http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=175501&format=text

Selected, not elected, eh? Not according to democrat big-wigs:

"Former Democratic Party boss and Clinton friend Terry McAuliffe is lambasting John Kerry’s unsuccessful presidential campaign, calling his effort to unseat President Bush 'one of the biggest acts of political malpractice in the history of American politics.'

In his scrappy memoir, McAuliffe criticizes the 2004 campaign that he was responsible for defending but ultimately lost to what he describes as a more organized Republican machine. McAuliffe calls the Kerry campaign gun-shy, distracted and incompetent."

Herb

You're confused, Herb. "Selected, not elected" applies to the 2000 campaign, not the 2004 campaign. John Kerry ran in 2004. Al Gore ran in 2000 but the US Supreme Court stopped the Florida election before their supreme court's order to recount all ballots in the state - thus Bush was "selected" not "elected" in 2000.

I don't think a lot of us who worked for Kerry are thrilled with the way they ran the campaign. The most frustrating thing was the way Kerry failed to respond to the Swift Boat liars back in August 2004. I think he would have won had he done so, considering that 70,000 voters in Ohio voting for him instead of Bush would have made Kerry president.

Andrew

>>""Selected, not elected" applies to the 2000 campaign, not the 2004 campaign."

Still crying. Jeez, move along.

>>>"I don't think a lot of us who worked for Kerry are thrilled with the way they ran the campaign. "

How he ran the campaign would be how he ran the country. Whatever misjudgments Bush may have made, Kerry's would have been worse. But, we'd certainly be on good terms with the French.

OK, turn on the flame.

Hey, no argument here ... on the campaign, anyway.

I'm no Kerry fan, but we would be on better terms with our friends ... and speaking terms with our enemies ... if Kerry were president.

But did Kerry run an eff'ed-up campaign? Yes.

Deane writes:
Still crying. Jeez, move along.

Uh, Herb brought it up...

How he ran the campaign would be how he ran the country. Whatever misjudgments Bush may have made, Kerry's would have been worse. But, we'd certainly be on good terms with the French.

Hard to see how anyone could have had a worse last two years than Bush. I have no doubt Kerry would have been a better president than Bush - but then, we are talking James Buchanan territory here, so just because Kerry would have been light years better than Bush doesn't necessarily mean he would have been a good president. At this point, "merely OK" would be better than "horrible, worst ever."

Andrew

Since we're on the subject, I think we have a major problem with presidential candidates from any source. We don't have inspirers in the likes of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. There just aren't any on the horizon.

We need a president with a lot of experience. Who might that be? Maybe McCain, maybe not. The list sort of ends there.

Have you ever heard Barak Obama speak? You may not agree with him, but I think a lot of Democrats find him very inspiring.

What kind of experience do you think a presidential candidate needs? JFK was a lightweight in the Senate - his colleagues were shocked when he was taking seriously as a presidential candidate. Note that the very experienced LBJ took over for JFK and turned out to be a horrible president (at least in that one awful thing, Vietnam). I used to say experience was important for a good president but obviously lots of experience doesn't automatically make one a good president.

Abraham Lincoln had scant experience before becoming running for president - his only high office was a few terms as a Congressman from Illinois. His claim to fame was LOSING a big Senate race. And Lincoln got the United States through probably the worst crisis in our history.

We need a president with good character and judgement as well as one who has vision and can communicate it. Unfortunately, our current system promotes people who are ambitious and can raise a lot of money. I'd say there are some good people on the horizon (like Obama) but it's not clear that they can ascend in today's political climate.

Andrew

"Some would say" that Barak "Hussein" Obama is a Muslim Terrorist plant.

Yes sir, some would say that.

Obama may be something someday, but right now he's a rock star with one hit on the charts. He's totally in amazement of his success.

He accidentally got elected to the Senate when his Republican opposition turned out to be losers buried in scandals.

Andrew, your last paragraph says it all.

"Some would say" that Barak "Hussein" Obama is a Muslim Terrorist plant.

Yes sir, some would say that.


Being named "Barack Hussein Obama" doesn't make him a terrorist ... any more than being named "George W. Bush" makes him a flowering plant.

Yes, but you can't argue that some would say that.

Amus, some will say that, you're right.

Doesn't mean it's not stupid and bigoted.

Thanks Sutton.

Please see my post in this thread:

../2186/220470.html"#f7f7f7" align=left> Author: Sutton
Friday, January 05, 2007 - 3:02 pm

Oh yeah! I get it now. Thanks for the reference.

Like, "Some would say that George W. Bush has been criminally neglegent, reckelessly endangering lives of American servicepeople who have made a selfless committment."

Or, "Some would say that wealthy Americans are morally reprehensible, enjoying tax cuts at a time that the Iraq war is sucking our treasury dry."

I'm not saying that ... but SOME would say ... hey, THIS is fun!

deane sez: "He [Obama] accidentally got elected to the Senate when his Republican opposition turned out to be losers buried in scandals."

me: Sort of like how John Ashcroft accidently became Bush's Attorney General after losing to a dead guy in Missouri's Senate race?