Something I've noticed about all the Dem Pres. primary candidate musings,

[NoodleBoy]

Is that, probably 80% of the time, when someone says, "Kerry doesn't have a chance, Gore doesn't have a chance, Clinton doesn't have a chance, bla bla bla, maybe a couple people have a chance..." Is that, at the end, they always say that John Edwards somehow has the best chance out of all of them, then they chalk it up to his "charisma" and how endearing he is to the public.

Last I checked, though, he couldn't win the 2004 Presidential primary, and couldn't come close to delivering his own home state to us by being on the VP slot, and his one term in the Senate is really not as impressive as the work about a dozen other candidates have been doing over their political careers, even if they're moderate.

Also, by the way, he's DLC. I'm not saying that's bad or anything, but I read people blasting Kerry, Clinton, Vilsack, and Bayh for being DLC, but they seem to overlook Edwards' connection.

Flame on.

[Techno Dog]

1. no flames here

kick

[JNelson6563]

2. I have seen differently

Often when I see why neither Kerry, Gore or Clinton cannot win, it's from a Clark supporter or, sometimes, a Warner supporter.

The many threads praising Gore lately seem to have really set certain members of these two groups off. ;-)

Julie