Guys, I'm really sorry to say this (don't hate me), but couldn't the democrats find a better candidate than Kerry? After reading all of the above, I can't imagine why people don't see Bush for what he really is. Perhaps if Kerry had an *ounce* of a personality, he'd win by a landslide...We'll see I guess...He just seems so...face-less.

Am I losing it? Are all these blog conversations finally getting to me?

:crazy:

Johanna,

The only two candidates that would have been better (IMO) would be Edwards and Lieberman. Edwards b/c he has the compelling life story and is much more "at ease" with crowds. Lieberman b/c he would have neutralized national security as a wedge issue and his faith is stronger, more genuine and more palatable than Bush's. Which is why he was the candidate Bush's team feared the most.

Johanna,

I agree with you. With a stronger candidate, Dems should have this election sewn up. Instead, we have 6 more weeks of this painfully ugly election campaign.

I take solace in the fact that change MUST be better than four more years of the current leadership.

Johanna,

It has finally sunk in hasn't it?? John John has a big bag of nothing to offer this country. I beleive you are correct in that if the Dems had a decent candidate it would be a race. Its gonna be 4 more years dear.

Sorry,

Ed

Teddy, so how come Kerry was chosen over those two candidates?

Vance, I'm taking solace with you.

Ed, to me, having nothing to offer is better than offering lies, deceit, war and death. Not to mention ruining the States' reputation, taking them back a century to days of racism, sexism and discrimination. I'd rather be offered nothing than what Bush has to offer.

Teddy, so how come Kerry was chosen over those two candidates?

Vance, I'm taking solace with you.

Ed, to me, having nothing to offer is better than offering lies, deceit, war and death. Not to mention ruining the States' reputation, taking them back a century to days of racism, sexism and discrimination. I'd rather be offered nothing than accepting what Bush has to offer.

Ed, truth of the matter is that it *IS* a race. I don't see Kerry as a bad guy, quite the contrary. He seems like a decent human being, a little on the dry side, but also a war hero. I believe him when he says that he'll do his best in office, which is more enticing to me than four more years of the Bush teams' inept leadership.

Lets put the better man in office. In four years, it'll likely be a Republican landslide victory anyway (we have four years to prepare for President McCain).

Johanna, blame Iowa.

The fear of losing in November ultimately drove the delegates batty. Those primaries were initially well considered and somewhat intellectually challenging, then at the last moment people feared the spin at the time, the imposed conventional wisdom that said 'It's all about electability'. It was hammered and hammered by the media, and like good sheep the delegates in Iowa and New Hampshire folded into Kerryland at the last minute, thinking he was the least likely to make real Democratic waves. Ummm, because we certainly wouldn't want to be off-putting to Republicans, they're so likely to change their votes.

And ultimately they all cast their votes for the rather bland John Kerry, instead of voting their good consciences.

Luckily, just because we don't want to invite him to a barbecue doesn't mean he won't do a credible job. And as Bush has continued to be the worst president in my lifetime, I do think Kerry will win out in the end. People have noted the smears during this campaign, and heeded the mistakes of the Democratic delegates in the primaries, and will step up.

Time will tell, but keep on staying truthful.

i think the electtion will also be decided on a basis of sanity. With Cheney going all Walter E. Kurtz and Bush wanting doctors to give their love and Iraq unraveling i dont see Bush winning. As importantly the news about directives on national security ready to be disclosed i think will tank Bush.

Mrs. J asked:
"so how come Kerry was chosen over those two candidates?"

Bryan had the answer mostly right there. The Iowans fell in line with what the Media told them (which is what the Republicans told the Media to tell them). Namely, that "Howard Dean isn't electable, and that Kerry's the toughest candidate against Bush".

The Republicans at the time were saying "Oh, please give us Howard Dean!" --- which was their equivalent of saying "please don't throw me in the briar patch!"

And of course, the Dems (aided by the Media's Republican Message) fell for it.

Dean would have been destroying Bush right now. Instead, it's an uphill battle with a serious and impressive, but largely dull, candidate.

None the less, you can fool some of the people some of the time...Let's see if BushCo can fool enough people this time. He's doing a fine job of it, but I'd like to think Americans will eventually figure it out.

Kerry may not be a bad person. Neither is Dubya. Kerrys wife is a nut but since when does the first lady run the country?? Oh yeah 1993-2001.

The purpose of this blog is to do nothing other than bring Bush down. You may think it a noble cause but I disagree.

The whole "anything to win" BS can be applied equally to both parties. Johanna, war is hell and people die. 1008 + is not near what we lost in Vietnam or even on our nations highways over a 1 year period. I want us out of there too but not until we have finished the job.

Kerrys voting record toward the military is awful and that is reason enough not to vote for him.

I am afraid we will get Hillary in 2008 and Chelsea in 2016. Johanna that would probably be enough to get you to move South wouldn't it??

"Dean would have been destroying Bush right now. Instead, it's an uphill battle with a serious and impressive, but largely dull, candidate."

Just what the Clintons wanted Bradley. A weak candidate so Hil can launch her campaign against a new Republican candidate. McCain?? Why not??

Ed said:
"Kerrys voting record toward the military is awful and that is reason enough not to vote for him."

I'd not expect much more from a Kool-ade drinker like yourself, but please let us know exactly which "voting record toward the military" you're referring to. And how it differs from Dick Cheney's own record of dismantling the Military.

Thanks! I'll look forward to it!

What??

We were talking about Kerry. Not Cheney. Stick to the subject. He has voted against every weapons program put in front of him.

Uh, Ed...Who put the bulk of those of those "weapons program" cuts "in front of him"?

Are are you suggesting you actually don't know?

Dean would be killed in the polls right now because his ideas are so out of the mainstream. He has made Kerry flip flop to energize the base and it is hurting Kerry because he is flipping back.

Loserman, I mean Lieberman, is too conservative for the nomination - See Zell Miller's book!

Dean would be killed in the polls right now because his ideas are so out of the mainstream. He has made Kerry flip flop to energize the base and it is hurting Kerry because he is flipping back.

Loserman, I mean Lieberman, is too conservative for the nomination - See Zell Miller's book!

Paul, you are so far out of it, you wouldn't recognize "the mainstream" if it came up and bit you on your Dick Cheney.