Out of that bunch of Democratic Candidates,

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » January 5, 2004, 8:09 pm

You know, out of that whole bunch I kinda like Lieberman.

He doesn't come off as an asshole like some of those guys.

Does he stand any chance of winning primaries?

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 5, 2004, 8:24 pm

Funny you'd say that, he's more conservative than most republicans.

Personally, I'd wish Gephardt wins it but it probably won't happen

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » January 5, 2004, 9:05 pm

Liberman is a bad, bad man. Every time I hear video games comming up for legislation, his name is usually on the top.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » January 5, 2004, 9:31 pm

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » January 5, 2004, 11:06 pm

So sick of spin and sound bites...Be nice to have political parties with principles again...

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » January 5, 2004, 11:44 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:You know, out of that whole bunch I kinda like Lieberman.

He doesn't come off as an asshole like some of those guys.

Does he stand any chance of winning primaries?

put the grand wizard of the KKK on the ballot and il vote for his ass anyday before leiberman

i could almost go as far as saying that im glad Bush beat Gore becouse of that stupid asshole

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 5, 2004, 11:54 pm

i wouldnt say he's *that* bad xzion.

but to answer your question Adex, no he has no chance at all i don't think.

he has virtually pulled out of Iowa as far as campaigning, he is at best a distant 4th in New Hampshire, and I certainly don't see him doing well in South Carolina. In fact i bet Al Sharpton beats him in SC.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » January 6, 2004, 11:17 am

Apparently Clark has been making noises lately about video games as well.

http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId=39479

Mr. Clark criticized the level of "violence and violent images" in both media and video games. "I'm very disturbed by a lot of the video games," he said. "They are worse than any Army training games we ever used. I think we need video games that teach people constructive skills instead of hand-eye coordination in the use of firearms."

"You have to work with all of the ratings systems we have in the entertainment area," he said. "You have to work with the leaders in entertainment. You have to work with the leaders in communities to enforce ratings systems, tighten them up and reduce prevalence of violence" in entertainment.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 6, 2004, 11:29 am

Just a clue for those of you who think the current Democrat choices are democrats...THEY ARE NOT

Hell, they are just Republicans who are ashamed of it, and the bastard in office that is supposed to be a Republican is acting like a damn Democrat about everything except defense.

Really the Republican Party today is more like the Democratic party of the 50's than like itself in the 50's

Deward · Post by **Deward** » January 6, 2004, 11:51 am

There is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans anymore. They both say whatever they need to in order to get re-elected. That is why Libertarians call them Republicrats. They are all corrupt.

Lieberman is the last person I would vote for. He is a perfect example of what is wrong with American politics. He has been in politics too long and even if he won the candidacy, he would probably run for his senate seat as well at the same time. I also wouldn't call him a democrat. He is entirely too conservative and I think he would cater way to much to Israel. The last thing we need is to send even more money (currently 4 billion+) to Israel than we already are. I could also see him being a control freak like Bush and taking even more of our personal liberties away.

I would vote for Al Sharpton before I would vote for Lieberman.

If you want a principaled party, then vote Libertarian. I don't agree with all their views but they at least stand behind their beliefs.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » January 6, 2004, 12:17 pm

Out of the whole crop, Lieberman seems the least slimey. I don't agree with some of his views, but overall he's a long shot better than the rest of the candidates or the incumbent for that matter. Would he be an effective president? Probably not, it would be 4 years of head butting.

Gephardt? Please no, he's the worst of the lot and that's saying quite a bit. I'd rather see Clinton back in office.

As sad as it seems, I'd probably vote for Gephardt as it stands now. If only to get Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.. out of the picture. That group in a 2nd term administration is asking just for trouble.

I'd like to see Colin Powel run in 2008, though he won't do it.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » January 6, 2004, 12:21 pm

Powel as a Democrat or Powel as a Republican?

Or would you care?

Siji · Post by **Siji** » January 6, 2004, 12:32 pm

Granted I haven't followed any of the candidates at all, but from the little I've seen I like Kerry. That is his name, right?

Ladex_Xedal · Post by **Ladex_Xedal** » January 6, 2004, 1:03 pm

The only way for us to win is for Hillary to run.

I think Hillary/Clark would provide experience, and military gravitas necessary to threaten Cheney's oil puppet, Bush.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » January 6, 2004, 1:10 pm

Yes, this may be ethnically biasing to Leiberman. However I wrote him off because he is Jewish. I have nothing against that, in fact I almost became Jewish once but the United States can not have a Jewish President at this point in time. Maybe 30 years ago, maybe in another 30 year. However the current situation in the middle east currently prohibits him winning IMHO, it would not be good for the country. Not because I think HE would be biased but because there is no way we could convince the predomately Muslim based countries otherwise... IMHO at least.

Personally I like the guy from NC and Clark... they seem more middle of the road than the others... which again IMHO the Dems must have to win, they have to win back the conservative dems who all voted for Bush in 2000.

Marb

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 6, 2004, 1:11 pm

It's BIZARRO Adex!!!

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » January 6, 2004, 1:17 pm

OMG Yes, the evil opposite Adex from Bizarro World!

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » January 6, 2004, 1:21 pm

The only way Hillary would run is if Bush won in 04, and she runs in 08

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » January 6, 2004, 2:29 pm

I think that's the plan.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » January 6, 2004, 3:08 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Powel as a Democrat or Powel as a Republican?

Or would you care?

Wouldn't care really.

I've voted a near straight republican ticket since 1982, that will likely change this election.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 6, 2004, 4:20 pm

I would vote for Colin Powell if he ran as a Green Party Candidate.

He is the most honorable human being at a senior political level on the entire planet.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » January 6, 2004, 5:21 pm

I don't think any of them has a chance. That's not to say Bush is invincible, but because all of them are either unelectable or have been in Washington too long and have a charisma deficit larger than any sort of deficit Bush has managed to create in Washington. When I see Gephardt or Kerry speak I almost puke...politicians like them just make me sick.

I think Dean is the only one who can actually "energize" the party, but there's no way he could ever beat Bush.

I feel kind of bad for democrats. A lot of them metaphorically jizzed when they heard Clark was running- finally a principled candidate who would stay above the fray of the current clowns who seem to play a "let's see who can think up best anti-Bush slogan at every debate" game. I actually was kind of happy when Clark got in, a good leader is a good leader whether he's a democrat or a republican. What a let down to discover he's just another shady politician.

Why aren't any democrats ever challenged with a follow up in any of these weekly debates when they mention "bringing the UN in?" Kucinich, if elected president, says he plans to withdraw US troops within 90 days of his inauguration and to "bring the UN in." This is absurd. Besides the typical answer of "treating others with respect" how the FUCK does he expect to get countries like France and Germany to send in tens of thousands of troops to the Sunni Triangle? I saw in the last debate in Iowa where he mentioned handing control of the oil over to the UN and giving them contracts, but somehow I don't think that would quite do the trick. Same goes for the rest of the candidate. All of them say we should get more international troops, preferably troops from Arab nations, but they make it sound like those nations hate Bush more than they do...that the only thing holding them back from sending several divisions is that a Republican is in office. Aside from the fact that handing control of Iraq over to countries that didn't want us there in the first place and could careless if Iraq became a democratic country is at the least counterproductive, what would they specifically do that would realisitcally get them to send tons of troops? I wish they'd be asked this some time and be given a follow up when they try to weasel their way out with a slam on Bush. Of course, the moderator would have to wait until 10 seconds for the applause to die down if it was a particularly good insult. From what I've seen, Bush-bashing gets you applause from the retarded democrats who are in the audience at these debates- not good, sound answers. Kucinich is the only candidate who advocates getting our troops out immediately btw.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 6, 2004, 5:21 pm

I dislike career politicians (I don't even think it should be legal), so pretty much the only democrat I could vote for in the primaries is Dean or Clark. I guess Sharpton isn't a career politician per se, but he's also batshit insane and probably a racist. I used to like Kerry a lot for his platforms and personal history, but the times I've actually seen him in interviews and stuff he comes off like a bit of a phony. He also looks like a robot that was carefully constructed by aliens to pass for a real human, but they didn't quite get it 100% right.

Jokers like Lieberman and Gephardt don't even know what it is like to be a common person. They've been playing the fed game for so long that they don't even remember that they are representing people anymore. It's all about deal making and the game.

But seeing as how Pol Pot would make a better president than the current one, who really cares who wins.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » January 6, 2004, 6:33 pm

My vote goes for the hypothetical Rice/Powell ticket, but I don't see that ever happening so I think I will just leave the country for somewhere more moderate like North Korea...

p.s. I know that they aren't democratics but neither is Clark so *shrug*

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » January 6, 2004, 8:25 pm

I would vote for powell no matter what party would chose to run under, if we have to put up with this asshole for another 4 years, seeing powell as the next choice for pres or vice pres would be godly

clark used to be my favorite democratic canidate but now i would lean towards Dean, except for the fact i could see Clark having the best chance of all the canidates in actually defeating Bush

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » January 7, 2004, 3:39 pm

Lieberman, Tipper Gore and the rest of the PMRC have always been so wound up trying to censor everything involved with entertainment that I have serious doubts as to whether they hold any other interests...

Post by **Xouqoa** » January 7, 2004, 4:39 pm

Brotha wrote:What a let down to discover he's just another shady politician.

How so?

If Clark gets nominated I would definitely vote for him, at least based on what I have seen so far.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » January 7, 2004, 5:40 pm

Heheh I watched the Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night and thought the little graphic they displayed was apt: "Democrats - 2004: The Run Away From The Whitehouse".

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » January 7, 2004, 6:00 pm

its actually "Race From the Whitehouse"

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » January 8, 2004, 12:46 am

ah yes... should have more coffe before posting :/

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » January 8, 2004, 1:00 am

Xouqoa wrote:
Brotha wrote:What a let down to discover he's just another shady politician.
How so?

If Clark gets nominated I would definitely vote for him, at least based on what I have seen so far.

This column from about a month ago expresses exactly what my feelings are regarding Clark:

What ever happened to Wesley Clark's once promising presidential campaign?

It already begins to feel finished, over, even before the first caucus has been held in Iowa, even before the first vote has been cast in the New Hampshire primary.

It doesn't seem fair, but there it is. When he announced, General Clark led the polls. He looked like just what the country wanted, and needed. But the more he campaigned, the lower he sank.

What happened? Americans were ready for another Dwight D. Eisenhower, a military man who would rise above partisan politics and unite us in troubled and divisive times.

Instead, General Clark joined the partisan clamor, doing and saying pretty much what everybody else in the race for the Democratic nomination was doing and saying. He acquired a staff of clintonoids, listened to the pros, echoed the party line, played the debate game and in general competed with the Howard Deans and John Kerrys at bashing this administration -- instead of taking the debate to a whole new, higher, level. Which is what some of us hoped he'd do. We wanted an Eisenhower, and got a McGovern.

What happened? Far from not being enough of a politician, the general turned out to be too much of a politician.

Maybe Wesley Clark's problem is that Ike isn't his only role model. He's also got some of the imperious General MacArthur in him, and even a bit of General Boulanger, the original Man on a White Horse. He was the hero who was going to save France at the tail end of the 19th Century but missed his one chance.

Oh, Ike had his problems, too. A world of them. We just don't remember them very clearly because of the way he surmounted them. When he got into trouble, his first and only concern was how to get out of it. Think of Kasserine Pass, Operation Market Garden, the Battle of the Bulge . . . one awful blow after another. But Ike wasted no time assigning blame or lashing out at his critics.

Ike used prima donnas like Montgomery and Patton; he was never one himself. He had no time or energy to waste on assigning blame or countering critics or justifying his own actions. Criticism? He ignored it. Rumors and gossip? He wasted no time on them. He rose above them.

But the more General Clark explains why he's never been wrong about a single foreign-policy issue, and tries to straighten out all the inconsistent things he's said on CNN and in this campaign and at Republican rallies before he became a Democrat . . . the lower he sinks in the polls and the angrier he sounds. That's not the kind of leader Americans are looking for just now, or maybe ever.

Wesley Clark has missed his chance -- and much more. He's wasted a vast well of good will -- and his own exceptional intelligence, competence and energy. There's apparently no virtue a driving ego cannot obscure. Wes Clark is proving one of those sad figures everyone thought would make a great president -- till he ran for it. Remember George Romney? Edmund Muskie?

Many of us have already started thinking of the general as a vice- presidential candidate. But there's room for only one presidential-size ego on a national ticket, and you have to wonder if someone like Howard Dean would risk having him on the ticket. There are times when General Clark would have made Ross Perot's running mate, poor bumbling Admiral Stockdale, sound cogent.

The political pundits speak of the Invisible Primary that occurs the year before the primaries begin. Howard Dean, this year's real George McGovern, already seems to have swept that Invisible Primary as measured by the polls and gut instinct. The signs were unmistakable and unshakable even as Wesley Clark set out on his little bus tour to nowhere in particular.

Another bad sign was Peter Boyer's mercilessly fair portrait of the general in The New Yorker magazine, which is just the kind of venue in which Wesley Clark should shine. Instead, he was quietly, definitively, extensively panned.

In short, Wesley Clark is no Ike. There goes my dream. Though I have to admit it's been going for months now, with every strange rumor the general has retailed, every predictable, party-line stance he's tamely repeated . . . .

I hope General Clark will prove me wrong, awfully wrong, comically wrong, and he'll yet emerge as this year's Eisenhower. But I don't think it's going to happen. What a pity.

Edit: And yes, I know Clark's campaign is actually picking up a little bit of steam now in NH and nationwide, but I don't think it will amount to anything.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » January 8, 2004, 1:24 am

kyoukan wrote:I dislike career politicians (I don't even think it should be legal)

I'd have to agree with that. Isn't it also true that politicians (not sure what 'level' it starts at) do not pay income tax.. for the rest of their lives?

emmer · Post by **emmer** » January 8, 2004, 4:22 am

Fuck Lieberman.

Remember how Mortal Kombat for the SNES had the blood replaced with saliva? You can thank Lieberman for that one. If there was one game I was looking forward to being ported from arcade-->console as a kid, that was it. And he fucking ruined it.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 8, 2004, 5:38 am

The genesis version had blood. The SNES version didn't because Nintendo didn't want it.

emmer · Post by **emmer** » January 8, 2004, 6:17 am

No shit? I bought a fucking genesis because of that game. Up, down, up, down, a, b, a, c, a, b, b? Something like that anyway. Ultimatley, it was up to Nintendo, yes... but Lieberman was campaining against the game upon the time of release which led the censorship.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » January 8, 2004, 8:46 am

I know leiberman and clark now are big on media censorship but i never really heard bush discuss that issue
pardon my ignorance, but whats his stance on media censorship?...i take it not that good considering the patriot act, etc

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » January 8, 2004, 9:49 am

Xzion wrote:i take it not that good considering the patriot act, etc

And he's probably smart enough to know he's going to look like an idiot railing against video games.

Other than as something that makes me want to look at someone's stance on other things, this isn't a show stopper for me on any candidate. It's pretty minor, and probably driven as an issue by a small number of constituents with deep pockets.

People should be far more concerned with a candidates stance on something as wide ranging as the patriot act. Video games? Minor BS except used as an indicator\flag.

VeeshanVault

Out of that bunch of Democratic Candidates,

Out of that bunch of Democratic Candidates,

Re: Out of that bunch of Democratic Candidates,