I think Gov Warner is the one who could give Hillary a run for the money

[mtnsnake]

in 2008 other than maybe Al Gore, although Gore's been quoted as saying he'll never run for office again. Clark would still be one of my personal favorites, but I think it's going to take a fresh new Democratic face in 2008 to actually win the election.

Anyway, as far as Warner, I'm not saying this because I'm a huge fan of his or anything (yet), and I'm sure he's too centrist for many people here, but it's just that I see him as being someone who could win the election for us for a few different reasons.

1) Warner is a successful governor of a red state. People seem to love him in Virginia. That alone could change one red state into a blue one, and from there things could snowball. To win in 2008, our candidate is going to have to be someone who can not only win over some Republicans, but also win BACK some southern Democrats, and Mark Warner proved he could do both when he won the governorship.

2) When I watched him in depth for the first time a few weeks ago in some TV interview, I wondered about him at first. While I didn't agree with all of his views, I did agree with enough to be satisfied with him. Just as importantly, I said to myself, 'Hey there's a guy that I would feel comfortable sitting down and having a coffee or beer with. There's someone who comes off as being a sincere American....someone who doesn't act like the usual stuffy, garbled, double-speak, insincere politician that we're all so sick & tired of.' While he may or may not actually be like that, he comes off that way, and like it or not, that's what seems to count in American politics. The more the TV interview went on, the more he grew on me in a back door kind of way.

3) Also, he's relatively young, and he's very personable. 'Personable' is a quality that few of our 2004 primary candidates could brag about having in their resumes. The only charisma that our 2004 candidate had was in his choice of his running mate. Very important, though, in 2008 for us to come up with a personable candidate. Warner seemed on that TV interview to have all the right kind of mannerisms. Can Warner come off as being just as much "presidential" as he is "personable"? That I don't know, but maybe some Virginians here can fill us in on that.

Don't get me wrong. I don't mind Hillary(surprise surprise), but I see Warner as someone who's going to grow on the American public over the next couple years and someone who the American public will relate to, despite his being from such a wealthy background. He does have that win-you-over type aura about him and the right kind of mannerisms when he speaks. Joe Sixpack will also like him. So will Joe Nascar. It's sad we have to think about that, but we have to do whatever it takes....

One of the only negatives I see with him that he'd have to overcome is that he's a one-term governor only, so the other side would come after him on a lack of experience.

There are some things I'm not sure about when it comes to Mark Warner, but we've got to get a Dem elected, and I think there's a chance that this guy could be our ticket. Him being a Southerner certainly doesn't hurt our chances either.

[longship]

1. Who says Hillary is even competitive herself?

I say that Hillary doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the White House. That's one reason why I have no intentions of giving a Hillary 2008 campaign any comfort. I do not support her, I will not support her. If she somehow manages to obtain the nomination I will do my duty and vote for her. But I will do so very grudgingly.

[hollowdweller]

Would rather lose a Dem gov. to the presidency than a Dem Senator

I think reclaiming one of the houses of congress, preferably the Senate is as important as winning the presidency.

Almost any Senator that would be competitive for the presidential nomination could potentially be filled by a republican in the next election.

I, personally would rather see Hillary do like long Senate career before running to define herself. I think that's where Kerry went wrong. I have heard him speak more on important issues since he lost the election than I heard the whole time he was in the Senate before. I'd like to see Hillary take Byrd's place as the person with the knowledge of rules and such.

[abluelady]

10. And I would like to see Gov. Warner run for the Senate

Warner could definitely beat the Howdy Doody Geoge Allen. He is young enough to be able to do both jobs well. We definitely need the Senate.

[Perky]

20. Senators do not win the White House

There records are too loog and can easily be attacked.

[abluelady]

21. Well, he's too much of a centrist for me to be Pres

But I would be very satisfied to see him in the Senate. Hope that means George Allen hasn't a chance for Pres.

[mtnsnake]

4. The polls, and I'm talking about the primaries, not just the WH.

The polls have Hillary far out in front of Demoratic hopefules right now. It's been that way for some time.

[longship]

31. Polls? Who cares about polls three years before the election?

At this point the polls are totally meaningless. Hillary only polls well because she is *perceived* to be a candidate by the media and she has name recognition due to her being a former First Lady. They have absolutely *nothing* to do with reality.

It's a good two years before the 2008 campaign begins, and more than that before it begins in earnest. It just doesn't serve us well by being in permanent campaign mode. Yes, I understand, with the Repugs acting like such assholes, why this might be so at this point. But like most people I will not be selecting a 2008 candidate for three years. I can state right now that it will *not* be Hillary Clinton. IMHO, she'd make an extraordinarily bad president.

[mtnsnake]

38. Obviously you dont, but you asked me in post #1, didn't you?

It's not like I brought up the issue of polls in the OP. Just answering your question in your first post.

[longship]

61. Sorry. Rhetorical question.

My Q in my original post was rhetorical. I know it's difficult to detect that in written material. Sorry about that. I should have made that clear.

Cheers.

[napi21]

2. I'm leaning toward him too.

I don't want ANY Senators!!!! I'm not completely sur3e why, but they just don't win!

Ever since Mid November 2004 I've been hopng some relatively unknown Governor would appear. Yea, I know Richards of NM, but I'm afraid he will be painted as being too close the Bill Clinton.

I watched Warner when he was on that cspan hour long interview show a few weeks ago, and have tried to catch him on ano others he appears on. So far, I like what I've seen.

[hollowdweller]

5. Got any links to interviews with him or anything? I'd like to know more.

[napi21]

8. Here's a link to when he was on cspan Q&A.

http://www.q-and-a.org/Program/index.asp?ProgramID=1048


That page also has a link to "watch the video".

[hollowdweller]

46. Great interview! Thanks. Thoughtful guy.

[Moloch]

62. Bill Richardson is out...

He misled about his baseball past.. that would never fly. He's finished as far as presidential hopes go.

The GOP media would play it over and over again.. just like the misquote about Al Gore inventing the internet.

[stray cat]

3. There are alot of potentially good candidates

So far Warner is looking like one of them.

[ramapodem]

6. My dream ticket

Warner/ Richardson with either or as President or VP. Gives us a big opportunity in the south and southwest both obviously important for a national election.

[BjohnsonMN]

7. Feingold is the best candidate that has been mentioned

Warner is no doubt an intellegent man and a great campaigner, but I don't think he has what it takes to excite the base. It is the base that will beat Hillary. Warner and Hillary will probably split the votes among the more conservative Democrats, but they will have more difficulty with the base. Feingold on the other hand has been a very brave Senator who was the only one to vote against the Patriot Act, and was the first to set a timetable for getting out of Iraq. I think of the candidates who have been mentioned so far, but remember there could still be more candidates joining the race there is a long ways to go until the primaries.

[stray cat]

9. Feingold would definitely appeal to the base

Centrists in the midwest also like and trust him. He is a populist in the best sense of the word and he talks common sense and doesn't come across as an elitist. As the poorest senator they sure can accuse him of elitism.

[FreedomAngel82]

52. He's who I'm rooting for right now

Right now I'm rooting for Feingold since we know for sure he is going to run and it's not known yet with Kerry. If Kerry doesn't run my first choice is Feingold and second is Warner. I think a great ticket would be Feingold/Warner.

[Kahuna]

24. What are you talking about, "the base?" Didn't you learn anything

from2004. The "BASE" wanted Dean. Did Dean win? Did he even come close to winning? The base is a very diverse group. Most of them are not paying attention to the primaries until primary season is in full swing.

[Upfront]

11. Agree but have questions .

I saw the same interview you did and thought much the same as you. He has something and grabbed my attention. In fact, he reminded of an early John Kennedy. Sadly, I am old enough to remember. I have problems with his stance on the war but we had better give this guy serious consideration. I will even if he is DLC and I have read he is.

[skipos]

22. I find Warner to be very down to earth.

He can recognize when he is taking an unpopular position and seems comfortable with that. He speaks like a normal person, not a poilitician. I agree with most, not all of his track record in VA and views. That is the foundation for why I like him right now.

Further, he should very easily be able to add VA (13 electoral votes) to the 252 evs that Kerry won, leaving only 5 to go. Obviously, much could change between now and 08 that could change that.

One of his weaknesses is foreign experience, and we'll have to wait and see what he does to address that. I think any combination of Clark and Warner would be great.

I don't expect him to get rave reviews from a majority of DUers anytime soon, as I doubt Bill Clinton would have if DU existed in 1990. Kerry and Edwards came in distant 4th or 5th places in pre-Iowa DU 2004 polls.

[FreedomAngel82]

54. Isn't Feingold on the foreign relations committe?

I thought he was? He would be a good choice for VP. I like right now either Feingold/Warner or Warner/Feingold. Any one of them will make me happy. :) I don't know if Kerry will run again. Right now it's pretty easy to see who will and who won't in 2008. And I also think that Warner and/or Feingold can give Hillary a run for her money. Especially Warner.

[FreedomAngel82]

53. Yes

And with him on the war he could have a canidate like Feingold or someone else outspoken like that who runs or Clark or Richardson even. I think this time around there will be many great canidates. And Warner has a young family and appealing like how the Clinton's were. Kerry will always be a personal favorite and hero of mine but Warner has the whole "not an elitest" thing going on. *sigh* He does have intellignet conversations (I've seen a few of his interviews and speeches on the cspan site) but not like with Kerry. I like how he makes eye contact with people and has the whole charsima thing. I also like how he and Dean agree on making the party more competitive and working on that common goal. I saw an interview with him once and he agreed with Dean on that issue so I was happy about that!!

[jackbourassa]

12. How is Warner any better?

Warner may be worse in some cases. Although I do believe he may be more electable. But his record in VA is short. One term governor.

[mtnsnake]

13. I'm not really arguing that he's better. Perhaps way more electable

as you say.

I think it's going to have to come down to whether we can bite the bullet and get a Democrat elected even if he/she doesn't live up to many of our own ideals.

[jackbourassa]

50. Or maybe we nominate someone else

Remember that Dean didn't even register at this point.

[MADem]

34. Warner's Iraq position is EXACTLY the same as Senator Clinton's

The difference is that he has not had to cast votes on it, like she has, but his stated objectives are right in line with hers.

As for Feingold, two divorces, one quite recent, presently unmarried. Death in Middle America...yes, it should not matter, but YES, it does.

[FreedomAngel82]

55. What was Clinton?

I'm not sure. And I'm watching the q&a with him and he is impressive. He was the first person to go to college which is impressive. He isn't a rich frat boy or anything like that. The q&a at http://www.q-and-a.org/Program/index.asp?ProgramID=1048 is a great interview and you can really get to know him very well. :)

[jackbourassa]

71. Some people are easily seduced by Bill Clinton

He was the "Seinfeld" President. A President about nothing.

Personally, I wish he'd get off my TV and stop hogging the limelight.

There's something pathetic about someone who needs to be center of attention all the time.

[phylny]

73. Funny, I can't get enough of the guy.

He reminds me that you can actually be smart and be president, not like the current resident.

[jackbourassa]

74. For all of Clinton's smartness

He sure didn't get anything done, but get himself impeached.

So again, too many people are easily seduced by Clinton.

[ultraist]

14. No way. Too DLC and pro war.

MOST Democrats do not agree with his stance on the war.

Warner is pretty popular in his home state, but he is not a Southerner. He grew up in CT and will be considered a carpet bagger by voters in other Southern states.

The DLC is sponsoring/funding Warner to put him out there as a possible VP to Hillary. They have no intentions on him actually running for president.

[mtnsnake]

15. "The DLC is funding Warner...as a possible VP to Hillary". Got a link?

"The DLC is sponsoring/funding Warner to put him out there as a possible VP to Hillary. They have no intentions on him actually running for president."

Got any proof of that, or any links?

[ultraist]

16. No link. That's my personal opinion. n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

57. I thought he grew up in

Indinapolis? I'm watching his q&a and he said he was brought up in Indianpolis? :shrug: And yes he is DLC but so was Kerry and he was pretty progressive in a lot of areas. And you're more than likely right about Warner. Unless he has intentions on his own of course and decides he wants to run.

[Armstead]

17. We -- the US =-- can't afford more of the same

Leadership means acknowldging some difficult truths. We can;t afford to assume that if we just have a nicer person with a D after his/her name will make eberything all right, if they continue to ignore the fundemantal and destructive reconstruction and concentration of economic wealth and political power that has been going on for too long.

That was our problem in the 90's, and it's what paved the way for the mess we find ourselves in today. It's not all "george Bush's failt" nor the fault of the GOP.

Average people are recognizing that as they lose their jobs and feel increasingly powerless.

We have to have a candidate and a party that will acknowledge that, and offer clear alternatives.

If Warner were willing to do that, I'd say great. But if he wants to run on the tepid platform of "competance" I say we should be able to do bettr.

[Perky]

18. Four Points

Don't get me wrong I am from Virginia and I like Warner as well

1) Warner would likely move VA to Blue but I think his impact on other southern states would never be enough to worry the GOP.

2) Anybody who thinks we can nominate a dyed-in-the-wool liberal and let real ideological differences decides the election is delusional. We have not elected a liberal president in forty years and every time we nominate one we get our ass kicked. We do not win with liberals at the top of the ticket and I would rather win then die with principles

3)The "having a beer" line is actually a key indicator. With the exception of George I (an anomaly given his competition) every president begin with Reagan was the one people said they would rather sit down for a bear with or was "the neighbor they would borrow a ladder from" Its both a likability and trust issue as well as a familiarity issue". The American electorate tends toward the "common man". One of the nice things about the upcoming fray is that that the republicans do not have anyone who fits that bill..with the possible exception of McCain who is more likely not to run because of the toughness of the republican nominating process.

4)The issue is going to be gravitas. He would need a stellar person on the ticket. I can't imagine Hillary in the number two slot and Warner would need some one with strong international credentials. someone who makes Cheney look like a neandrathal....My choice would be Bill Richardson.

[skipos]

30. "We have not elected a liberal president in forty years and every time we

nominate one we get our ass kicked."

This data may explain why you can make that argument...

1996 CNN exit poll
What is your political ideology?
20% said liberal, of those 78% voted for Clinton, 11% Dole, 7% Perot
47% said moderate, of those 57% voted for Clinton, 33% Dole, 9% Perot
33% said conservative, of those 20% voted Clinton, 71% Dole, 8% Perot

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html

2004 CNN exit poll
What is your political ideology?
21% said liberal, of those 85% voted for Kerry, 13% Bush
45% said moderate, of those 54% voted for Kerry, 45% Bush
34% said conservative, of those 15% voted for Kerry, 84% Bush

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

[Perky]

40. Are you seriusly suggesting that Bill Clinton was a liberal?

Beside It has more to do do with electorial math than Popular vote.


But to what Ican only suspect was your reason for posting the exit poll results"

Clinton got 5% of the conservative vote and 3 % more of the Moderate vote. That is where the election was lost.

[skipos]

41. You have misunderstood me. I was agreeing with you.

Look at the percentage of people who claim to be "liberal" in those elections, it is far from a majority of Americans. In fact, it is a minority. I think THAT may be why extremely liberal candidates are not going to be elected anytime soon.

[Perky]

42. Oh good...I was otherwise stunned.

Yeah in fact if you run the numbers and assumme CNN was accurate

Kerry got a little more than .2 M ore liberal votes than kerry but that was completely offset by about the same number of moderates who defected with Kerry at the top of the ticket. Bush was the beneficiairy of all those votes and picked up more or conserviative votes than did Dole.

The election was lost in the middle because the Republican succesfully painted Kerry as too liberal to moderate voters

The fact that it was as close as it was is only due to Bush being such a poor candidate.

[Kahuna]

69. Duh. How many times do we have to point this out? Americans..

just don't identify with the "liberal" label. It's possible that most Americans are actually liberal in their personal ideology, (and I believe that they probably are) but they just don't identify themselves that way. You can't make people accept what they have refused to accept for decades. Thanks for posting the stats to back up your (and mine) argument.

[Clarkansas]

19. I think Clark would be the perfect balance to Warner

Like Bill Clinton and most other governors, Warner obviously has no foreign experience. Clark and Warner would be a great combination.

[Kahuna]

25. Clark and Warner would definately be a kick ass combination.

We can dream.

[FreedomAngel82]

58. You think people care about foreign policey experience?

And Clark doesn't have any experience in anything else with politics. He should run for something else and see if he could win an election by himself.

[wisteria]

23. I don't get where you say Kerry wasn't personable. Did you REALLY

even watch or listen to him? Your comment seems more appropriate for a repub posting.
As for Warner, I'm not at all interested in him. Not enough Foreign relations or tactical experience. I also don't like his let's move on and not investigate the pre-war intelligence stand either. He is also a true blue DLCer. I will also offer the opinion that going with a candidate that we think we can sell in the South will not work. It is too obvious and will be wildly rejected there.Maybe warner can win his state, but I will bet no others will go for him over a Republican. We should certainly campaign there, but don't expect to much from these Southern areas. We should be trying for the Mid-west instead.

[Kahuna]

27. I never heard him say to "not" investigate . He says that having a

strategy for success now is more important than how we got in. Now tell me where his priorities are wrong? While we debate who said what when, people are still DYING everyday. While I may not agree with his stated stance, I don't go around putting words in his mouth either.

[wisteria]

32. Look, he has no desire nor does he seem to care at all that

we were "mislead" into this war. I think it is important that the pre-war intelligence and a review of what lead us into this pre-emptive war be explored. IMO, what this administration may well get a way with, since people like Warner don't seem to think it is important enough, should never happen again. Just look at the mess we are in now. I agree that we need to find our way out of it, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't also be focused on what got us into this mess there to begin with. We should be able to tackle both of these issues at the same time- I think the term is called multitasking.

[Kahuna]

67. Well, I understand his position. As one who was not involved in..

the decision to get into the war, why should he get involved now? It's menutia that he needs to avoid to get his message out. Especially since he does not know how this will play out in the next three years. Strategically, there is just no advantage for him to posture about the issue. Better to leave that posturing to those who actually VOTED to go in.

[skipos]

28. Well, I really watched, listened and campaigned for him and

I think his demeanor was stiff. Do I personally care, heck no! He could eat his own snot and I would still would have voted for him. But the problem is, there are millions of voters who vote for very simplistic reasons outside of the issues. Likeability, and what not. I hope we have a candidate that can appeal to those casual voters as well. I think Warner has that appeal, but there are also others who have it too, like Clark. I am hoping for a good candidate that has a message, platform, speaking style and demeanor that can connect not just with dems (37% of voters) but enough independents (26% of voters) to win.

[wisteria]

33. It's all in how it is framed and if the media goes along.

You imply that Kerry lost because you considered him stiff and casual voters want a casual president- one that is layed back. Well, actually Kerry didn't lose for that reason. Kerry lost because of 9-11 and the Iraq war. I don't know of anyone who voted against him simply based on his personality. It was security and war reasoning and morals that were the factors.

[skipos]

39. I agree that Kerry didn't lose because of

his slightly wooden demeanor, but I don't think helped. If I had to pick one thing, I'd say SBVT, and Kerry's slow response probably did the most damage. Others, as you mentioned were 9-11, Iraq and the republicans ability to use fear to their advantage.

If you don't know anyone who votes because of personality, it is probably because you have smart friends. I know a few (and I believe there are millions more) underinformed, unthoughtful people out there who voted for Bush because they just liked him more. Unfortunately, those kinds of people can have a serious effect on elections.

A good teacher presents material in a way that will engage the top students, but be clear enough for slower students to grasp too. In my opinion, we need a dem candidate who can do the same.

:)

[FreedomAngel82]

59. The media did the same thing

to Al Gore and neither Gore nor Kerry are stiff. That's BS. Right now in the q&a the person said that Warner had an 80% approval raiting and right now on the Mason Dixie line he has a 70% approval raiting which is the highest of any governor they've ever rated. And he raised taxes and survived. He does have a lot of qualities that could help with the party I think. Especially with who his VP is and if he has a progressive along with him that will be great! And also apparently Warner is like how Lincoln I believe it was did. He put republicans in his administration too and worked well with people. We should want to do that. Work again with people who have common goals and change the attitude of politics in DC which now is so mean and uncaring and unappealing. I think Warner could help change that.

[skipos]

63. I agree with your Warner / Lincoln comparison

Warner was able to get a lot done in a red state by working with people on both sides of the isle, and appointing the best person for the job regardless of wether they were are rep or dem. Exactly the opposite of what our current president does.

[hollowdweller]

47. You are dead right on your appeal to "casual" voters analysis!

[skipos]

64. Thanks! I have had many arguments with people about that. nt

[blm]

26. Kerrty was SO PERSONABLE, I wanted to have sex with him.....OFTEN.

.

[LittleClarkie]

72. Back of skag! He's MINE!!

Actually, I think we're gonna have to armwrestle the missus for him. But I think we could take her.

[nemo137]

29. Holy Crap, you'd vote for a candidate you don't agree with 100%

what the damn hell kind of Democrat are you? It's all or nothing, pal. One hair out of line, and boom! Angry denunciations, bitter recriminations and dire promises to never, ever support anyone again!

[MADem]

35. Don't forget the other dramatic argument

I'll vote for the third party space cadet candidate who advocates free cheese and crackers for everyone first!!!

Ideological purity can sometimes be idiotic purity. Cut off that nose, and spite that face! And continue to suffer under the GOP boot....

[mtnsnake]

37. Please explain where I implied that. I guess when you have no suggestions

of your own, you have to replace any positive input with feeble sarcasm, eh.

Do you always stretch someone's point to the limits in order to twist and turn it into a joke?

[MADem]

43. Uh, I was not addressing you, FWIW

But DO go ahead and be as offended or as sensitive as you would like, if it brings you a sense of joy or self-righteousness.

[mtnsnake]

44. Sorry about that. You sure did get even with me in the rest of your post,

though, didn't ya, lol.

BTW, if it wasn't me, then who and what were you addressing? Just curious, in a self-righteous kinda way. ;)

[MADem]

45. I was speaking in general terms, not referring to anyone at all

I am a pragmatist. I will vote for my personal choice in the primaries, and for the general election, whatever Dem--left, right, center, or halfway to the moon--who gets the nomination. I don't care if it's Anna Nicole Smith or Bozo the Clown--if the name says (D) after it, that's who I am voting for. I won't take my ball and go home, or vote for a guaranteed loser out of some vague principle--the next generation needs some sanity before the country is ruined, and even imperfect sanity is better than these GOP loony tunes.

I just want to win, and I find a lot of the excessively purist ideology a bit tiresome at times. You can't fix anything at all if you don't have your handyman, however flawed, on the job with a toolbox.

[mtnsnake]

48. Thanks. When it comes to actually voting, we share the same sentiment

The primaries are one thing, and it's dog eat dog, but when it comes to the presidential election itself, I'm supporting whatever candidate is in the D column, too. I can never understand how so many people around here claim they'd never support a particular Democratic candidate (usually it's Hillary), should that person get the nod. I think that's really sad.

Again, my apologies for misunderstanding you, MADem. I really thought the "other dramatic argument" you mentioned was a reference to something in the OP. My bad. I deserved the whuppin you gave me!

Peace

[MADem]

49. Gosh, didn't mean to whup!!!

A gentle course correction is what I was going for! I guess I have to turn my 'bull in a china shop' meter down!

Cheers!

[FreedomAngel82]

60. Not this democrat

I check out all the canidates and in the primaries if involved choose who I will support. Than depending on who wins decide to vote for them or not. Just because a person has a (d) next to their name doesn't mean anything. Look at the republican party today! I do NOT want that in my party. Yes, I do want all types of democrats but not to where we stop being the democratic party all together.

[mtnsnake]

66. So if it comes down to a Republican candidate and a Democratic candidate

who's not your favorite personal Democrat, you're not going to vote for that Democrat even if it's a close election?

"Just because a person has a (d) next to their name doesn't mean anything."

If that's the case, then you might as well pull the lever for Repuke, because in effect it's the same thing.

We can't afford to Naderize any more elections. The primaries are one thing, but when it comes to the election itself, the person with the D next to his or her name is going to get my support because that candidate has the best possibility of beating out the Reublican. We need to win, not be stubborn and picky.

[mtnsnake]

36. LOL!

good one

[FreedomAngel82]

51. I think Warner is okay

I'm growing to like him. Go to cspan.org and type in his name in the video search engine. There's some stuff with him there. I have read he is pro-choice and for LGBT rights which is also a plus in my book. I think he would be a good nominee or a VP to Russ Feingold.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

56. Electability. Very frightening.

[moondust]

65. One thing he doesn't have.

A vote on the IWR to defend--either way--which is probably worth 10 poll points all by itself.

Well, maybe 5.

[leesa]

68. Oh right. They could both debate how we could best ignore the illegality

of the Iraq war. Sheesh!

[in_cog_ni_to]

70. Well, they ARE both DLCers...."Sensible Center" RW of the Democratic Party

I suppose he WOULD give her a run for the money. I prefer a Democrat who represents the DEMOCRATIC ideology...not the (D)epublican ideology. Hopefully neither one will be the nominee. JMCPO