I'm confused

Didn't Wes Clark, Howard Dean, and John Edwards already lose to the worst Democratic Presidential candidate ever??? Why would we even think about running any one of them again when they couldn't even beat the pathetic candidate who couldn't even beat Bush?

George Clooney in 2008!!!

:popcorn:

they shouldn't ever run again.

Only problem with that logic is that candidates *have* eventually been elected PRESIDENT after having lost a prior primary.

What losing Democratic primary candidate ever went on to win a Presidential election? And FDR ended up the Vice-Presidential candidate, so that's a little different on its face. So who?

Even one instance disproves the rule, however.

FDR came back to win. Nixon came back to win. Kennedy came back to win.

candidate. They lost to a DLC candidate.

There is a difference.

More proof that they'd be lousy candidates.

Dean reached out to the people directly with his organisation and use of the internet. Edwards' "Two Americas" was a populist appeal to the Democratic base that recognises that there is a class division in this country. Clark, unfortunately, came in too late to really define himself.

Kerry was annointed by the DLC as the frontrunner even before Iowa and the corporate powers that back the DLC shoved his campaign through after sabotaging Dean's campaign. They then co-opted Edwards by making him Kerry's running mate. Like everyone else, they ignored Clark.

I think if Kerry had not thrown in with the DLC he would have been a better candidate - every time I heard him on television (I followed all the debates with my back to the screen, focusing on the words instead of the images) I was surprised to find myself agreeing with him as often as I did. But if he did have that fire in his belly, the DLC handlers threw water on it by not letting him go on the attack.

I will continue to insist that it was the DLC policies that sunk us (not to mention rampant fraud on the part of the other party).

You want to run candidates who can't even beat the lame-ass DLC? Is that what you're saying? If Dean, Edwards and Clark can't fight the friggin' DLC, they sure wouldn't be able to fight Rove.

Although that isn't what happened, Kerry was never the DLC candidate. You're looking under the wrong rocks.

they lost to John Kerry.

Couldn't even beat the worst Democratic Presidential candidate we've ever run. Losers.

LOL

:hide:

Yeah, well, somebody has to slap that target on.

I've been in the boat myself as you likely know?

:hi:

It's a big boat!!

Diebold just made sure that Bush won.

:shrug:

Losers losing to a loser who lost to an even bigger loser.

:evilgrin:

:eyes: Heaven forbid that the "party of principles" actually take a stand on those principles.

George Clooney is definitely our best bet. :)

I hope you'll excuse me if I don't climb on that bandwagon. The company stinks!

I could have sworn charisma and balls and spine were all we needed to win. :shrug:

(Between you and me though, I would agree, that company does stink!!)

Oh ... I forgot ... Dennis Kucinich isn't "electable" but John Kerry is. :eyes: Or was?

This entire thread is a joke. Surely you must know I wasn't serious.

And no, far left policies don't fly in America. As Kerry people said repeatedly, Kerry was the most liberal candidate we could put forward who had a chance of winning. Or who might very well have actually won. Liberals should be rejoicing over how well a relatively liberal platform did. And every single time the right is forced to change policy, we should be saying "our candidate told you so". But the both the centrists and the left are too stupid and selfish to put progress over their own political agendas.

Oh. Like Social Security, the G.I. Bill, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Wage and Hour laws, Equal Employment Opportunity ... things like that? I see.

"Comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable." --Finley Peter Dunne

I get the impression there are some DUers that are far too comfortable. :shrug:

They weren't far left when they were enacted either. But nice try.

President? I don't know that he would be a viable candidate. If we want a well known television personality I would go with Bill Moyers. Maybe if Clooney runs for Congress as has been rumored he could later go on to run for President, but that won't be until at least 2012 and probably later.

from some nice person w electoral maps http://presidentelect.org/index.html



----------



-----------



----------



--------

if he has more chances to please my DUers fellows.

I think Clooney beats Affleck in the balls department. Affleck is just a little too "effette", doncha think? I'd actually lean towards Tom Hanks cuz he has even bigger balls, but then he's smart and talks in complete sentences too, so that wouldn't do at all. And of course Warren Beatty is too old and would turn off the young voters. So I think we're stuck with Clooney, wouldn't you say?

being "stuck" with George Clooney. :evilgrin:


Oh, you meant for a presidential candidate. :blush:

(hey ya know he still might not be too bad...after all it is all about charisma, isn't it?)

Or AFLAC, even!

I could vote for the goose. We can get Goose Island Honker Ale to sponsor him.

(I used to cover my Kerry button with a Goose Island cap so as not to bother the owner of my favorite pub, who was neither Dem nor Repub, but just didn't like it when drunk people talked politics in his bar.)

We need to fight the spin better than that.

That said, I want Kevin Kline. Made a hell of a prez in "Dave."

Anyone running against Bush, at least right now(as for 2006/08, who knows?), has a better shot than Kerry did.

The country is already startlingly different than it was a year ago. Bush is becoming more and more unpopular; the set paradigms are already outdated.

He's still viable as far as I'm concerned.

You mean he won a bunch of primaries and secured the nomination?

I must have missed a memo.

Didn't read the OP carefully enough. Edwards lost the primaries to Kerry but Edwards lost in the presidential race because of Kerry. Edwards was the better candidate to me which is why I believe he's still viable for 08.

Hope that clears it up (and teaches me to engage my reading comprehension skills before responding.)

but for "George Clooney" I would substitute "Mark Warner".

Warner talks in complete sentences too, I do believe. He's waaaaay out of the running.

It's gotta be Clooney. :)

Howard Dean won't be runnning on '08 since he's the DNC Chairman.

Edwards, piffle, you're absolutely right. He lost to the worst presidential candidate ever (seeing as how Kerry lost to the worst president ever).

Same goes for Clark.

We need new blood. All of the candidates from '04 should stay out of it this time. Biden should, too, since he's tried before and lost.