Comments on Stop Him Now!

oh fuck, not this again.

Pass the ketchup!

What difference does it make? He can run, and so will about 10 others. A close number of Republicans will do the same. The 2008 election is going to start in January 2007 and will be horrendous, expensive and embarrassing. He might as well join the rest of the conflicted compromised cowards eager to invade (or at least bomb the hell out of) Iran or N. Korea.

Is there one politician with enough clout worth paying attention to? Hillary is gross to way too many (and she has the wrong genitals). Obama is too young (and too much the wrong color in Amerikkka - no matter how assimilated he appears).

Maybe John Edwards? Now, there is a white boy that people will embrace. Southern. Young. Handsome. He'll charm the hell out of everyone and then he'll lose the election. Kerry will only make the other candidates look better.

Who are the Greens running?

If any unsuccessful Dem should run, it should be Gore, not Kerry. Especially since Gore actually won in 2000.

So we get a clowncar primary in both parties, and two more vanilla candidates to choose from in 2008. I'M SO PUMPED.

Do we need to go over this again? If Gore was at all a substancial candidate, he would have blown out Bush and it would have never come down to Florida. It came down to Florida because he sucked and was a hollow, milquetoast candidate that no one liked. End rant.

Gomez - I hope you're applying that logic to the fact that Bush's victory came down to the same state - and thus is just as unappealing (if all votes were equal AND counted) as Gore. Who wins?

Anyway - on to Kerry... Notice the onlookers in the photo??? ZZZZZzzzzzzz

Heres a clue idiots: Pick a candidate with "charisma" that voters might find "appealing".

Art,

The DNC, trying to act like social conservatives, aren't interested in "charisma" or finding an "appealing" candidate - look at what happened to our last charismatic and appealing candidate, Bill Clinton...oh, wait...he won. The DNC thought the winning campaign for Al Gore and John Kerry was to divorce them from Clinton as much as possible and have them and act like safe, boring, conservatives since that is what apparently attracts some voters. Think "Republican Light".

I refused to talk to anyone during the last election (didn't matter, as I live in a liberal state that never voted for Bush) because I couldn't actually act like I liked John Kerry...and I'm originally from Massachusetts.

If he runs against someone like John McCain, he'll lose, pathetically.

"a candidate with charisma that voters find appealing..."

hmmm...are there any more members of the Bush family availiable? Apparently there is a large portion of the population that find them attractive.

I have no idea what the Democrats should do. I'd say we are f'ed, quite frankly.

What Art said in #8. Voters will vote along party lines and make an election come down to those dreaded swing states (Diebold's favorite!) unless you run an appealling candidate with charisma. Notice that Clinton never had to sweat over Florida or Ohio... because he took a lot of those red states that you lefties say the Dems should just give up and concede.

Oh, gawd. Please no.

You know, I'd like to see Gore run. I think he's the Democrat with the most credibility. Seriously.

Hillary needs to wait until Obama runs, run as his VP, and then run as an incumbent.

Nice that I've got all of this planned out, eh?

who the hell is advising this guy? he is delusional if he thinks he has a chance. buy a clue john, it's OVER.

Clinton was successful because he was middle of the road--crime, welfare, gay rights--you may call it charisma if you want. As far as I'm concerned, Clinton was the best Republican president we've ever had.

Seems that James Carville ratted on Kerrey. He was prepared to go to Ohio & challenge the 250K uncounted ballots. Carville goes his husband, Mary Matalin, and she tells the WH. They alert Blackwell (Rep. Sec of State) & the rest is history. It's from Woodward's new book

The Dems have followed the Rep strategy for the past 25 years. Reagan goes after the middle ground while Mondale appeals to his base. Bush I runs on Reagan's coattails, but can't sustain the popularity, looses to Clinton who does a Reagan, except better. The Reps change their strategy, and play to their most conservative base, who are rabid, shameless, ruthless. They win by requiring only unquestioning loyalty. The Dems need the same from their base. The days of tolerance are over. As in CN, the Dems need to throw out the traitors (like Carville, et al) to win in '08.

People talk about Moderates or centrists like they're bad.

Isn't that what you want in a leader? Someone who finds common ground and unites the two rather divided parties of a great nation?

It's not about "centrists." If you actually took a poll of Americans on the issues, and then compared to candidates, the mainstream of the Democratic Party would be the center, with Republicans and most so-called "centrists" out on the right. People don't vote the issues, they vote personality or emotionally.

What makes people like Lieberman and Carville repugnant isn't their conservative views on some issues. It's their willingness to undermine the Democratic Party to gratify their inflated egos. They're the ones not on board.

If the Democrats want to win, they have to pick a mainstream agenda that appeals to the real center of American life and not CNN's hollow version of "the center," find a charismatic candidate for every race who's willing to run on that agenda, and ignore anyone in or out of the party that's not willing to stick to that message. Carville should shut up just as much as the immature lefties who oppose good candidates like Cantwell out of a misplaced sense of righteousness. Both types are part of the problem.

Oh, and Kerry? He's bad but far from the worst the Dems have to offer. Sadly, I'd probably put him in the top half-dozen likely candidates given the dull alternatives like Bayh, Vilsack, and Biden.

Obama has the right personality but the wrong resume. Feingold would be better than most, and he's a lefty with mainstream cred--but he's a divorced Jew and a Senator. I'd take Edwards (bad resume) or Wesley Clark (good resume, bad campaigning skills). I'd probably put Hillary next (ideal, if she didn't automatically alienate 40% of the electorate), with Warner just edging out Kerry because he's from Virginia.

I think I'm missing a few, but really only Feingold and Obama excite me at all.