Draft John Kerry '08

[SoFlaJet]

http://www.draftjohnkerry08.com/index.htm

I just found this and thought what a great idea...

[Cooley Hurd]

1. .

:popcorn:

(I really like JK, and believe he lost due to the concerted efforts of Blackwell, et al, in OH, but methinks you're gonna see some flaming posts on this - hence the popcorn)

[ramapo]

2. Why?

As reward for his excellent campaign of '04?

[Parche]

17. 04 campaign

Yes it WAS an excellent campaign
He is the best choice out there

[EFerrari]

32. Right. He won, it was stolen and he left it to third parties to fight

for our election. No, thanks.

[Parche]

37. Election

Hmmmm....Gore did the same thing?

[EFerrari]

38. But Al fought. It's not the fault of either of these good men

that our federal elections are corrupt.

But I can't help but compare Al's fight with Kerry's fold.

[Parche]

40. Kerry/Gore

Gore fought because the vote was so close, around 367 votes?

With Kerry's case in Ohio it was in the thousands

But I do agree that exit polls have never lied, and he DID win Ohio

[EFerrari]

43. There were about 20K black votes spoiled in FL in 2000.

Neither of these elections were even CLOSE.

(Let's get ready for next time.)

[Parche]

46. Next Time

They were saying that in 2001, we need to get rid of those electronic voting machines...period

I am with you on that.

[EFerrari]

49. We did pretty good election protection in the last midterms.

The Federal election seems much easier to steal and needs more minding.

Let's hang in, Parche! It would be nice to have a clean election again. :)

[_dynamicdems]

89. Totally different circumstances for totally different elections.

Gore won the popular vote and the electoral college was within a handful of votes in Florida.

It wasn't the same situation in 2004. There really wasn't a legal leg for Kerry's campaign to stand on. After all this time, there still isn't enough hard evidence to prove in a court of law that the '04 election was stolen. There are good indicators but legally proving something is another matter. Kerry did the right thing because contesting the results not only would have achieved nothing, but would have opened the door for a lot of criticism of Democrats in general. And very few Democrats would have stood with him. Instead, Kerry did the smart thing: he dug in and got right to work fighting the Bush agenda at every turn. Nobody has opposed Bush any harder than Kerry these past years. He calls Bushy on every breath the man takes. Bravo, for that!

As I recall, Gore stayed out of the limelight and kept a low profile following his defeat. Understandable, but Kerry, on the other hand, didn't lower his profile one iota. He hit the ground running and has been a far more outspoken senator than ever before. He's honed HIS attack to an art form. Different elections, different dynamics, but the bottom line is: two fine and capable leaders both have the experience (and defeat is the best teacher of all) to win the next time. Nobody knows what running for president is really going to be like until they have experienced it firsthand.

There isn't anybody running who can hold a candle to Kerry (or Gore for that matter) when all is said and done. I'd love to draft him, but I doubt it would be successful. Kerry's got a different agenda at the moment: stopping the war and making Bush's life miserable. :D

[DainBramaged]

3. No

Stick a fork in him.

[Blue_In_AK]

4. Flame away.

I would happily vote for John Kerry again. In fact, I'll go even further and say I would happily vote for him far more than I would happily vote for any of our current candidates. It was a very sad day for me when he decided not to run - although I understand his reasons.

[rockymountaindem]

5. I'd be for it

But I don't think it's what he wants.

[rox63]

6. I'd support that for sure!

[sandnsea]

7. The best we've got

Can't figure out why we let Republicans tell us who we can run.

[blm]

8. He and Gore are two of the best Dem leaders, but I believe Kerry will be supporting Gore

when he steps into the race.

[politicasista]

14. Exactly

Hope you are right. I am still waiting on Gore too.

[nam78_two]

19. I agree.nt

[ginnyinWI]

9. I'd vote for him before anyone else

He consistently tells the truth and is the only one I'd trust 100% because of it.

[BlueIris]

10. Hee hee. I love that site.

[frogcycle]

11. of all the names that fly about

my short list, in no particular order except the first, is:

Al Gore
John Kerry
Wes Clark
Russ Feingold

Notice a pattern?

Of those currently announced, I consider Bill Richardson the best qualified, albeit rather uninspiring. Dennis Kucinich is the most inspiring, followed by Chris Dodd and Joe Biden.

Notice another pattern?

Combining reasonably qualified and reasonably inspiring, I gotta go with Edwards.

But all that said, I have not locked in, and will not lock in on a candidate until after the primaries, at which point it is a given it will be the Dem nominee - unless some really weird stuff happens. If we can get through this damned primary crap without them all becoming mortal enemies, then I anticipate a damned high-powered coalition of exceptionally talented people, including most of the above as well as some I did not mention tackling the herculean task of restoring our government, our collective soul as a country, and our image internationally. The president will be, I hope, a team leader, not an autocrat, and the team will be fantastic.

[LittleClarkie]

29. Your first list is to busy doing the important things to run for president

The important things being the kinds of things a president should be concerned with. To busy being presidential to run for president.

And so it goes.

[frogcycle]

57. what we really need

is to downgrade the presidency to what the Constitution anticipated. The head of the bureaucracy, CEO, running the organization, dutifully executing the laws passed by "We the People"

Then have people like my first list either in a real Senate to advise and consent, or as activists like Gore, or as department heads with specialties Clark for DoD or State (take your pick), Clinton for maybe HEW? and on and on.

A real high-powered team, with the "president" as the chief facilitator, encouraging their creativity, ideas, hard work.

Face it- there is nobody perfect. Gore is close, but even he has his flaws. Everyone does. The effort to find the perfect person has left us with this complete charade of survival of the fittest (and dirtiest).

We need to fix this shit or we'll never, ever have a decent president again. It will get worse, and worse, and worse.

[_dynamicdems]

90. None of the best candidates are... candidates!

None of those folks (on your short list) are running. That's kinda depressing. They're all good men. (I'd add a woman to the list: Barbara Boxer.)

But all of them are doing great work where they are.

I've no idea who to vote for in the primary. Edwards is okay, but I just don't see him overtaking Hillary Clinton. Obama might have a shot. I'll probably be on the fence for a while. They're all good but nobody really inspires me all that much, although I agree with you about Kucinich. He hasn't a prayer though, sad to say.

A team leader would be nice. We already have a pretty good team in place. Democrats are more united than ever before, which is something for Democrats who tend to be far less in lock-step than the opposition.

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. Why is that a great idea?

[Old and In the Way]

13. I'd happily vote for him again. nt

[Bluerthanblue]

25. me too. eom

[MH1]

15. I'd happily vote for him

before any of the current crop.

[SoFlaJet]

16. he never fails to impress me-he's so damn smart

whenever he's on the floor of the senate I just have to shake my head to myself and think of what shoulda, coulda, woulda been had we not had to suffer through these last few years of President Numbnuts

[JVS]

18. Why?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

20. I Love John. But No Way. He'd Make A Great Pres, But It Ain't Gonna Happen.

I've come to terms with that now. He just didn't have the charisma and presence necessary. As much as I think that to be such a stupid reason for non-election, I don't have the power to so easily change the realities of our society. And given what they are, I don't think he could win.

[politicasista]

22. Who is better?

Shouldn't who can best do the job matter?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

27. Ummmm, What's Your Problem?

I made clear that it was a shame charisma and presence was so important. I think John would be as good or better than anybody and he continues to be one of my favorite members of congress. But he needs far more than my vote to win, no?

Furthermore, did I say there was something wrong with someone posting this? Oh, I didn't? Not sure why you felt the need to infer that I had.

I'm hoping for a Gore run too. But you go on to accuse me of complaining about this thread. Can you point out where I complained? Oh, you can't? Not sure why you felt the need to infer that I had.

Double standard? What double standard?

And even in spite of you being misguided and of flawed premise as it relates to all of your points towards my post, Gore has come quite a way since his run in 2000. In fact, he's like a superstar in some ways now. That's pretty important, and a pretty big point as to why there may be more support for draft Gore threads then the draft John threads.

But have no doubt: I think John would make one of the best Presidents in decades. But as stated previously, it requires more than my vote alone for him to win.

[politicasista]

31. I don't have a problem

I think charisma is overrated. Sure, I want a president that's likeable, but I want one that is intelligent, competent, looks after the little people's interests and will bring back integrity to the Oval Office. Ok that sounds Pollyannaish, but that's how I think a president should be and act. I don't like those that come across as used car salesmen.

I wasn't saying you complained. Draft Gore threads aren't flamewars, but anything with the name beginning with Kerry is (unfortunately).

I agree with your post, so I went back and edited some. :hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

33. I Think It's Overrated As Well. In A Just World, John Would Win In A Landslide Vs Any Repub.

I think he's one of the most intelligent, insightful and eloquent senators there is. I think he'd be a great leader, diplomat, and commander in chief. But for some reason, shallow things matter to far too many (hence, what we saw happen to Dean as well).

[politicasista]

35. Yep.

You're right. :hi:

[kimmerspixelated]

21. I'll always love Kerry.

I could listen to him speak all day. It WOULD be nice to have some intelligence in the WH! But, I don't think this will work. SO many are still so pissed about 04.

[bigwillq]

23. He's a great senator

but I cannot and will not support him if he decided to run in 2008, although I thought he said he will not be running.

[WI_DEM]

24. I think he would be a wonderful president but I don't show a ground swell of support of people

wanting to draft him--unlike, for instance, Gore.

[quinnox]

26. No more Kerry for prez!

Kerry lost and is viewed as a "loser" by a large slice of the people. Kerry blew it.

Kerry as a politician is very poor.
He comes off as a traditional Massachusetts elite liberal and as a rich guy who uses big words and is above normal people and runs in the jet set crowd. Kerry has a bad image as a big time waffler who will try and say both sides so that he can get votes and indecisive.

His 5 mansions spread all over the U.S. courtesy of Mrs. Heinz doesn't help the image as an elitist blue blooded Ivy league rich guy.

[MarjorieG]

83. Thanks for saying all the RW points, spread by Bush's media.

[LittleClarkie]

28. I would be so there

I still have a Kerry 2008 sticker on the car.

[EFerrari]

30. No, thanks. Anyone who won't fight for an election he won

isn't worth my effort.

[politicasista]

34. Yes, let's just dump on good Dems

Who will fight for you then?

[EFerrari]

36. Apparently, not John Kerry.

Edit: This doesn't make me HAPPY, that's just what happened. I'm not a democrat. I gave to his campaign AND worked that campaign AND worked the recount.

Where was he? I'm sorry. That's just what happened. :shrug:

[politicasista]

39. You didn't answer the question. Who would or will fight for you?

And where are Edwards' statement about "fighting?" How come no one holds him accountable? How come he gets a pass? He was on the ticket too.

And I am sorry, I think you are wrong to dump on Kerry to promote Gore. And I am a Gore fan.

[EFerrari]

41. I did answer the question. "Apparently, not John Kerry."

I'm not dumping on Kerry. I'm recounting what he did when he won the election and when he left all of us to try to save it on our own and without his support or help.

And, Edwards tried to get Kerry to hold off conceding, by all accounts. But, Kerry was the head of the ticket. It was his decision.

[politicasista]

44. Where's the link to that statement? You didn't name a person

You just said "Apparently not John Kerry."

[EFerrari]

45. John Kerry didn't sponsor the recount. The Greens and Libertarians did.

That's just public record.

Look up John Edward's statement shortly followed by Kerry's concession speech.

As I said, none of this makes me HAPPY, it's just what happened.

[politicasista]

50. How come Edwards or The Democratic Party hasn't said anything about it since?

What about McAuliffe? It was his job to secure the elections, yet people expected Kerry to do all this all by himself.

What about the 08 presidential candidates? Why are they silent on this issue. And why don't you direct your anger at them or the GOP? :shrug:

[EFerrari]

52. Anger? LOL! I've long since stopped being angry and got effective.

Why don't you ask your party why they're turning a blind eye to election fraud? :)

[politicasista]

53. That's all I am saying.

In case you missed this, here are some links regarding Kerry's efforts with the recount and post-election problems:

Recount efforts in Ohio by Kerry intensify
http://www.northcountynews.com/view.asp?s=11-17-04/news...

Kerry/Edwards Campaign Participates in Ohio Recount
http://toughenough.org/2004/11/kerryedwards-campaign-pa...

Kerry to Enter Ohio Recount Fray
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/122404Y.shtml

Kerry donates $250,000 for recount efforts
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/nation...

Cam Kerry and Kerry legal team announce efforts on Nov 9 2004
http://rsa.cwrl.utexas.edu/archives/2004/11/from_cam_ke...

Think Kerry Is Not Involved In This Fight? Think Again.
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i21election.htm

Recount Fight Goes Ahead in Ohio
http://www.voxpopuli-ne.com/2004_12/page49.html

Kerry Pushes for Federal Election Standards
http://ifk-johnkerry.blogspot.com/2005/01/kerry-pushes-...

The Perfect Election Day Crime
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/the_perfect_election_d...



Good luck with finding a "fighter" for 08. :hi:

[EFerrari]

54. Kerry went AWOL during the recount.

And us vets of that effort know that.

And yes, good luck to us getting our votes counted because the Democrats have done very little to secure our elections.

[LittleClarkie]

55. I wish we could agree

between

1. he's a loser who couldn't pull out an election against the worst prez ever

or

2. he's a winner, but didn't fight for it.

Sort of a lose/lose for him

[EFerrari]

63. I know.

:(

[Alexander]

42. What has Kerry ever done to deserve a draft?

He's perfectly good as a Senator.

We saw his abilities as a presidential candidate - and I want someone better.

[blm]

61. He won. He won all 3 debates and every matchup with Bush. DNC let RNC steal it

for Bush. And RW media machine kicked the nonexistent left media's ass on a daily basis.


Now those who DID get their asses kicked by their counterparts have spent their time blaming Kerry - the one who won his matchups.

[Alexander]

62. Kerry folded and conceded the election immediately...

And told voters sore over the 2000 theft to "get over it".

Well, that sword cuts both ways.

Kerry lost. Get over it.

[blm]

64. Internet myth that excluded context. BTW - the point was that KERRY WON, and the DNC lost it

for Dems. There was nothing Kerry COULD do about McAuliffe's stewardship of the DNc that LET the rNC steal another election for Bush.

[Alexander]

66. So Kerry didn't concede the day after?

"BTW - the point was that KERRY WON, and the DNC lost it for Dems. There was nothing Kerry COULD do about McAuliffe's stewardship of the DNc that LET the rNC steal another election for Bush."

He could have at least tried something. Gore's hands were tied, but he sure as hell tried to get all the votes counted. Kerry couldn't wait to concede, he didn't bring up Iran-Contra or BCCI in the debates, and he didn't do a damn thing about Bush's cheating via radio transmitter during the debates.

If you really think Kerry ran a flawless campaign...:crazy:

By the way, none of this has nothing to do with why Senator Kerry deserves a draft.

[blm]

68. I never said the campaign was flawless, I said he WON and RNC stole it for Bush

in the years before the election, during the vote and during the votecount because Terry McAuliffe didn't do HIS job to counter the RNC's votestealing tactics for the 4 yrs he was charged with doing so.

Had McAuliffe done HIS job diligently, Kerry would have won by probably 5million votes according to RFKs estimates. So how bad could Kerry have been in reality - especially up against the most media-protected president in history who also had the last Dem president supporting him publicly on his major military policies?


U.S.
Clinton defends successor's push for war
Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 Posted: 7:55 AM EDT (1155 GMT)


(CNN) -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

>>>

[Alexander]

79. Clinton wanted inspections first, which most Americans agreed with...

Even your hero John Kerry.

From your own article:

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life.""

Clinton made no secret that he was to the right on defense. After all, he publicly supported the first Gulf War when he was running for president in 1992. I'm not buying your assertion that he was pro-Bush and anti-Kerry.

"I never said the campaign was flawless, I said he WON and RNC stole it for Bush in the years before the election, during the vote and during the votecount because Terry McAuliffe didn't do HIS job to counter the RNC's votestealing tactics for the 4 yrs he was charged with doing so."

And Kerry didn't do his job, which was to speak up and demand that all votes be fairly counted. This is one area where Gore chose wisely and Kerry chose poorly.

Maybe more people would doubt the fairness of the 2004 election if Kerry had said one word about it being stolen.

And you still haven't addressed Kerry's comment towards Gore supporters in 2002 to "get over it" regarding the stolen 2000 election. Shouldn't we apply Kerry's own standard, and "get over it" when it comes to his 2004 defeat?

"Had McAuliffe done HIS job diligently, Kerry would have won by probably 5million votes according to RFKs estimates. So how bad could Kerry have been in reality - especially up against the most media-protected president in history who also had the last Dem president supporting him publicly on his major military policies?"

Kerry's a good Senator.

But he's not the best presidential candidate. I believe he played it very safe with Bush, saying that he "took his eye off the ball" and not letting DNC speakers bring up the Iraq War. We needed someone with more of a punch than that.

That being said, I think despite Kerry's best efforts, he probably won Ohio. We'll never know for sure, but I saw the exit polls for myself before the media "scrubbing" - and exit polls don't lie.

Unfortunately, if he doesn't even care enough about blatant election theft to speak up about it, how badly could he possibly want the job?

[blm]

85. And when Bush made the decision Kerry spoke AGAINST that decision while Clinton maintained

his support publicly for Bush's decision.

Gore and Kerry had the same Dem party election legal team - the saame one who told Gore he HAD the math with him and a legal case told Kerry he did not have a legal case to make to a court and didn't have the math to make a case.

Are you submitting that Gore would have continued with NO legal case and no math with him?

[blm]

88. PS - Get over it was an internet myth.

And no election legal team would go to court to make a legal case with no math in their corner and no legal evidence in hand.

[politicasista]

74. Who is that someone better?

Not hating, just curious. What if that "someone better" doesn't do exactly what you want? What will you do then? I think we need to be careful not to set ourselves up for disappointment. No candidate is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes, that is part of campaigning whether we like it or not.


Good luck with finding that perfect candidate. Hope you work hard for him/her.

[Imagevision]

47. Kerry draft? naf! -same with Gore, why did he choose Lieberman as a running mate?? geeezussss!!!

Gore and kerry, they tried, new times new blood!

[walldude]

48. Kerry lost to W... or it was so close they were able to steal it

I'm sorry but the guy couldn't beat the worst President in history, and you want to run him again? Bad idea.

[EFerrari]

51. Kerry won. They stole it. Remember, there are two indictments now

in OH over election fraud. He won.

We would have elected a pair of old socks over Bush in 2004. We most probably elected John Kerry but for some reason, he didn't fight for his seat. :shrug:

[walldude]

56. Ok he won, but not by much and we are talking about

a war hero facing a chickenhawk, the worst President in history, Kerry should have won by a landslide but instead let his handlers craft his image and let them convince him not to stand up for himself when it counted. Ohio shouldn't have mattered. Not only did Kerry not fight for his seat but he didn't fight the Swift Boaters, and he didn't fight his handlers. We are in no position to have a leader not willing to fight.

[EFerrari]

59. No argument from me there. But you know, there's evidence

that they shaved the vote all over -- PA, NV, NM, CO, not only OH.

It's much easier to do in a federal election. We really need to get on this. :mad:

[blm]

65. That worst president had more media protection than any president in history.

That worst president had the last Dem president and other big names in our party supporting him faithfully on his terrorism and Iraq policy and did so in very PUBLIC ways.

Gee - you think that might not have been a great idea? But it was a great idea for anyone looking to keep 2008 open for Hillary.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/index.html

Clinton defends successor's push for war
Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 Posted: 7:55 AM EDT (1155 GMT)


(CNN) -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

>>>>>>>

[Renew Deal]

58. Yes, it's up there with Betamax

:shrug:

[LWolf]

60. Er...no, thank you. n/t

[Arugula Latte]

67. Nooooooo!

:o

[lutefisk]

69. Yeeessss!

:patriot:

[Neshanic]

70. Um, no thanks I will pass on that one.

[DainBramaged]

71. Why not put your efforts behind one of the declared candidates

or is stirring up dead fish the answer? Split the vote some more, every vote counts. Is that your plan? As insignificant as it may be.

[Neshanic]

73. Call me a hopeless romantic, but I am waiting for Gore.

[DainBramaged]

82. You are not alone

But alas, if Big Al thinks his calling is books and the silver screen, we're fucked.

[UTUSN]

72. Did it ONCE!!1 That's all. Including Teresa!!1 n/t

[Yukari Yakumo]

75. No thanks

I really can't support someone who folded in a day in regard to Ohio's votes and who did not deep six the swift boaters when he should have.

[Jed Dilligan]

76. I didn't like his campaign.

He didn't speak to me the way Gore did. I was clearly voting against Bush, not for him, in 2004. It's not only that he didn't fight his detractors hard enough. I thought he had an unclear way of expressing himself and seemed a bit absent during the debates.

[Virginia Dare]

86. Seems like he found his voice after the campaign was over..

I get sick of these Democratic political "consultants" who don't know their heads from their asses ruining these campaigns. Every time I've seen Kerry speak since 2004 he's just been phenomenal. I differ with you in that I feel the same way about Gore. He never really spoke to me during his campaign and I basically voted for him because I'm a good Democrat and I HATED Bush. Nader was not even in consideration for me. I think I'd sell my soul now for Gore to have been President for the last 7 years.

[philosophie_en_rose]

77. No, thank you.

I like John Kerry, but I don't think there is a need to "draft" Kerry. (And if we're going to "draft" anyone, it should be Gore).

[tyedyeto]

78. No, thank you

I supported him in '04 but when it was obvious the election was stolen and we heard nothing from him, I washed my hands of him.

[fishwax]

80. I can think of a few I'd rather draft before Kerry, though I wish to hell he was

gearing up for re-election right about now, as ought to have been.

[mountainvue]

81. No can do. I voted for Kerry in '04

but he folded a little too quickly on the Ohio issue. Not to mention he collected money specifically for a legal challenge in that election and never used it.
I'm praying that Gore runs.

[MarjorieG]

84. Kerry could not contest. Please look at facts.

And not Greg Palast's elusive numbers way after the possibility of unearthing and using. Ohio had to agree to a recount, which they wouldn't. Once Gore tried the Supreme Court, it had to be Ohio, and the provisionals disappeared. In fact, most votes walked away or were refused registration. Remember too tht Carville had pillow talk with Mary, and the election sat on an RNC website. Lots of hanky panky.

The media, the ones who covered up the Homeland Security shutdown, as well the exit polls that were changed to match the switched numbers, was not going to allow a fishing expedition. There has to be some indication of outcome proof to even begin. That media, the one which didn't like Kerry's position on media consolidation and wanted Bush.

Next time we find the hanky panky before the election, and make sure the electronic machines are gone. Also will help when the Dems support their own, not wait for a former Prez to return. It was an election for change, and the Dems blew it.

We lost the best prepared emotionally and intellectually to be president. A decent guy with integrity who learns and listens, and knows more about how policy affects people than anyone I've listened to and watched. The Dems blew it far more than he did, by not organizing, waiting for charisma and then criticizing how their candidate don't have it, even though they can't watch any performances on TV (because they're not shown), in a fearful climate that was cover for the theft. The GOP had to work overtime for that one.

[Tom Rinaldo]

87. Good luck

I would prefer Kerry to my current choices, but I would rather put my energy into urging Wes Clark to run since he says that he is still thinking about it.

But hey, go for it!