thought McCain had some credibility once, but now he's sucking up to "the corrupt ones" so fast, I no longer trust him at all! Repukes are going to jump all over Hillary, and it seems that at least once a week, if not once a day we rehash this subject.

Obviously, I'm big on Edwards, but I'm liking Feingold a lot too! I have great respect for how Edwards just went right back to work on causes that count for the poor and middle class of America!

Unfortunately, if Election Fraud isn't fixed we can hang it up anyway! Seems even WHEN there's good evidence it NEVER seems to matter!

[Meldread]

23. I agree, but that's also the problem.

I have full confidence that Hillary is capable of being The President. (A good President that is a good face for the Democratic Party... well that's another story all together.)

I also agree that she is a "real" politician. She is intelligent and add that to her ability in politics and you have a formidable opponent.

However, the fact that she is a "politician" is the problem. America and the Democratic Party does not NEED a politician right now, we need LEADERS - we have plenty of politicians. They are a dime a dozen, we are lacking leaders and it is killing us. Certainly, a leader needs to be skilled in the ways of politics (it's essential), but there are always others who can take care of that. (Bush has Rove for example.)

We are in deep trouble, and it's going to take an aggressive, assertive, strong willed leader with a vision for America - and the world - to get us out of the hole Bush has gotten us into. ...and that vision must be a liberal progressive vision, not a wishy-washy "middle of the road" vision. It is impossible to have a clear vision when you are too busy triangulating.

[ChiciB1]

29. You Said It Better Than I!

We need LEADERS not just the "do-over" again and again!

I've made this comparison before. It's almost like Johnny One Note... Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Bush/Bush and what.. ANOTHER Clinton?? Doesn't that seem a bit much???

[savemefromdumbya]

66. Democrats versus the machine

hopefully this November we can gain enough seats?

[Meldread]

17. Won't matter to me, because if she wins I ain''t voting for her. -nt-

[mtnsnake]

19. That's the spirit. The repukes will be forever grateful to you.

[oasis]

22. It WILL matter after you're drafted and sent to occupy Iran. Send us a

postcard.

[Leopolds Ghost]

73. Yep, and when "One-Term Hil" institutes the Draft MSM will proclaim it her

"Nixon goes to China moment". With great admiration.

When Israel bombs Bushehr and Hillary goes on live TV five minutes before the first bomb hits and pledges to defend our allies in the ME from the nuclear agression of the evil Iranians, they will say Dems have "finally overcome the Vietnam syndrome and learned how to lead the country into battle again, just like Roosevelt in WWII." :puke:

When it comes right down to it, the Media love a vilified, jet-setting establishment overdog even more than a scrappy underdog. Especially when the overdog slits the underdog's throat on live TV. Even more so when the overdog is a "Rockefeller Republican" wolf in "Northeastern Liberal" sheep's clothing, so the media can distract the public from who is supporting her rise to power just like they did with Bush, by portraying them as something they are not in order to divide the electorate and keep them divided while the rich make out like bandits overseas.

And of course she will be set up to fall, just like Bush Senior, who played the same role for the Republicans. All in a days work trying to obfuscate the continual encroachment of the "permanent government" of millionaires.

[oasis]

80. It's more likely that John McCain will be President/Commander . (n/t)

[oasis]

21. Dems who won't support the Dem nominee, deserve another GOP boot

on their neck.

[Meldread]

26. I'll support the nominee, if...

...he or she is worthy of support. How many times do you expect people to continually cave into Democratic demands? We did it in 2004. When will the Democratic Party actually put forth candidates who SUPPORT us instead of constantly act against our best interests?

After all, if you just keep throwing money and votes at them what gives them any incentive to change? It's like enabling a drug addict.

I still stand by my suggested tactic of creating a party within the Democratic Party to wrestle it out of the hands of it's current incompetent leaders.

[oasis]

35. There will never be a candidate that will meet the standards of every

party member.Politics is give-and-take just like everything else in life.

[Meldread]

41. I have no problem with giving...

I've been giving to the Democratic Party since I could vote. I've consistently voted against my own self-interests. I'm just wondering when the party is going to stop taking and start giving back. I am starting to get to the point where I'm sick of waiting for them to change on their own, and I am going to begin taking what I want from them one way or another.

[ChiciB1]

31. Not Saying I Won't Vote For Her....

just saying... I DON'T want to HAVE to vote for her!

We can do better!

[Jamison]

25. Hillary is tough.

IMO she will OWN any republicans who try to destroy her. She's not my first choice actually, but if she is the front runner, I'll support her.

[mtnsnake]

42. Exactly my sentiments, too.

She's already proven she's far better at standing up to the right wing than any other of our Democratic candidates. Whenever they've thrown stones at her, she's returned the favor with a brick. No wonder they fear her so much.

Unless someone else comes along, Clark is my first choice, although I would never underestimate Hillary's chances. She's smart as they come, a good fighter, a shrewd politician, and she knows how to garner support during crunch time.

[JNelson6563]

36. I still indulge in the delusion

that there's a chance she won't be our candidate.

Hope springs eternal. ;-)

[lynch03]

39. If this election fraud is so real

You think out of all people, the politicians would be doing something about it since the vote tampering would effect them the most!

[acmejack]

43. Incumbents play.

Investigate the remarkable reelection percentage enjoyed by incumbent Congressmen sometime. Once you can tell me what those numbers are, come back & we'll discuss this.

[Junkdrawer]

44. or it's been going on so long that Congress is now the Diebold Generation

Think of Election Fraud as the ultimate political corruption.

[savemefromdumbya]

67. Right!

[linazelle]

71. Why would those benefitting from fraud do anything?

[lynch03]

78. I am talking about those who it would have a detriment on

Specifically those in the democratic party who dont' seem to believe in this kinda thing...unless they love having the minority.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. Hillary?? I won't have a dog in that fight.

I don't vote for Republicans(R) or Republicans(D).

[mtnsnake]

50. Prove that she's a Republican. That's just a rotten lie to discredit her.

If she's so much of a Republican, then why does every rightwing nut in the book refer to her as being the most leftist of liberals?

None of you Hillary bashers can ever prove your nonsense that "she's a Republican" and you know it, but you still insist on the anti-Clinto rhetoric that ranks right up there with the worst that comes out of the mouths of rightwing nuts themselves.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. Yawnn.. The same old DLC(R) apologist rhetoric.

I give you in evidence her vote for Bush's war and her continued support of the occupation. But, she has very "progressively" backed anti-free speech legislation, spared us from the horrors of video games, and wants to reach out to the pro-preggers.

I've been a Democrat a lot longer than she started claiming to be one.

[mtnsnake]

56. Your reply proves you can't come up with any proof

that she's a Republican, a Republican lite, or anything else that resembles anything Republican. She isn't any more Republican than any of the other Democrats who voted to authorize the IWR, so nice try. Any other proof she's a Republican? lol

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

58. Bingo. You have adequately proved my point.

"She isn't any more Republican than any of the other Democrats who voted to authorize the IWR,", or the majority of Republicans who did the same thing.

[mtnsnake]

60. So now you're implying that Kerry, etc, are Republicans, too?

Well, poor old Hillary shouldn't feel all that bad, then, being in such good company as the other strong Democrats just like her.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. Walks like a duck..or is that a poodle?

[Leopolds Ghost]

74. The same reason they constantly refer to MSM as being left of liberal!

As numerous Republican strategists have admitted, it helps to create a boogeyman you can control...

In order to distract the populace from the enemy you can't.

[politicasista]

59. Will we beat the repukes and Diebold in 2006? n/t

[savemefromdumbya]

68. We had better!

[Orsino]

62. The question is, rather, whether...

...the owners of the machines are confident enough that they can make us believe she lost. If not, they'll let her in.

They don't need us to love their candidate; they just need us to shut up and comply.

[Ciggies and coffee]

64. Maybe she knows something we dont?

I dont recall her calling for plain old handwritten paper ballots recently, has anyone??
Is Hil for or against e-voting?

[mdmc]

69. I'll take the cold, heartless machine

:kick: for Hillary! She can win!

[radio4progressives]

76. You Guys Aren't Paying Attention.... 2008 Is Going to be Completely

up for grabs by a PLETHORA of "THIRD" PARTIES ...

Both Dems and Repukes are in for a huge shock, and so are apparently some at DU.. (not to those who have been paying any attention to events in recent days/weeks/months/years)...

It's the Civil War in Iraq, it's the Threat to Bomb Iran into Smithereens which in turn is a threat to bombing the fuck out of us into smithereens -

it's about Labor Unions organizing for their own party (given all the recent advertisements from Labor on AAR that the Dems have abandoned Labor... what? don't any of you listen to Air America, ever?)

African Americans organizing their own party, (Dems have abandoned AA community)

and now the PORTS issue. like no other issue before has shocked even the kool aid drinking bush bots out of their five year hypnosis - they are disgusted, disillusioned, angry and looking away from the party, (no, these aren't the same people who thought Repukes were out of control before this past week)

I could go on, these are yet just a few examples of events that have given rise to "third party" organizing like i haven't seen in years - much more than the surprising Reform Party in '92, no Greens aren't even on the radar anymore so don't look to vilify them, they will probably put someone up to stay in the game a few more election cycles, but Greens will be the least of the worries for Dems.

This Neo Conservative agenda I believe will come to ever blessing end (i hope and pray) but what will take it's place is up for grabs by Third Parties which are currently organizing from Labor to Libertarians to African Americans to Progressives and so on, because we have no Opposition party as a counter veiling force against the fascist regime, it's been virtually non-existent. That isn't something Hillary Clinton, or Wesley Clark, or any of the other hot contenders will be able to come close to representing in the future, because they've had their opportunity and they've squandered it.

It pretty much seems to me that the two party system is dead.

If this pans out, we had better get behind Labor imo - but Labor had better not let themselves be bamboozled by someone who has never represented the interest of the working class as the most pressing issue (domestically).

If Labor can find people on all government office levels to represent the interest of the working class people, we kill the Neo Conservative agenda and the far right wing extremist along with their wacko fundies dead until they are resurrected again into some other demonic form.

RIP

[savemefromdumbya]

82. It would be good for the country

more parties would be healthier. However, until we get the realiability of voting straight no party will win except Diebold Machine (R)

[SammyWinstonJack]

77. After 2000 and 2002 and again in 2004, more mobilized, who with any

reality left, thinks the repugs won't steal 2006 and 2008? These monsters can't afford the Democrats to take even one house of Congress let alone the Presidency. They are facing war crimes and treason..............etc.

[savemefromdumbya]

81. This is it exactly

maybe elections will be suspended?