Worst case scenario: John McCain wins nomination. Who can defeat him?

We need to assume the worst case scenario, any thoughts on who can defeat the "renegade maverick vietnam vet?"

Certainly not "wishy-washy Kerry"

Certainly not "no military experience partisan liberal" Clinton.

Certainly not a trial lawyer.

Could an unknown governor? I doubt it.

Any thoughts? Please note everything in quotes is or will be the Republican meme, and not necessarily the views of the poster.

You know, you guys are really not the only ones that can play that game.

Why don't you stick to promoting the qualities of your candidate and dispense with starting attack threads.

Staunch RWingers won't vote for him, neither will the so-called Swing Voters. NO matter how much he has kissed Bush ass the RW will not endorse him. He may have this perception as being a Moderate Rethug but he is a hypocrite and a phony. By the time the race heats up he will be demolished.

I the way home from work today I heard on the radio something about a straw poll of 2,000 Republican activists going on somewhere. Apparently, McCain is the frontrunner in it. They (ABC radio) was saying he has mended fences with the social conservatives. That's what they say, anyway.

That's the only recent conference I'm aware of.

McCain didn't even place.

I forget who was second, but George Allen tied with George Bush (:eyes:) for third.

He's whoring it up bigtime with the Bush Fundies. He is BAD news for us. He is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Honestly, would you ever think to post a "Scent of victory" Clark post (It's not me saying that, it's the RWers. No, wait, it wasn't them, was it?)?

I would never do that. I like Gen Clark.

I am a proud clark supporter but I have a hard time with anyone slaming and trashing any Democrat.
John Kerry is a great man and I don't like anyone trashing him or even Senator Clinton. Cmon were better than the freepers.

May I use WWIII Clark? I know what Bush is capable of but Lieberman and Clark....:scared:

It was to make a point about the futility of bashing, not to give people material to bash with.

I hope I/We won't have to. I want no generals--I've had enough of war/s.

Peace

Those who have seen war absoultely do NOT want to send troops into battle unless it's the last, last, last resort.

Clark testified AGAINST the Iraqi War in Septemeber 2000.

Maybe you should spend time rethinking your anti-military bias instead of slamming a liberal general.

I find it a bit ironic that you would title your response WWIII Clark tout that you can "play the same game" and then reprimand the poster for attacking.

Can't we all act with a little more civility?

I just tell folks that the guy who said that was involved in the Bloody Sunday massacre U2 sings of and then they just don't lend it any more credibility.

Feingold is the only Dem I've seen that can dish it out and take it too. That man is vicious in a debate, and doesn't take shit from anyone.

But his lack of military experience is a concern, especially when up against someone such as McCain.

But then if you're a Republican, you get a pass.

No one said politics was either logical or fair.

Any activity that begins with massive and harsh indoctrination leaves me wary. We'll touch on the killing part later.

Look how crazy BUSH made him look--when it served his purposes. Talk about a flip-flopper.

:headbang:
rocknation

I think they will still see him as kind of an independent maverick, whether he truly deserves that label or not.

He is clearly a shapeshifter-w/ untreated ills & chaotic darkness. Like * he has sold his soul to the devil-has O.C.D. to become preznit - will do & say anything to get there! ANYTHING!!!

But 99% of the American public is less informed than we are. Democrats and we HAVE to start understanding that. We expect people to be informed and know what's best. They DON'T, we have to tell them. I hate this fact, but this is a nation of sheep with a few wolves leading them all around by the nose, we have to start being wolves or we'll never win.

Every last person I've talked to (even my less than well informed liberal friends) would like McCain, very very few people understand his shift.

as he begins repeating the things that he will have to say to get the nomination in the first place, (a) he won't sound like quite such a moderate's dream, and (b) it will be more clear how his positions have shifted.

When the nomination season heats up and McCain has to tapdance on abortion, civil rights, etc. in order to appeal to the right wing and win the nomination, the public will be thinking "this isn't the mccain I remember from 2000."

Adam Nagourney reported for NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/politics/12repubs.htm that McCain told a Republican meeting that:"Anybody who says the president of the United States is lying about weapons of mass destruction is lying".

That Mr. McCain praised the president for his failed effort to rewrite the Social Security system; said he supported the decision to go into Iraq, and blistered critics who suggested the White House had fabricated evidence of unconventional weapons in Iraq in order to justify the invasion.

That McCain went so far as to condemn the collapse of the port deal, saying that Congress had served Mr. Bush poorly, by not permitting a 45 day review of security concerns, though McCain did not mention that the deal was sunk by fellow Republicans.

Americans are waking to the fact that McCain is extreme-certainly not moderate. He wrote about his recklessness and instability in his book-before they could be hurled against him in his 2000 campaign.

The Vietnamese circulated a film of McCain calling the United States: "A Foul Beast"-"A Devil Nation" etc. He betrayed his country-gave up any secrets immediately and taunted his captors repeatedly until they repeatedly tortured him. Divorced his 1st wife after she was injured severely in auto accident. Was responsible for fires,deaths,injuries on two ship-carriers when he demanded heavier than regulation-volatile-bombs for his plane. This story continues w/ the angry/childish letter to Senator Obama....

:evilgrin:
rocknation

The pendulum is beginning to swing left again, and by '08, it'll be a wrecking ball swooshing toward the staus quo. Centrists will be no more fashionable than they are now, but for the oppposite reason.

"John Conyers? Barbara Boxer? Maxine Waters?"

I'm not knocking them, but the question was "Who can defeat McCain" ?

These fine people don't have a chance in a million years of beating that wingnut.

have you seen the polls?

America is screaming for decent trustworthy leaders who will work to sweep the Fascists from Washington and into jail. The people I named have shown they have the courage and consistency to do so. A strong consistent message is very important to voters. McCain doesn't have it, and neither do our moderates. The consistently evil messages of wingnuts are repulsive to a huge majority of Americans now, so that leaves consistent progressives as the respectable candidates who can win.

Sticking to the middle is not a strategy for success, on either side. Dems have been moderate for so long that they've lost all 3 branches of Government. Our side will speak up or disappear entirely.

McCain! Sucking up to Bush after the way Bush treated him is beyond reason! Unless the reason is money or power hunger!

the pressure.

Wishy washy Kerry? I don't think his crew regarded him that way--and he was smart enough not to get captured, so that's a plus. Also, he won't be 72 when the primaries kick off, either.

And that trial lawyer, he's pretty smart, he's young, and he's energetic.

As is that Senator, with a law degree herself and experience working for the House judiciary committee during the Nixon Watergate hearings...to say nothing of being a Senator of a large and diverse state.

An unknown governor by the name of CLINTON managed to snag the nom in 92...so why couldn't that be the new paradigm.

And if Clark wants to run, he'll get a shot at it as well. He's not quite Eisenhower, but he has some interesting ideas.

But let's not be hasty, let's hear from them all. Anything else is....UN-DEMOCRATIC....

Honestly, I think Kerry looks older than McCain, but I don't know their actual ages.

Wes Clark was born in 1944.

Hillary was born in 1947.

John Edwards, 1953.

Mark Warner, 1954.

hard. McCain has started to look VERY old in the last year or so, VERY noticeable to me. Kerry looks like a middle aged guy in good condition, which is what he is.

I agree.

I don't think Kerry looks at all "middle-aged," though...though of course that's a relative term!

normalization issue without John Kerry who led them all through and kept him personally calmed down.

McCain is going to have to tapdance real well to overcome that one.

Enough with the wishy washy Dems, Hillary included.

On KGO radio (ABC) in San Francisco this morning a field poll was discussed that showed 42% of Californians have a disfavorable opinion of Clinton, and 48% favorable. That's not a very big spread in a state as "blue" as California. They discussed how Hillary is the candidate that most brings out the red in the blue...blue coastal areas for her, red inland California areas against. Looked a lot like Kerry/Bush.

I hope we don't get another middlecrat is all, and I also intend to do all I can to make sure that happens.

why do you think he can beat a Bushie protege? He can't, and he won't. Maybe Bill Frist? More likely Gulliani.

.

In the first place, their god-crazed base firmly believes that "moderate" lie he put out to bamboozle the rest of us. They will never back him, they don't trust him. In the second place, he's too old. In the third place, he is a guy who might actually try to run things. The GOP got burned by that when Nixon was in office, and they highly prefer dopes who think they're being dead clever by adopting the Reaganesque "hands off" management style (ie, no management at all), allowing the advisors hand picked by the rich and a few wingnut preachers to run the government.

I think Allen of Virginia is the dope, er, heir apparent, unless Babs can manage to convince enough party movers and shakers that it's Jebbie's turn.

and people will look elsewhere for a candidate in both parties.

much too early to talk of '08.

too many scandals simmering on the stove.

Katrinia hurt both parties, the entire government was shown to be inept.

People have never trusted politicians, but they especially don't trust them now. Most people don't feel truly comfortable with either political party leading the country.

it was the Democrats who run FEMA. :sarcasm:

Get real, man...the Dems have opened up a double-digit lead on the GOP for the congressional elections...the worm has turned and people have finally seen the fiasco that 5.5 years of Repuke rule has wrought.

Anybody can beat McCain's ass. Just show that picture of him with Bush.

I've got you...by....your....balls!!!!

How do we get this image "out there" to the masses in a dignified sort of way?

:puke:

Does Laura Know?

Edit For a springtime Love Poem for those two LOVE BUDS...

Friends may cum
And friends may go
And friends may peter out
But John and George will ALWAYS be friends
Peter in, or peter out...

(Fade from black to a picture of Bush playing guitar...)

(sinister voiceover) On the day that Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, where was George?

(dark music swelling in background)

(merge to shot of the 9th Ward, six months later)

(voiceover) And where was he after the months that followed?

(music continues, fadeover to shots of Bay St. Louis, Biloxi, Waveland)

(voiceover) wherever George was, we know one thing for certain....

(music volume increases; picture merges to shot of McCain hugging Bush)

(voiceover) John McCain was right there with him.

(music concludes; fade to black)


McCain did a number of things last year that appeared to me to be motivated by a desire to distance himself from Bushco - the torture amendment, the gang of fourteen, etc. - and I believe it was done in the interest of putting himself forward as the presumptive 2008 nominee for the GOP. But that one photo, taken on a day when the Gulf Coast was falling deeper into disaster and entropy, might be - and surely ought to be - enough to derail the whole thing.

I have to wonder whether some of the Bushco minions didn't do a little research and turn something up on McCain last summer. His behavior since last July really doesn't square with the McCain that we saw in early 2005.

No matter, though. That one image should be enough not only to tie him to the Bush buckboard, but to weld him to its frame and fit him with a matching set of wheels.

I get the feeling some of the corporate media is realizing that Bush and the GOP are going to be very bad for them in the long run, and are pushing McCain as the presumptive nominee even as the GOP is trying to euchre the Democrats into a position where Hillary Clinton is the only choice. I have little doubt that many, many non-Christofascist Republicans are going to sit at home for at least the next year or three. The plan might be to have everyone sit at home, which would make the elections easier to fix (smaller samples require less tampering).

Peace
PsA

:kick:

But I don't feel confident he could win.

it is hard to say due to the fact that the political landscape could be very different by 2008.

He is a wonderful fellow, but he CANNOT SPEAK. He has throat trouble, and his voice cracks. He sounds, even when he is simply being reasonably emotional about an issue, as though he is about to break down and cry. And when he does get truly emotional, he sounds like he is about to lose it.

He'd be running on a name, not on the work he has done. And he has done some important work, but he is not ready for the show.

I can see him in the cabinet, notwithstanding.

charisma comes in all forms... If he stepped up to the plate, the anti-jfk/ray-gun/big-dog, because he is a patriot, and his country needed him... I think he can win. In the terms of this OP, I think that my position is valid.

Peace, mdmc

That's where his interest and expertise lie.

...I think it'll be quite hard to defeat McCain. Sen Clinton would stand no chance IMHO.. While we here at DU know that McCain is a weasel, I think alot of Americans see him as the "honest" politician. Beating him would require a hell of a campaign...I'm not confident of the Dems ability to stand up and wage one. :(

Americans see him as the "honest" politician.

That's my feelings exactly, and it concerns me. If he is the nominee (worst-case scenario imho), we would have to find a way to counter his image as an independent-minded, maverick, non-partisan kind of reformer.

Americans are sick of partisanship, and anyone with a non-partisan kind of aura will be most appealing to them in 08'.

nothing to say about Clark being proposed as one plausible candidate to oppose McCain, as per your OP question.

Wassup wit dat? :shrug:

First, I assume that Obama has been very diplomatic and cautious in his first year in the Senate. It's smart and I suspect he was raised in a home where people exercised very good manners. Second, I assume that Obama was sincere in his efforts. Third, I'm aware that McCain just loves Quest and will do about anything for them, belying his "holier than thou" approach in the letter.

He wrote this and released it to the public without contacting Obama for clarification.

What a strange and rash thing to do to anyone, let alone Obama who is immensely popular with the American people in just a short time in public life.

What makes anyone think that when it is noted that McCain supported Iraq, PNAC, the Bush tax cuts, and turned away from personal insults to his family to support the monster Bush...when all this comes up and comes up hard and fast, we won't see a major meltdown. This was a "baby issue," a minor disagreement or misunderstanding and McCain goes nuclear.

He's not able to take the pressure and he certainly won't be able to take the scrutiny.

A whole new world is emerging. We're just at the start of the revelations. By the time it's all said and done, Bush will be the Curse of the Red Death and anyone who touched him in favor will bear the curse.

No way. Lets get a great candidate and work like crazy. The present poll numbers are name recognition indicators, not depth of strength.

Who cares what the polls say. We will have an election in 2008 where everything is examined.

It's going to take a tough customer, grace under attack, to survive even the initial round of examination.

Read the letter and tell me I'm wrong. I'm open on this but I think that this letter is a rare peek inside the mind of someone who cannot control himself and who has lost his sense of humor.



----------------------
February 6, 2006
The Honorable Barack Obama
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=NewsCenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=1654
Dear Senator Obama:

I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership’s preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again. (Restrained isn't he.)

<snip>

You commented in your letter about my “interest in creating a task force to further study” this issue, as if to suggest I support delaying the consideration of much-needed reforms rather than allowing the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings on the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. The timely findings of a bipartisan working group could be very helpful to the committee in formulating legislation that will be reported to the full Senate. Since you are new to the Senate, you may not be aware of the fact that I have always supported fully the regular committee and legislative process in the Senate, and routinely urge Committee Chairmen to hold hearings on important issues. In fact, I urged Senator Collins to schedule a hearing upon the Senate’s return in January.

<snip>

As I noted, I initially believed you shared that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party’s effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn’t always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.

Sincerely,

John McCain
United States Senate

McCain in '08 would be weaker than Dole in '96.

Let's hope it never happens, but I do believe McCains image is much different than the reality. There is a good chance he will "blow up" somehow between now and then. I hope so. Then America will have a truer picture of his true character and temperment. Anyone who wrote that childish a letter to a colleague, regardless of any disagreement with the colleague, certainly does not have diplomatic or personal anger management skills.

clear things up before releaseing such a letter. Why? Because that's the way professionals with a sence of decensy and ethics do things. They don't presume that everyone who disagrees is attacking them. But the testy ones will bow down before their master when it comes to power no mater how bad the master has treated them.

Obama did NOT deserve this. I saw him resonding and he was really surprised. Very professional but surprised.

Great response.

To borrow from PJ O'Rourke again (I love turning a neocon's quotes against the neocons, even though personally I think he's a clever and funny if misguided individual): George and his cronies have behaved in the White House "like monkeys in a salad bar: at once self-serving and totally haphazard."

Peace
PsA

:D

He has McCain on that evening and could barely control himself

Tweetie is such a demi-monster. Not big time, 400k viewers, about the population of Buffalo. But truly disgusting. He needs a serious attitude adjustment and some public repentance.

the republicons hate him. He's incredibly thin-skinned. He's old. And he may well be sicker than we know (physically).

I think, and have always thought, that George Allen will be the nominee. And if he is, we will defeat him.

I think people here underestimate the extent of the McHatred on the other side. They really despise him. His last name might as well be Clinton to them.

I believe it will be Allen, and I think he is too much of an Eddie Haskel to win.

I don't know much about him, but I heard the radio today (ABC) that in this "straw poll of 2000" activists, McCain was first and Allen second. They said Allen had "Reaganesque" qualites.

Like I said, I don't know much about they guy, except I believe I also heard he was a senator from Virginia.

George Allen. He's a fake Southerner. He's a phony Christian. He's a racist going way back. He's about as intelligent as the chimp. At least Reagan was a good enough actor to convince gullible people that he knew what the hell he was doing. Allen has no such advantage. In a way I hope he does run. Other than the die-hard wingnuts, I don't think anybody is ready to take a chance on another dim bulb named George who would be barely scrapping by if he didn't have a famous father.

Dumb as a post, fake as they come, and running on his deddy's name!

As to "Reaganesque," imagine Reagan with half the charm of his first year and half the brains of his last year.

Peace
PsA

corners of George Allen's past. I received an e-mail from one out of the blue the other day inquiring if I could enlighten him about the "rumor" that Allen had vandalized his high school with racist graffiti senior year. I was in the graduating class and was only too happy to confirm that the story is not a "rumor." It is indeed fact. I think decades of racial baggage that include hate-crime vandalism and a noose in his office might just be enough to keep him off a national ticket.

Allen appealing to the far right Christians and fascists and Hagel appealing to standard Republicans and Independents.

he may be a nice man but I cannot stand his syrupy, slimey politics. We can beat him hands down

He called Chelsea Clinton ugly and insulted Janet Reno in the same sentence. He wrote a nasty letter to Barak Obama,. He said "I hated the gooks, I will hate them as long as I live."
He was involved with Charles Keating. He ate cake with bush* on the very day a cat 5 storm hit the gulf. He sponsored an anti-torture bill that, in retrospect, did the exact opposite of what it was supposed to accomplish.
He's a disgusting, small and pasty POS bush*-hugger.
Not nice.

I don't like him either, BTW.

Democrat that can defeat McCain is Wes Clark.

Go Figure.

opponents to McCain. OP has Clark in his userID and sig, yet when people mention Clark, all we get in response is more fear of McCain's various superpowers and invulerable features!

What's a DUer to do? The sky is falling!

And I like the General too.

I believe any of he potential candidates mentioned their would make a good to excellent president....assuming they get elected.

silent on his suitability for this task, particularly when others on this very thread you've created have proposed "your candidate" (?) as one potential solution to the McCain "problem".

Seriously, presumably you are enthusiastic about the guy to have put him as your username and sig pic, unless you did those things as an "afterthought" (AHEM!)... what do you think about Clark vs. McCain? :shrug:

I do believe he has qualities (or at least perceived qualities) that will be attractive to the American electorate in 08'. I believe Clark would be the only potential candidate on the Democratic side who would have the qualities that are perceived in McCain.

Also, McCain is the one the MSM is pushing, along with Hillary.

Now I'm thinking McCain is too old and likely to blow his top before then so perhaps we need to watch this George Allen guy more carefully...

by ruling out a large number of potential major Democratic candidates, based on Republican spin. How valid is that? "Certainly not a trial lawyer!"

Just as one example, Edwards, why NOT a trial lawyer?

A lot has happened even since 2004. More importantly than anything, IMHO, Katrina, along with the continued disaster of Iraq, makes the case that the Republican Party, shrub and his congress bootlickers, have been completely incompetent in administering the country. It's not a thing that needs to be argued, really, merely pointed out. Sure many hardcore koolaid drinkers will hug their precious flooded bus email pics to their chest and proclaim the perfection of bushco, but for too many, they may mouth the rushbo talking points, but it rings hollow in the face of the reality of the disgrace our country is enduring.

Edwards campaign "theme" of addressing the needs of the underdog in America could very well have resonance in an 08 campaign, especially in the context of Katrina. A lot of Americans, and many Bush voters, are very dismayed at how this has been handled and how things have turned out, and it's simply not valid to say that people will vote exactly the same, based on exactly the same crap as before. Many will but a huge number will not.

I don't accept the validity of the spin in the "disclaimered" reasoning in your OP, so I don't think you can exclude all or ANY of those candidates on that basis.

You make a particularly good point about Edwards.

Of course I favor Clark, but yours is exactly the kind of posts I was hoping for. I want you and others to tell me why you think the standard Republican memes will or will or will not work. I chose McCain as the potential opponent because I do believe his PERCEIVED qualities....anti-partisan, honest reform, veteran, etc., are likely to resonate in 08'.

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.

He folds quicker than...well, hell, just about anything anyone can come up with.

He's a traitor to the US. Unfit. Unclean. Shameful.

And they will do it about ANY Dem.

You think this is the same media that Clinton had in 92? This is the new corporate media that worked to get Clinton impeached and lies about any Democrat who sticks his neck out far enough.

Warner Richardson

Kerry/Clark

hell of a fight on their hands. So what are the Dems going to do about it??? AGAIN! If the Democrats are one more time concerned about the electability in chosing their candidate, they have failed already!

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

.

I think by 2008 the global warming drumbeat will have become loud enough that people will consider a candidate who is considered an expert in the area, not to mention his overall experience and intelligence.

This is why we need a non senator in the race. Mccains voting pattern well allienate the religous right wing base of the repukes. Mccain may look fine on paper but he wont stand up against the right wing microscope when it comes to voting issues. And hopefully their will be no swift boatting in this race..

George W. Bush.



No matter who we run,



every time we show George W. Bush and John McCain together,



the photo says it all: George W. Bush and John McCain.



John McCain and George W. Bush.



George W. Bush appeared rational before he was elected. Now here's John McCain. With George W. Bush.



Never let them forget for a second: George W. Bush and John McCain.

His health and his age will work against him.. and the fundies will stay home instead of voting for him.. No matter how much he kissed up to bush, they don't like him..

I liked him when he was running against Bush in the primaries, BUT when he rolled over and started loving-up Bush, I lost all respect for him..and I suppose others have done so as well./. He is the Lieberman of the republican party./ blows which ever way the wind blows

It's Big Bad John McCain!!!!

lolol

I used to think it would have to be Senator Clinton. But you're right.

The environmental president, and the General

Both will be badly (and obviously) needed

Gore/Clark

:popcorn: :woohoo: :applause: :spray:

Keep an eye on Hagel.

I think Hagel could do well in a GOP primary if he composes himself right, he's not an unlikable guy, though I think republican primary voters will be drawn to a guy like George Allen since he's strongly socially conservative but there is weakness in him too, he has changed his stances on some issues, so I thikn the best stragety for Allen would be to go at him how the republicans went at Kerry with the flip flops, there was an issue that had something to do with gays that Allen voted for then the Christian Right scolded him and he changed his stance. I personally think that Mark Warner would be a strong candidate because I think that the people of this country will want someone from outside DC who has proven success and Warner's record as governor in Virginia I think is solid, he accomplished a lot of good with a republican majority state legislature, I Think he could do great things if we worked to get him a Democratic Majority in Congress, he's proven to have good coattails too, we don't have a a majority in the Virginia legilsature yet but Warner's record really helped out Tim Kaine this past fall and many of hte democratic candidates for state legislature did great. If it were to be Warner that said, I'd suggest he get a running mate who knows how Washington works, That's just my opinion but I don't think McCain is invincible, yes he's popular but he's beatable.

McCain has way too many closeups with Bush and his policies to attract the independent votes.

Despite his being a Republican, depending on who his running mate would be, and who we had oppose them, I would consider voting for him. And I'm pretty far left for being a conservative radical.

you are probably a better Democrat than I, Mayberry. But then, I think of myself as a reasonable moderate, somewhat Marxist, but probably tainted by Repuke influences. I like the guy. But I also like Hillary. And Bill. And Kerry. And Kucinich.

(ed. to add Kucinich)

Maybe this will help you like McCain less...it actually makes me worry a bit less about him getting the nomination.

MEMPHIS, Tenn. - Senator John McCain told MSNBC in an exclusive interview late Friday that President Bush is having difficulties right now and that Republicans should stand beside him.

“He's having trouble right now. We Republicans all know that. That’s when he needs us to stand by him. He doesn’t need us when his numbers are 65. He needs us now," McCain said in an exclusive interview with Hardball after addressing the Southern Republican Leadership Conference Friday evening in Memphis. "That’s my only message," McCain said.

The Arizona senator, who was defeated by Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, made the comments in explaining his call for conference delegates to “write-in” Bush's name in Saturday's straw poll vote here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11772085/

McCain seems to have decided to go down with the ship.

McCain is a chain of command kind of guy, and the action you describe seems to me to be in that light. I don't know a lot about Clark, to be honest. And that may reflect a problem for him - that he is not known.

Just my crazy wild card thought. Though a three way race between Clark Ventura and Mccain would be fascinating too watch.

I don't wish any harm to him personally, but realistically, melanoma has a way of returning or met'ing somewhere else.

As for his age, of all Presidents in our history only Reagan was older, and we all know how that turned out (falling asleep in meetings, etc.) I don't think the Repubs will select McCain in their primary. They'll probably go with Guiliani (shudder).

But I like Clark, and I like Feingold, too.

Makes me wonder why they can take their cues from corporate mass-media on cue without even a burp :puke:


Ask if I worry who runs for the office of POTUS in oh-eight :shrug:

Why? Because only the rightwing base votes in the Republican primary. McCain does not pass their smell test. If Rush, Hannity, Savage, Ingrahm, and their ilk can't stand McCain, he has ZERO chance.


Watch this. The media is also setting McCain up, and the rightwing hates that even more.

Seriously, I think only a movie star who has already played the President can beat McCain. He's got that American hero/torture victim thing going for him.

He's not very healthy.

Would kick his bush hugging ass!

If I had an elderly Aunt Maggie, I's say *SHE* could defeat him.

He'd be hugging a large Misguided Muscle!(A Dick instead Of A Bush)

:kick:

over our Democrats who are fighting for us every day.

as a persuasive force for regular dumb-ass voters. In other words, if they say it's true on TV, it's halfway to being true. Remember the "War on Christmas?" I mean, they just made that shit up and all of a sudden people were talking about it like it was a real thing!

Do you doubt that McCain has mass appeal? Remember, a lot of voters don't pay attention much to specifics, they just sort of size up each candidate and go with their "gut feeling." Yes this is retarded, but it's a reality. Nearly everyone has a ton of respect for McCain's service, his terrible POW ordeal, and the fact that he pulled it together and made good. Hell, even I think that's fucking cool. There's no point in pretending he's not popular. If he gets the party nom, he'll be tough to beat, especially with Hillary, again because of media myths--myths that won't go away just because we ignore them.

That's the only time he was tested with actual voters. He failed with them. I wouldn't put much stock in his appeal to (D)emocrats after our party got through with him. All of these scenarios sound plausible now, outside of an actual campaign, but there is no evidence outside of polls that McCain can draw enough Democrats in a general election (after having to campaign on the right to win a republican primary to get there) to defeat any of our potential candidates.

I certainly don't give McCain any credit for anything. He's a Bush enabler.

I wouldn't vote for him. But--and you're right this is too early to know--it's about where the center undecideds go. Unless enough people defect from the GOP, which I think is a real possibility by '08.

Not very likely anyways. Maybe with Warner or Clark. Feingold would be interesting. But still very tough.

But inspite of McCain's own skeletons, he's pretty damn popular even with many Dems (I think many are clueless about him - still believing he's some kind of "moderate"). He's "likable" in that the media swoons over him. He's their darling and has been for years. I wouldn't be very optimistic about our chances against him, which is why liberal groups need to start attacking him soon. Taking him out of the primaries is one of our only hopes.

campaign that defeated him in 2000. . .how can Republicans deny the validity of "facts" they generated themselves?

He hugged Bush and for that all my respect was LOST...

He was a POW...a good one, brave, courageous, solid, never broke.

A Senator when he came home...and has been for some 20 years....

But what makes him a leader, an astute one? I don't see it. We could do much better,

We need to start working NOW to marginalize all the so called Republican dream candidates including: Giuliani, McCain, Rice, Jeb Bush, etc. What the hell are we waiting for? We need to start playing by Repub rules!

He's not crazy enough to suit the Republican core...

Even if he's forced on the party, I don't think the right wing will turn out to support him.

:kick:

I don't expect that folks like Jerry Falwell, Larry Pratt, James Dobson and Wayne LaPierre would be out beating the drums for a McCain victory....in fact, since they and their followers function best in "victim" mode, they might be quite happy on some level to start losing again.

although I think they might be willing to play if we swing fully to the left.:kick:

But this is his take on McCain:

"MCCAIN IN REPUBLICAN STRAW POLL EMBARRASSMENT"


http://drudgereport.com/flash2mc.htm

on edit: Here's MyDD:

http://mydd.com/story/2006/3/11/14642/0847

:kick:

for ALL concerned...

If we make sure the voting machines aren't lying and get the vote out, we, the grassroots Dems, can defeat him!

Okay, we didn't do that great the last two times, but we've learned from those elections and are battle-ready. We can defeat him--his grassroots doesn't really like him, and moderates only like him because they don't know enough not to. I used to like him until he hugged Bush (that was seriously creepy after all Bush had done to him).

We can!!

when plenty of people were wary of bush's inexperience, and weary/distrustful of Gore's ties to the clinton administration. I don't think him getting the nomination is a worst-case scenario at all.

It's not just the already elected Democrats that need to grow a spine.

Democratic voters do, too. If the voters are determined enough, anyone can defeat McCain.

If the Democrats grow enough spine to nominate a smart, capable, experienced, principled candidate that hasn't bent over to placate the bush administration, the Democrats can beat McCain or anyone else the republicans put forward. Assuming clean, fair elections, of course.

That person can be a senator, congressperson, or governor. Or not. As long as he or she has the courage and fortitude to step forward with integrity, speak truth to corruption, steadfastly hold to a populist, progressive platform, and refuse to play ball with the corrupt powerbrokers on both sides of the fence, that person can beat the republican nominee. I hope it will be a person who can bring in 3rd party voters and non-voters, as well as traditional democratic voters.

Assuming that Democrats will nominate a candidate with those qualities, of course.

I think there are several very good possibilities out there.

Read Kurth's thread here re Mc's saying those who say * is lying are lying and much more of Mc's insane rant is discussed in NYT article by Nagourney today.

:(

I know of nobody who could run up against him; the dude is said to be rather popular.

And unless the people look into politicians' actions and voting records, they will only (and hopefully) be free to criticize come mid-2009...

My only two cents is that I will not vote for a person who supports offshoring and says nothing about how to make living wage jobs here at home for us to vie over so we can support our Christian families like Good Christians would! :think: This fluff on "get educated" is farcical and everybody knows it. The training out there are for fields, gadmazooks, being offshored! :dunce:

Maybe we should all become politicians. That looks like a stable field to get into... or lawyers.

right now then your dem bashing. That's my first point.

Secondly, Kerry could absolutely beat him if he stands up more firmly this time. Whoever runs for the dems has a great shot at beating fucking anybody the repugs put up, since by then we will have been full force with our agenda and plan and shown the american people why the country is far better off with democratic leadership. It is our core values and what we stand for that will finally permeate through the country by then after they are so fed up with bush, his cronies and his criminal gang. Who ever is nominated can win. We just have to unify as best as possible, and continue to take our message to the people.

But right now this is still a fucking waste of time to discuss, 3 years prior to the fact. There will be tons of time for yours and others dem bashing later on. Right now let's all try and focus on our ultimately most important issue right now, winning back control of congress, k??

were included.

Fuck that and fuck him, my Senator. That shit wouldnt even close to fly here, good luck.

gawd as bad as AZ was TX is the snake pit. It is heavily Bush country (sniff sniff).

How to get to Texas:

1) Fly into any airport east of the Mississippi.
2) Go west until you smell it.
3) Go south until you step in it.


Fellow Dems in Texas, BTW: I'm referring to the politics, not the state itself.

Peace
PsA

And he shoots from the hip often, also.

I mean, if GEORGE BUSH can defeat him.......

On edit: Russ Feingold or Al Gore would mop the floor with McCain's arse.

All that will be needed for the 2008 campaign, assuming there are honest elections (and that, I know, is a big IF) is a picture of George and him doing birthday cake before Katrina.

George W. is going to be as popular as Hitler in Germany was on about 1948. "I vas no Nazi!" will be replaced with "Hell, I daynt vote for Bush..." If, in 2008, you ask 100 people if they were among the alleged 90% that supported Bush at the height of is popularity you will not get 2 to answer "yes."

They will smear them all. Including Clark (who I volunteered for in 2004), Warner, Feingold, Edwards, Bayh, Joementum-on-the-Delaware, Mrs. Big Dog, anyone. I know they'd be able to smear McCain, they've done it before.

The best candidate will be the one who can eat McCain for lunch. McCain is vulnerable; little attention is paid by the press to how much he worships the ground Bush stands on, and how unrepentant he is of his extremist beliefs. He says he loves Boy George, let him defend Bush's record. If Hilary Clinton's the one who can do this, then she should get the nomination, damn the negatives (one exception being that she really needs to dump the Tipper Gore 1980's imitation if she ever thinks she can bring out the under-40 vote). If anyone can do it better, let them get the nomination. Kerry's attacking Bush too late, Warner not at all, Biden less than his own party, Feingold in a dog-whistle fashion, Richardson off the radar screen.

No more Mr. Nice Guy. That's how Bush and McCain win elections. McCain (hearts) Bush, and a third Bush term is the last thing all of America can afford. That, combined with a few Keating references, will do nicely.

who expect to use the chimps endorsement -- last year didn't two repukes lose their election after Bush paid them a visit before their elections?!!