Excluding Lieberman,Gephardt Which Democrat is you LEAST favorite

if you are wondering why I am doing this, look at post #3 and #30 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=204926&mesg_id=204926

I voted for Dean because he has the greatest potential to lead to a landslide defeat. He only appeals to the McGovern element (though he is really not very far left, appearance is what matters in an election) and he is bound to sound confused when confronted and say dumb things ("Graham is second-tier", worst performance in the
history of Meet the Press according to an independent TV critic,etc...).

has the greatest potential to lead to a landslide victory!!!! He only appeals to the Truman element (The guy everyone thought would lose in a landslide but ended up winning) and he is bound to sound on top of things when confronted and says the right things ("the president's assertions that there was uranium bought in Africa, which wasn't true; that there was a link between al Qaeda and Iraq, which wasn't true; that Iraq was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons, which wasn't true; that the secretary of defense knew exactly where the weapons were, which wasn't true. If you are running for president of the United States and you accept on face value five months before the war starts, then I think you need to have some hard questions about—asked about why you didn't ask those questions before you gave the president authority to go to war and not after. Look, I supported the first Gulf War. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan. I will never send American troops abroad without telling the people the truth about why they're going there. That's why I think I'm electable." best peformance in the history of Inside Politics according to me, etc...) Btw MTP wasn't as bad and gave the right answers to tough questions, The guy from MTP confronted Dean WITH FALSE facts.

...he'd have more than 25 posts!
:silly:

nt

n/t

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"only appeals to the McGovern element"?
hello?
I don't know who your candidate is, but I'm willing to bet he or she doesn't have the following organized groups: Republicans for, Independents for, Doctors for, Expats for, Gore for, Gays for, Geeks for, Med Students for, Progressive Christians for, Seniors for, Students for, Women for, Unemployed for, AFrican Americans for, Disabled Americans for--also minimum 71 blogs linking to his with space dedicated to Dean or continual comments re Dean, and virtually every state with at least one "for Dean" web site.

Worst performance in history of MTP?? :wtf:
according to whom? Neal Boortz?
well not according to American Politics Journal (scroll down to "Meet the Press")

Why don't you find out about the candidates before you start parroting right-wing disinformation GARBAGE?

McGovern ran for President in 1972. His backers included people like Bill Clinton, Gary Hart, and Al Gore who was an early opponent of the war. The political leanings of both the McGovern voters and the younger Democrats are reverse of what they were in 72. Many of the McGovern voters have become more conservative with age, and now make up the moderate wing of the Democratic party. It is the younger Democrats that have just become active in politics within the last 10 years, that are showing the most interest in candidates like Dean and Kucinich.

To put it simply, the McGovern element no longer exists. The Democratic Party is now an entity that is no longer formed from the broad coalition that it once was, but is only now coming to grips with the reality that the time has come time build a new party. As Eisonhower stated...a political party without a rational for governing is no better than a conspiracy to seize power.

If the Democrats do not see this, but instead seek to hide from this nonexistant "McGovern element"...how can they possibly hope to change with the times? If the Democrats do not adjust to meet the changing needs of the voters, then the voters will begin to switch to parties that will.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

chimpy. Well I really don't like him personally either. But I could hold my nose to vote for him.

If you think that Dean couldn't win then you must not like Sharpton. Al wouldn't get even close. Maybe we could win DC. Sharpton is a lunatic who should certainly be the next one voted off the island.

Actually I like all of these people for one reason or another.

I think Braun has the least business running, I guess.

But I think all of these candidates are worthwhile and have something important to say.

Unlike Lieberman, whom I cannot abide.

No compelling biography. No courageous stands. No real accomplishments.

I couldn't bring myself to vote. Every one of those candidate appeals to a constituency. This is niche marketting. At this stage of the game maybe it's not such a bad thing to have so many candidates pulling such a widely (wildly?) diverse audience.

I could be wrong.

They all add something one way or another. Even if it divides the bad vibes.

His views are fine, but he's so damned whiney.

I can only imagine that was for his "anti-war" vote but if you listened to the reasons why he was against it your hair would turn white.

I like him, Better than bush but his views are tilted to conservative for me.

than Bu$h*.

And all of them are people who went into a tough business -- running for office and/or holding office as a Democrat. Many have served in the military. And they did these things to help America and help Americans. Like us.

All of them are already catching hell from the BFEE. We don't need to target any of them as well.

Vitruvius.

P.S: I am sure that most DUers favor ANY Democrat with the guts to go against the BFEE Rethugnicans. Which includes all of the above.

The guy is, let me put it this way, not exactly the least anti-Semitic person in the world.