So therefore attempting to pass Kerry off as a war hero based on his service in comparison to what Bush did, is an invalid comparison.
On his own merits...Kerry was not some guy chomping at the bit to go and defend his country....yet that's what he tried to portray himself as in 2004.
He wasn't...American people saw right through it as a plain and simple case of political opportunism, and he got owned.
He'd have had more credibility if he just billed himself as the anti-war political opportunist that he is and always has been...
He'd still have lost...but it'd have been a lot less painful.
But anyway...keep failing to admit that you guys made huge mistakes in 04...denying responsibility is always a great way to solve problems.
Yeap...the American people are so stupid they'll believe anything...
Even if true...how stupid does that make the Democrats...since they can't capitalize on it?
I know I know...Bush is sooooooooooo likeable,Plus he's the smartest dumbass ever
And Americans love war.
I've have no problem admitting that Kerry didn't run as an effective campaign as Rove did. I'll admit that. But he still received a great many votes and that fact is indisputable. Did he lose? Yes, but it was clear that not everyone wanted another 4 years of Bush. That is a fact.
What is a fact is that John Kerry served in Vietnam and that fact is indisputable. You can hate the man but give him his respect.
I may not like Bush but he still gets my respect for being President.
Semper Fi!!! Yeeeeeeeaaaaahhhhh!!!!
It's also clear that Bush garnered quite a few more votes in 04 than he did in 00...
How exactly did that happen?
Did the American people get stupider? Did Bush get more likeable?
The Democrats made Bush a more attractive candidate...
That's right, they made the stupidest and most unlikeable President in history...more popular.
Rove didn't do that...the Democrats did that to themselves.
He's a child rapist and murderer...a villiage burner.What is a fact is that John Kerry served in Vietnam and that fact is indisputable. You can hate the man but give him his respect.
That's the same kind of resprect he gave his fellow soldiers for his own political gain...
He also threw away his medals in shame...
And finally...he did commit an act of treason while in the service of the US Military...by the legal definition...
And what saved him is that he is a silver spoon...just like Bush.
I may not like Bush but he still gets my respect for being President.
I never claimed Kerry didn't serve in Vietnam...
It's funny...the closest candidate to actually fitting the bill of war hero in the last 15 years or so...is Al Gore.
Hey El Pimpo...since you are so big on honoring war heroes...what's your opinion on Bush I?
I agree with whott on this one..
I agree to disagree with Whottt. I have the highest respect for our Men and Women in the military. To speak out against one of them is aiding the enemy!!! And so unpatriotic!!! Oh, the horrah!!!!
Oh, and Bush I has my total respect.
I agreed that the dems put up a worse candidate than bush. hey kerry could have deferred 5 times to get out of serving and he would have qualified as a VP candidate in the GOP.
Like Cheney?
That's no great accomplishment.
as opposed to electing a someone who 'says what he means and means what he says?' hey you and your folk have lowered the bar not the dems..
McCain doesn't count?
Edwards won the debate, as usual.
Clinton, Obama Come to Blows; Edwards Wins
Mon Jan 21, 10:47 PM ET
The Nation -- In the edgiest debate of the Democratic presidential race, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton repeatedly engaged on Monday night in bitter and at times personal exchanges with one another.
And John Edwards effectively pointed to the heated squabbling between the two frontrunners in anticipation of Saturday's South Carolina Democratic primary as a deviation from the issues that matter.
Clinton accused Obama of doing legal work for a Chicago slumlord and charged that her opponent "did the bidding of the insurance companies" when health care was debated in the Illinois legislature.
Obama told Clinton he was fighting to help workers in Chicago when "you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart."
Clinton accused Obama of playing fast and loose with his positions. "Senator Obama, it is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you because you never take responsibility for any votes. That is a pattern," she charged, drawing jeers from the crowd, which generally awarded cheers to the applause lines of the candidates.
Obama complained about "a set of assertions made by Senator Clinton as well as her husband that are not factually accurate" and suggested that the Clintons were generalizing about legislative votes on complex issues to paint a negative picture of him. (Later in the debate, he ruminated about whether he agreed with author Toni Morrison that Bill Clinton was "the first black president." He got a laugh when he said he'd check out the former president's dance steps to see whether he was a "brother." Clinton got her laugh when she replied, "I'm sure that can be arranged.")
Obama returned more than once to his objections regarding Bill Clinton's role in the campaign.
Unfortunately, Obama lodged his complaints about the mischaracterization of his record on the same night when he was doing much the same thing.
Noting that Obama had attacked both his foes for votes they had taken, Edwards said, "What you're criticizing her for, by the way, you've done to us."
Obama struggled to explain himself by explaining voting procedures in the Illinois Senate. But it was a tough sell, although perhaps not so tough a sell as Clinton's attempt to dodge a question from Edwards about whether she would bring the troops home from Iraq within a year.
In short order, Edwards had gotten the best of both his opponents. That was the order of the night. Again and again, Edwards took the side of one of the frontrunners against the other, effectively serving as an arbiter between the two.
It was an ideal position for Edwards, the outsider candidate who is struggling to distinguish himself from two opponents with more money and better poll positions.
But the former senator from North Carolina had to fight for it. More than half an hour into the debate in South Carolina, where voters will participate in a high-stakes Democratic primary on Saturday, CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer had presided over what was essential a showcase for Clinton and Obama.
"Are there three people in this debate, not two?" interjected Edwards. The 2004 Democratic nominee then delivered what may have been the most effective soliloquy of the night. Referencing the bitter back-and-forth between his two opponents, Edwards asked, "This kind of squabbling -- how many children is this going to get health care? How many people are going to get education because of this? How many kids are going to get to go to college because of this?"
"I respect both of my fellow candidates," he continued, "but we have got to understand this is not about us personally. It's about what we are trying to do for this country,'
Of course, Blitzer interrupted. But Edwards held his ground. "Let me finish here," he said. "Lord knows, you let them go on forever."
The crowd cheered as loudly as it had for anything said by Obama or Clinton.
And even CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider noticed, saying, "This could be a debate where John Edwards gets back in the game. He's effectively making his points, while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are in silly squabbles. Voters have too many concerns to care about Obama and Clinton's political potshots."
Radio commentator Carl Jeffers agreed, explaining that, "There are a lot of Americans who are turned off by this personal animosity between Clinton and Obama and that benefitted John Edwards."
That was certainly Edwards' hope.
"The reality of the race is that I am running against two celebrity candidates who have raised over $100 million each. I'm an underdog, but I'm a serious underdog," the candidate said after the debate, noting that he has won delegates despite a lack of media attention. "I think that people who watched this debate with an open mind were probably impressed."
What is not known, at a point when everyone seems to be taking sides in an increasingly intense fight between Clinton and Obama, is how many people watched this debate with an open mind. There skirmishing between the Clinton and Obama camps may simply solidify support for he leaders. But in this fluid race, did Edwards connect with enough undecided and wavering voters to secure a credible finish in South Carolina's primary? The answer to that question will determine whether John Edwards, who had a good night Monday, will have a good enough night on Saturday in South Carolina to remain the serious player he deserves to be in a race that goes national in two weeks with the February 5 "tsunami Tuesday" primaries and caucuses.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20...ation/45273581
Last edited by SA210; 01-22-2008 at 06:10 PM.
A real leader
Last edited by SA210; 01-22-2008 at 06:34 PM.
Of course Edwards won. He was able to capitalize on the "squabbling" between Clinton and Obama, and he was able to tag team effectively against whichever candidate he disagreed with on a certain issue.
And he went generally unchallenged because neither of the two other candidates view him as a credible threat.
So, big ups to John Edwards for winning this debate and capitalizing....still won't mean a thing come Saturday or Super Tuesday.
I'm not talking about the current election...I'm talking about nominees from past elections after Bush 1.
Nominees is the key word...otherwise I'd have mentioned Wesley Clark, McCain, and several others that didn't get the nomination.
If you really want to count all the guys...Wesley Clark is the truest definition of a War Hero(and yes I know he supported Kerry in 04 because he was pissed off at the Bush admin's lack of support for his political ambitions)...
I concur. It won't help him win though. I'd like to see an Obama/Edwards ticket. Or Edwards/Obama.
I believe Edwards won the debate, but we all know the nomination is going to Obama or Clinton. That being said, to a middle of the road independent voter such as myself, Obama won the debate over Clinton. Clinton can "act" like a tough , but when you hear Obama speak you actually believe his words to be true. I don't believe Clinton.
When I hear Clinton(s) speak, I hear alot of bull political rhetoric. Not to mention, I've grown increaslingly tired of the mudslinging tactics the Clinton machine employs. They are really not interested in real debate. I truly hope Obama wins the nomination.
I really hate to defend Hillary Clinton but she is not the only politician playing hardball. She, like any other candidate, should be able to play as rough or rougher than all of the boys in the game. When I read the posts like yours and so many others I wonder if you can be objective about someone you don't like. I am not her biggest fan but I do think she is tough primarily because she is attacked from all angles and both parties constantly. Obama hasn't been a saint in this situation but he does seem like a genuine guy. You seem to allow him to get away with it and only hear 'b*llsh*t political rhetoric' from one candidate while both are saying the same thing. My point is they both have more similarities then differences yet somehow she is the one mudslinging.. comprende?
"able to play as rough or rougher"
what's the point of being "rough" in a "debate" which is nothing but a issue/content-free pissing and scratching cat fight, having NOTHING to do with anything about being President. As President, you'll be surrounded by an echo chamber/bubble of boot-licking sycophants.
The whole "debate" exercise is insanely useless, except in exposing how trivially low and childishly petty the candidates can descend.
Anybody remember the fiascos of Iraq war, health care, loss of economic security for the lower 98%?
It's funny how the media is playing this debate up as if it were even a good fight. Hillary makes a comment about shady sponsors? Really? Hillary? She set up a debate knock out for him and he didn't take it.
She is who we thought she was and he let her off the hook.
C'mon Obama. You either want to take the crown, or you don't.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
