CNN: Poll finds enthusiasm for Kerry-Edwards ticket

[Worst Username Ever]

(CNN) -- Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina gets the most enthusiastic response from Americans asked in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll about possible running mates for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry.



http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/29/poll.veep/index.html

[skooooo]

1. please please please...

...either Edwards or Clark.

[girl gone mad]

2. Has Clark said he..

didn't want the job?

He seems to have disappeared off of the VP radar, but I've been hoping that's a good sign.

[Qutzupalotl]

3. He says it's something he's not interested in.

That he wants to get back into business, etc.

But he was picked. I don't have any proof, I just feel it.

[Mike L]

4. Yes, Clark STILL says he doesn't want VP.

He would be wasted as VP. Make him NSA or SecState.

[spooky3]

5. did you read the linked article? Clark was included.

He got a lot of favorable responses, as did other candidates.

[spooky3]

6. Thanks, these are great results for Edwards.

[4_Legs_Good]

7. I love the 62% favorable among Republicans for K/E

That's gotta be good.

I hope Edwards can continue to get out there and be energetic (assuming he's the pick). Everyone I know who isn't totally into politics but would never vote for Bush is very un-enamored with Kerry. He needs some spark. I think Edwards could help.

david

[patricia92243]

8. He's from my state - brag, brag :)

[4_Legs_Good]

9. Fantastic! Now as VP can he help carry your home state???

[spooky3]

38. Well, Gore lost it pretty badly--this link may be of interest.

There was a 13 percentage point gap between Bush and Gore in 2000, so Kerry and Superman would have a huge uphill climb in 2004. However, this website suggests that the gap is narrowing and that Edwards could help:

http://home.comcast.net/~gerrydal/nc/nc.htm

[surfermaw]

44. Gore lost over Gun Control...and didn't fight for the state

[spooky3]

65. Did you see this paragraph in the linked site?

"Since Lyndon Johnson's win here, only once have the Democrats taken Tar Heel electors. That's a bit deceptive, however, as many times it was extremely close. Carter lost to Reagan here by only two points in that nationwide blowout. Clinton lost two elections by a combined total of 5%. Yet the Clinton losses are also deceptive, in that the margins would have been considerably larger without Perot and his charts. Simply stated, like much of the south North Carolina votes Republican for President, although a southerner atop the ticket can make things interesting; not always though, as Al Gore demonstrated."

I don't disagree that we should fight for it; just the opposite--that Edwards gives us our best chance to win NC. What I disagree with is the implication in another post that if Edwards can't be expected to guarantee delivery of North Carolina, that that shows he is a weak candidate--which is crazy given NC's history of voting for Republicans.

[Kahuna]

10. If Edwards is the VP pick to get the job done...

Viva la ambulance chaser!!!! :evilgrin:

Just kidding folks!

[AP]

11. "JRE gets 72% approval, Gephardt is second highest w/ 65...

... and Clark and Vilsack are in the 50's.

"Also, as importantly, JRE has the LEAST NEGATIVES of any contender w/ only 14% of Democrats disapproving and 26% of Republicans disapproving."

(cut and paste from the Edwards blog referring to same story).

[Skwmom]

12. Those negatives will escalate once

the gloves come off the corporate media. The cheer-leading they have done on his behalf is reflected in the polls. I spoke to someone today who supported Edwards but basically knew nothing about him (he was just jumping on the media created bandwagon - surprise, surprise).

[AP]

14. Can we just stipulate that this is your automatic response to every

positive Edwards post?

Do you really need to post this every time?

By the way, the Republicans did a pretty good job of making Clark look bad during the primaries. Edwards is starting from a much higher position than Clark.

I don't see them taking Edwards down at all, frankly. They attacked him the best they could in '98 and he went UP over 10 pts in less than two weeks. Edwards is a BETTER candidate today than he was in '98. They'd have to take 20pts out of him to take him down to Clark range, which I don't see happening. And if Edwards goes down from Republican attacks, Clark is going down farther, and he's arleady starting lower.

As for you aquaintance liking Edwards without knowing much about him: that's a good thing in politcs. That's called an asset.

But I'm sure you did your best to disuade that person to like Edwards, just like a good Democrat, which will be very useful for all Dems if Edwards is on the ticket or ends up being on the top of it someday.

[Skwmom]

33. I find it mind boggling that that anyone would find

these polls anything but meaningless. The corporate media hyped Dean in the primary and his poll numbers escalated (and we all know how that ended). Furthermore, turn on local right wing radio (because that's about the only kind that is available anymore). They've been engaged in a cheer-leading love fest for Edwards since it became Kerry v Edwards in the primary. If you think that these same people are going to be cheering for Edwards if Kerry was to tap him for VP, I have some ocean front property I'll sell you in Kansas. Articles are written by well known right wing smucks and Edward's supporters use these as proof that Edwards is loved by the Republicans - give me a break!!

"Holland noted that the poll attempted to compensate for the higher visibility of some of the men by reading respondents a description of each man's experience and background." I just love to read those descriptions. Polls are like appraisals (and many auditing opinions) - they aren't worth the paper they are written on.

As long as the corporate media continues with this manipulative b.s. I will continue to speak out.

The only reason my acquaintance likes Edwards is because he's bought into the media hype. Furthermore, I am not a Democrat. I am independent (and am teaching my son to be the same). It seems once someone attaches a D or R to their name the blinders go on. (The Edwards supporters can accuse me of being a "freeper" until the cows come home. If I was a freeper, it's a safe bet that I would be pushing for Edwards as VP.)

In comparing Edwards v Clark. I've found the more people now about Edwards the less they like him (the exact opposite is true of Clark). The Republicans can annihilate Edwards (which is why they are pulling out all the stops to get him on the ticket). On the other hand, they've done everything they can to keep Clark off the ticket by repeating the bogus media created memes of the primary. Hmmm, wonder who they think they can do a better job of hammering. Hint - it's not Clark.

[spooky3]

41. I find it mind boggling that you think the media is pushing Edwards

when I see threads like the following, with Clark supporters correctly pointing out how Clark has made dozens of media appearances recently.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=559888&mesg_id=560114&page=

[AP]

57. CNN might as well be Clark News Network these days.

And the only media whore I've seen argue for a candidate recently was Brooks arguing for Gephardt over Edwards.

[surfermaw]

45. Edwards got little help from the media,

And isn't getting much today..If Edwards had gotten the coverage Dean got early, he would have won the nomination...

[Scoopie]

42. Sure, if we can stipulate

your knee-jerk responses, as well.

The most telling piece in this article was this:
But retired general Wesley Clark's appeal was spread more evenly across party lines. There was less difference in Clark's level of support between Republicans and Democrats than for Edwards or Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt.

If you want swing voters and independents, this is how you get them, folks - you put someone on the ticket that spreads more evenly across party lines!

[AP]

56. So take the guy the guy with less appeal just because it's "even"?

I guess every cloud has a silver lining.

[Cuban_Liberal]

15. They'll savage Clark just as badly, if not worse.

I can see the commercial already: "This is what he said then (cut to AR Republican fundraiser speech), but this is what he says now...".

Kerry's not that dumb.

[AP]

16. They already proved they could do it.

At lease with Edwards and in the context of the national campaign it's an open question.

However, at least Edwards has a history of showing that when you attack him he gets stronger. He went UP in the polls when people started talking about his law career in '98.

And that's why I think they ignored him up until a week after IA (and his 4th place finish in NH). To criticize him -- to discuss him -- is to make him stronger. As every survey and study shows, the more you know about him, the more you like him. They didn't start talking about him until they knew it wouldn't make a difference.

[Cuban_Liberal]

17. Exactly.

:thumbsup:

[Skwmom]

34. If that was the case, the corporate media,

pro-Bush guests on the so called news shows, and right wing radio hosts would be cheerleading for Clark (not Edwards).

[MontecitoDem]

48. I agree they will try to savage whomever Kerry chooses

Both Clark and Edwards will be up for GOP target practice. I think both of them can withstand the fire. They are both smart and well-spoken and will well represent our party.

[Cuban_Liberal]

13. He's the clear favorite here in Illinois.

Edwards' appeal extends far beyond the South, and people throughout 'The Rust Belt' like him a LOT; with the Midwest containing a significant number of 'battleground' states, Kerry would be wise to choose Edwards. It's all about who gets the most EVs in November, and Edwards clearly helps the ticket in that regard far better than anyone else.

It'll be Edwards--- take it to the bank.

[AP]

18. "Gep and Clark's 36% dissatisfied rating among Republicans was highest"

Edwards scored lowest in the "dissatisfied" categories -- 14 percent of Democrats said they'd be dissatisfied if Kerry chose him, along with 26 percent of Republicans.

Gephardt and Clark's 36 percent dissatisfied rating among Republicans was highest, and Vilsack followed at 34 percent each among Democrats and Republicans.

Seven percent of Republicans said a Kerry-Clark ticket would make them angry, and 5 percent said a Kerry-Gephardt ticket would do the same for them.

I thought the argument was that Clark was liked more by R's and moderats than Edwards?

[Cuban_Liberal]

19. That's clearly not the case, isn't it?

The truth is in the numbers.:D

[Skwmom]

35. Do you seriously think there is any truth in these numbers? e/o/m

[Cuban_Liberal]

37. Yes, I do.

Let me get my copy of "It's all an evil, RW, corporate whore media plot against Clark" printout so I can follow along with the ineviatble response which will predictably follow, as surely as mushrooms follow a spring rain...

:eyes:

[MontecitoDem]

49. Skwmom, yes I seriously think there is some truth in these numbers

why should we only believe the numbers that support our primary candidate and not the numbers that support someone else? Also, this is kind of a celebratory thread, isn't it? I hate when our Clark threads get ripped up, don't you?

:)

[Darkamber]

51. I appreciate your response..

I for one would never attack on your threads though I might make a comment now and then. If other Clark supporters did what you are doing now it might help alot. Especially in a few weeks when we find out who the VP is.

And there is a good chance that it will not be Edwards or Clark. Then it will be time to heal the wounds and get behind the Ticket...whatever it may be.

[Skwmom]

52. Well I don't think there is any truth in these numbers.

Do you remember when Dean's numbers were so high (courtesy of the same corporate media that is hyping Edwards). I think it is important to point out the game that is being played and not to sit there and remain silent while people cheer the manipulation of the VP process.

The Democrats really need to learn how to be more vocal and call a spade a spade. If they did, we might never have had to suffer through the last four years of George Bush.

[MontecitoDem]

55. I understand your point

You're right that the polls certainly weren't reflected on election day, that's for sure!

[Darkamber]

60. why is everything a conspiracy for you?

As I have said time and time again the Media is not part of some RW plot. Have you ever listened to a moderate or liberal talk show? If you did you would hear caller after calling talking about the Liberal media and their hidden agenda to get Bush. These RW folks sound exactly like you and talk about the same conspiracy but from the other side. It is sad argument that doesn't stand up to any test and is used mainly when there is no other defense available.

The media is the media and they are interested in what sells a story and will get you watch them. They have had Clark on quite abit...maybe he is part of a RW media plot as well. But really, it is because Clark really knows his stuff and with the transfer of power all eyes are on Iraq. It's not a media conspiracy.

And for some reason, I would hope that Democratic party chairs actually research the candidate and when they come out overwhelming in favor of Edwards. If we follow your logic we might as well give up now because no one has a brain or their own, not even the leaders of our local Democratic parties.

[AP]

61. And why would they conspire to get a guy on the ticket who makes

Bush look like a fool and who does the best in a head to head with Bush?

It makes no sense.

My theory is that the media thinks is that Edwards won't be the choice because he doesn't have the corporate and political ties. What they're doing is building an expectation for him on the ticket that will reflect poorly on Kerry if Kerry doesn't pick him. But they're not arguing for him, or telling people anything useful about him, or doing profiles on him, or telling anyone what he's all about.

They're just saying he leads the polls and that Democrats want him on the ticket. If he ends up on the ticket, that kind of reporting doesn't really help them, and they'll probably just tell lies about him being to conservative if he ends up on the ticket to make far lefties upset about the ticket (becauset they know they have nowhere to go trying tell moderates and republicans that he's bad news).

[Skwmom]

68. The old "conspiracy" card.

That sounds like a Republican argument if I've every heard one. They've made conspiracy a bad word. Well look around, conspiracies happen all the time (that's why it's a crime - conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to commit fraud, etc). Heard of Enron? That was one massive conspiracy and fraud.

Control of the media is part of the Republican game plan. Why do you think they put Powell's son in charge of the FCC to push for further consolidation? Why do you think since 2000 the Caryle Group has been busy buying up local news channels in swing states? Why do you think they control in excess of 90% of the radio network? For the fun of it?

The media is owned by corporations that have a vested interest in seeing Bush get another four years. It enables them to treat the U.S. Treasury as their own personal piggy bank.

During the primary, for the most part the media either trashed Clark or ignored him. I believe David Brock has even written something about the attacks on Clark. Did you watch the news after the 2000 election debacle? A Republican right wing talking point would be totally debunked and five minutes later on CNN they've have another republican hack on repeating the same lie and the CNN host would let them repeat it without question.

As someone explained on another thread, Clark is on because the Kerry campaign books him for the shows (which is part of the whole news coverage arrangement with campaigns).

Corporations have gained control of the media by:
1. Media consolidation and relaxation of the FCC rules.
2. Hiring people who are willing to play the game for $$$$. Furthermore, the mind really does have the infinite capacity to rationalize (especially when it's your paycheck and your ability to make a livelihood that is on the line). I've seen a lot of really good people rationalize "wrongdoing." During the 2000 election, the head of NBC called one of the reporters in and reamed her for not being hard enough on Gore (for trying to provide fair news coverage). What kind of message do you think that sent to her coworkers?

3. Hiring people that are not qualified for the job (i.e., dumbing down of the media).

4. Hiring people that have a rabid ideological bent.

I worked in a profession that dealt with FACTS. I'm hardly the type of person to engage in wild conspiracy theories. I've heard that there are several good books on the media. You really should read one.

On edit: Since taking office in 2000, the Bush administration has played also hardball with journalists (you either give me favorable coverage or you don't get access).

[Darkamber]

70. You still have not answered the question...

I asked if you have ever listened to moderate or liberal radio? You came back saying that I gave a republican agreement.

The hard core right are the ones who scream of Liberal Media and I laugh at them. It was the Liberal Media's desire to destroy Bush that's why the Prison's pictures were shown. It's the Liberal media who are anti-war and that is why we don't hear all the good that is being done in Iraq and all we hear about is how many died and how many buildings are blow up.

And no I didn't really watch the news after the 2000 debate. I wasn't involved in politics then. I voted for Gore and lived my life and ignored the rest. It was Edwards who got me involved.

I do remember Clark making one statement and then correcting himself the next day with a different statement or clarifying what he said. The media mentioned this. If Edwards, or Kerry or Dean or anyone else did the same thing the media would have been all over them as well.

My life and my views are not dictated by whatever the news media has to say. I read and I make decisions myself that are common sense.

You want to argue against Edwards then give a common sense response instead of this theory that the media wants him for VP so Kerry can loose. I agree with someone else who posted that the Media isn't that smart for that. And considering how Edwards wants to go against the Corp, why in the world would they support him? He should be #1 on their hit lists considering the millions he has cost the corp world. Especially if any polls showed him helping Kerry and all the polls I have seen have showed that Kerry's figures go up with Edwards on the ticket.

[saracat]

63. I find it hard to believe these numbers though I really

like Edwards and Clark. What I can't belive is Gephardts approval rating. I go to tons of Dem events.I haven't met one Dem who supports Gep for Veep. Most think he is as dull as dishwater and would seriously hurt the ticket.Where do these people get these numbers?

[AP]

64. Gep has gotten a lot of press in the last few weeks.

There must be a correlation. Those numbers were almost surely much lower 1, 2, 4 months ago, and almost certainly wouldn't be where they are today if people weren't talking about him as a serious contender.

[Darkamber]

24. they didn't mention Edwards getting an Angry response

I wonder if this means that Edwards did not get any Republicans who responded to a Kerry/Edwards ticket as making them angry.

This does confirm what I have seen all along from the Republicans that I know. They like Edwards the best.

To be fair though to Clark, I'd add that Edwards gets positive response from some of the conservative media like O'Reilly for example and they would tend to agree with his point of view. This might have influenced their vote.

However there might also be some influence on the positive for Edwards because of Edwards war stand compared to Clark. Edwards might piss off some Democrats, but his stand will gain him respect among Republicans.

And in the end, are we not trying to reach beyond the base? Edwards could perhaps do that for Kerry.

[Skwmom]

36. Do you seriously believe this?

"I'd add that Edwards gets positive response from some of the conservative media like O'Reilly for example and they would tend to agree with his point of view."

[Cats Against Frist]

20. Yay!

I'm so down with Edwards. Clark is pretty good too -- but he's an easier target. Edwards really has nothing to drag him down but the "trial lawyer" thing, which is a bunch of hooey. In addition, my NASCAR relatives showed a LOT of interest in Edwards, but I think they've slinked back to the Bush ticket, since the end of the primary season. I think Edwards could pull them back.

If he picks Gephardt, I'm going to cut out my own liver. No offense, Dick, but Kerry needs to pick someone with a little more sparkle.

[Mike L]

21. Same thing here. Redneck Repukes like Edwards. He's just got something

about him. I think it's the "son of a mill worker" thang, y'all.

[Cats Against Frist]

26. They do, they love him

They're a weird bunch -- (I'm talking about my extended family) -- most all of them are from Southern Illinois and have never been off the back 40 (except on like a Celebrity cruise or something) -- and they're an interesting study. My grandad was a FIERCE Democrat, meaning exactly Dixiecrat or Butternut Democrat -- whatever you want to call Strom Thurmond -- and the kids (my aunts and uncles) grew up and voted Democrat, until (guess when?) 1994 when Rush and Newt started pounding Clinton like a Repuke on a sheep, and they were "caught up" in the GOP delusional "Core Amaricun Values" narrative, and fully most of them switched to Republicans to get away from the commies -- (my question: how, exactly did it get WORSE these commie accusations AFTER the end of the cold war????)

But Johnny Edwards (and Bush's total idiocy, blundering and dishonesty) made them interested, and many of them registered to vote in the Dem primary -- and they all wanted Edwards, oddly enough.

But since JE dropped out, they've been courted by Karl Rove, once again.

It's really weird. I've tried to talk to them from time to time and they really don't know too much. They are RIPE RIPE RIPE for media maniupulation. That's seriously how I think MOST of the electorate decides their votes.

[Cuban_Liberal]

27. Southern Illinois? Mt. Vernon/Carbondale/Marion area?

We're up near Champaign and Charleston. :hi:

[Cats Against Frist]

31. Well, I'm in Iowa

But they're all in Southern Ill. -- Pocahontas/Greenville/Cofeen/Hillsboro to be exact.

Home of that "Redneck Woman," Gretchen Wilson...

[Cuban_Liberal]

22. Welcome to DU, Cats Against Frist! GREAT username!

Hehehe! :D

[Cats Against Frist]

23. Thanks!

[Cuban_Liberal]

25. YW

Very clever! :)

[Darkamber]

28. It's not just renecks...McCain Repubs like Edwards too...

My family in Arizona liked Edwards and might have voted for him over Bush. They are not thrilled with Kerry sadly and they really don't like Clark. They claim that Kerry has too big of an ego to pick Edwards for his VP.

I would love to prove them wrong. Not only would I be able to re-write Kerry in their eyes I might even be able to get them to vote for a Kerry/Edwards ticket. They are not thrilled with Bush right now.

[Skwmom]

53. I thought the Edward's supporters didn't attack Kerry.

"They claim that Kerry has too big of an ego to pick Edwards for his VP."

I'm sure the media could argue that Kerry's ego would lead him to put a lightweight like Edwards on the ticket. Maybe Kerry understands that the Democrats need to put forth a "substantive ticket" to win the election and to get this country back on the right track.

In my Clark meet-up group there were LOTS of McCain supporters that supported Clark.

[AP]

59. Reading is fundamental. The poster is quoting his Kerry non-supporting...

...family members.

Always looking for an opening to say something nasty, aren't you?

However, if you want to make your barbs stick, they need to be grounded in the facts and with logic.

[Darkamber]

62. I was speaking of my lifelong GOP parents...

I'm the black sheep of my family and bring up politics sometimes can be a war. They tend to avoid it with me and bring it with my husband instead. Easy to fight him then their little girl. However, Edwards was different...he's the first Democrat that they ever actually liked.

And I'm 100% behind Kerry no matter who he picks. This has never been a change. Why do you always desire a war? What do you gain by cutting Edwards down every chance you get?

With Edwards on the road doing one fundraiser after another at the request of Kerry's campaign and his One America committee formed to help get Kerry Elected and to help other Democrats, attacking Edwards is like attacking Kerry.

By all means post all the positive post about Clark that you want, but by attacking Edwards you attack a Democrat who is working hard for Kerry and I don't see anything positive about it unless you want to help the GOP.

[Skwmom]

69. Help the GOP?

No I want to help the Democrats by countering the blatant attempt by the GOP to manipulate the VP process. Unfortunately, if the Democrats walk off the cliff in this election, they take the rest of the country with them.

I've always found when the personal attacks start, you know you are on the right track. Personal attacks simply do not work with me.

Furthermore, it seems like a lot of Edward's "supporters" on this board also post at Edward's blog (where they trash the Democratic nominee and his family on a daily basis). It's amazing that in all their attacks, I've never seen ONE FACT argued. Unlike pointing out the fact that Edwards preaches a populist message but has done ZERO pro bono work, missed votes important to the working class, promoted pro-corporate legislation to the detriment of the working class, etc.

[spooky3]

30. Welcome to DU, Cats Against Frist!

[Cats Against Frist]

32. Thank you!

[jerryster]

29. I like it

Just read the linked article. I like Edwards or Gephardt. Edwards because I believe there would be the same kind of synergy that Clinton and Gore had in 1992. That caught Bush Sr. off guard and helped us win. I doubt that Bush Jr will be caught off guard. Like it or not, the fact is that he is much more astute politically than the Old Man. After all, Jr studied Bill Clinton when he wanted to learn how to win an election.

I also like Gephardt, but more for geographical reasons. Missouri is going to be close again and Gephardt helps there. I have to acknowledge that Edwards would help in SC as well. I also believe that Gephardt will do better matched against Cheney than Edwards. That's not a slap at Edwards. It's just that Gephardt has been at this a long time. However, I would be satisfied with either as VP.

Finally, Clark for Sec of State works for me. Not VP.

[Moderator]

39. Kick.

[chimpymustgo]

40. Edwards wins EVERY REAL poll. This is pretty amazing.

Lotta people like this guy.

[Scoopie]

43. Where are they?

I'm never polled.
No one I know is ever polled.
And no one I know particularly likes Edwards.

So... is this a real poll?

If so, how come I'm never called. I've voted in every single election that's been held since I turned 18 and I'm never polled.
My phone number's listed.
I get called for polls on radio stations, music, television shows and the like, but no polls for politics - something I participate in much more than the other three.
Therefore, I can't state that this is a "scientific" poll. I don't trust polls because, well, they don't really matter, do they?

[Protected]

46. Now, now... Let them have their fun...

I thought the poll was pretty positive in a number of ways. At least the media seems to have finally stopped pumping up Kerry/McCain.

I find it hilarious that Clark and Gephardt are the only two included in this poll that were listed as making some Republican respondents "angry." I guess that means Edwards, Bayh, and Vilsack make no Republicans angry.

[Darkamber]

50. You are an independent...

These polls are for Republicans and Democrats. You have made it very clear that you don't vote party lines for anything.

The polling places most likely take the numbers of registered Republicans and Registered Democrats. If you find a poll in your state where they polled independents then you can complain.

But until then...that's just the break when you are independent.

[spooky3]

66. As I explained to you earlier, any one person's odds of being picked

in a poll are very small. If all polls surveyed 1000 registered voters, and there are 150 MILLION registered voters, what are the odds of your being contacted for any given poll (hint: divide 150 million by 1000, and get 1 in 150000 chances)? And how much do your odds go up if there are 100 polls (they still aren't good, as in 1 in 1500 that you will EVER be called)? And how much do they go down if you are not at home sitting by your phone a lot (you'll have to estimate this on your own)?

Polls aren't perfect but those that attempt to get a random sample and have 1000 roughly randomly selected respondents are better at predicting than others.

Have you ever heard of "flat earth syndrome"? When one looks out the back door and says "the earth looks flat to me; therefore, the earth must be flat."

[Skwmom]

54. Just like Dean won in EVERY REAL poll.

This is like deja vu all over again. Have you every heard the old saying, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

I use to wonder how Hitler was able to manipulate the masses. I no longer wonder.

[AP]

58. The most real poll is the election, and Dean didn't win that one...

...and he wasn't in the top three in the polls the week or two leading up to Iowa (which is when his campaign started complaining that the media on him was so bad -- yet his name was the only candidates' name mentioned on ATC the day before the primary, and they gave him great coverage in the lead-up).

When it came down to making a decision on election day, voters didn't like Dean, notwithstanding all the good press, and they started liking Kerry and Edwards a lot despite all the bad press Kerry got and despite the absense of press for Edwards.

[JohnKleeb]

67. no actually Dean was behind I think of the day of the Iowa primary

We dont elect the VP, the presidential nominee chooses the VP. I dont care who it is really.

[Gloria]

47. I haven't seen any discussion of what Clinton said about the VP on Larry

King last week.

He said that John Kerry will know by how he feels. That he's doing the right thing for the country, picking the best person in case he is dies, is shot, or is in a plane crash. Yes, Clinton enumerated all those possiblities.

He said that you'll be able to tell how Kerry feels....he'll feel proud and you'll see it in the way he looks and acts. Clinton went on to say that if the VP choice makes Kerry feel this way, that TRUMPS everything else, including "winning a state" and all the usual markers.