Breaking news on Kerry

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from dddooo:

The economy is growing in a sense of stock market and quarterly corporate reports. There is a major divergence here, cause 80-90% of americans are worse off today then they were 4 years ago, primarily due to the job related factors.

The only plausible explanation is that the rich are getting richer and the rest are getting poorer. It's a typical third world country scenario, though quite unprecedented for this country. No president has ever been reelected when overwhelming majority of the people are worse off then they were before and things are not improving.

The economy is growing in the sense that GDP is expanding at a rapid clip. GDP is composed of several factors, of which the stock market is not one. Government spending is part of GDP, and certainly it has contributed.

I really don't know how you can say 80-90% are worse off. Unemployment is a tiny bit higher, but it's still half the euro rate. Some people took hits to their savings in the bear market, but I hardly see how that is Bush's fault. The "rest" are certainlynot getting poorer. The rich are getting richer and so are the middle and lower classes. The only place that fits your scenario is inside an Edwards rally, where they apparently feel they can duplicate the Clinton/Gore Big Lie campaign that the economy is awful.

 

[Madison]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:



That might be enough to win against a weak candidate like Kerry, saddled as he is by 15 years of far left votes, goofy positions and the Hanoi John picture.

Doctored picture 'a new low in sleaze'
By Alec Russell in Washington
(Filed: 19/02/2004)

An attempt to smear John Kerry, the Massachusetts senator and Democratic frontrunner, by doctoring a picture to show him next to the radical actress Jane Fonda was condemned by the photographer yesterday as a new low in political sleaze.

The original picture of Mr Kerry was taken in 1971 by Ken Light, a 20-year-old student at the time, who is now head of the graduate photojournalism course at the University of California.

"I was horrified," he said yesterday. "We shouldn't be creating fantasies such as this. We're supposed to be a democratic society."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/19/wdean119.xml

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry2.asp

 

[dddooo]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

The economy is growing in the sense that GDP is expanding at a rapid clip. GDP is composed of several factors, of which the stock market is not one. Government spending is part of GDP, and certainly it has contributed.

I really don't know how you can say 80-90% are worse off. Unemployment is a tiny bit higher, but it's still half the euro rate.

This is a well-known and undisputed fact, that the country lost 3 mln jobs in the last 3 years. This is a well known fact that the country was supposed to create 4-6mln jobs in the last 3 years just to keep up with growth of population. This is a well known fact that no industry is hiring, none whatsoever. The wages are stagnant accross the board, former accountants sell used cars, former IT people work for fractions of their former rates at best or flip burgers at worse (and count as employed), manufacturing jobs are leaving the country with alarming speed. People are working harder and harder for smaller and smaller wage, cause competion for each job is fierce. We are not producing anything in this country anymore.

The number of people below powerty level is on the rise, the number of people having no insurance is on the rise, record number of bankrupcies, record number of forclosures. Cost of medical services, education, food etc is on the rise, the wages are stagnant, of course people are worse off then they were before.

And please, do not compare unemployment in this country with that in EU. We do not know how they count their unemployment rate, could be quite different. What we do know is that they have a much higher social protection, full medical coverage, pensions, free education etc - things we can only dream of in this country.

 

[rowenwood]

Nothing would make me happier than a Kerry/Edwards win putting Hilllary on the sidelines for a loooooong time.

Here we are in agreement. I do not like Hillary. I did not like Dean. I could stomach Kerry. I simply don't think 4 more years of Bush is the solution for the problems we have right now.







Yeah if bush stays it will be Hillary 2008. I would love to see it happen. She is more intelligent than Kerry and Edwards put together.


Who did you vote for in 2000? I take it you are either an issue voter or an independant?

 

[BloodTrader]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

The economy is growing in the sense that GDP is expanding at a rapid clip. GDP is composed of several factors, of which the stock market is not one. Government spending is part of GDP, and certainly it has contributed.

I really don't know how you can say 80-90% are worse off. Unemployment is a tiny bit higher, but it's still half the euro rate. Some people took hits to their savings in the bear market, but I hardly see how that is Bush's fault. The "rest" are certainlynot getting poorer. The rich are getting richer and so are the middle and lower classes. The only place that fits your scenario is inside an Edwards rally, where they apparently feel they can duplicate the Clinton/Gore Big Lie campaign that the economy is awful.

No, it's not the present that is a worry. But the future is. The tax cuts and irresponsible spending of the Bush economic idealogues will come home to roost, but it will probably take a while.

There's plenty of data to show that the rich are getting richer and everyone else is getting the shaft. This has been the trend for quite a while. It seems we want to model the US society on something like Brazil.

m

 

[BloodTrader]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Evangelicals frustrated by Bush


By Ralph Z. Hallow
THE WASHINGTON TIMES




"They can't possibly guarantee a large turnout of evangelical Christian voters if he does not do what is morally right and take leadership on this issue as he did on the war" in Iraq, said CWA President Sandy Rios.

Keep it up you CWA gals and someday your granddaughters can be enjoying clitordectomies like all chaste women should. And no need for you to go to school either. Just stay at home and pop those babies out.

Actually, I hate to agree with these folks in any way, shape or form, but we are a decadent society. I just don't happen to think that voting for an idiot like Bush is going to help. He's all about coroporate power; the religous stuff is just a pose.

m

 

[Error 404]

Quote from rowenwood:



Yeah if bush stays it will be Hillary 2008. I would love to see it happen. She is more intelligent than Kerry and Edwards put together.

If the neither Edwards nor Kerry get enough delegates by the convention, it would not surprise me to see a Hillary Clinton nomination.

I am not a big fan of Hillary. However, I can see her being a very effective President.

She is incredibly intelligent and strong willed. Ruthless, decisive and has a good sense of evaluating issues.

There is no such thing as a politician who's policies and attitudes will be acceptable to everyone. I realize that she has a lot of ideologies that many find reprehensible. But so do all candidates. For whatever reason, she does evoke high emotions from her detractors. But so does Bush, and so will Kerry (or anyone). So did Bill Clinton when he was easily re-elected in 1996.

This is going to be a hard fought campaign no matter who the Dem nominee is.

The bottom line is; who is going to be "electable"? And who really has the qualifications and the ability to do the job.

Based on this, I can see the Dems going with Hillary. Certainly she would face an incredible amount of negative campaigning. We will hear all about Whitewater, commodity trading, all of that stuff. But as is rather clear, if there were any truly damaging "evidence" against her, it would have been exploited already.

ART says he "doesn't trust her". And I can see how her demeanor can evoke that kind of feeling in many. But on the other hand, it seems if (when) "trust" becomes a major issue if there were to be a Bush/Clinton campaign, Bush will not be viewed as a particularly trustworthy guy. And his "untrustworthiness" has been demonstrated while in the Whitehouse.

Hillary Clinton is, in reality, an extremely well respected member of the Senate. Respected by her adversaries as well as her allies. This is something that cannot be said about GWB.

Like Bill Clinton, she is a very hard worker, and very well informed on all issues. GWB, no matter what anyone feels about his politics, is really just not a hard worker, nor does he appear to be informed or even particularly interested about much.

Is she too liberal to be elected? I think the answer will only be determined if she were to campaign. And when she would debate GWB (if that campaign came about). And it seems quite evident to me that in any debate, Hillary Clinton would annihilate GWB.

She is smarter than these other people. But then again, Edwards or Kerry would make GWB look foolish in a debate as well. As did Gore. But Gore had less than zero "charisma". This cannot be said about Bush, Kerry, Edwards or Hillary Clinton. Gore was very special in his ability to make people feel he was capable but just not quite "human". It cost him the election. (And STILL he managed to get more popular votes than Bush).

Bush is very vulnerable to any Dem candidate. It will be an interesting race.

Other factors in Hillary's favor: Women voters. And a backlash effect over her husband's impeachment. Plus she will also get some degree of a "sympathy" vote as she will always be seen as a victim of her husbands infidelity.

She will be shut out of the hard core republican states. But so will any Dem candidate. But unlike Gore, she could easily carry states like Ohio (severely depressed economy). Tennessee, and Arkansas. And of course, Florida.

She is perhaps the most interesting of all American political figures right now. Consider all she has gone through. What she has accomplished. What she was subjected to. What she has overcome.

I truly think that Bush is capable of losing as an incumbent to Edwards, Kerry or Clinton. He is running out of time to re-establish his popularity. He is not strong on any fronts. Not the economy, not the "war on terror", and certainly not on his seeming lack of control of his own administration. And of course, his seeming disinterest in the job will hurt him. I personally perceive the guy as a man who really has no particular interest in his job. It is more his ego and arrogance that makes him want to be re-elected. Not his desire to actually BE the President.

Peace,
RS

 

[slammajamma]

Error, here's a woman who speaks her mind, had the audacity to try and tell the congressional (male) incumbency what the deal was, had the ear of the world's most powerful man for 8 years straight, and is a liberal.

Is it any wonder that conservatives, regardless of gender think Hillary is the devil incarnate?

Guys like Maverick74 and AAA need a bib just at the mention of her name.

Remember the ERA amendment vote? More than 1/2 of women were against it.

 

[BloodTrader]

Quote from Error 404:


This is going to be a hard fought campaign no matter who the Dem nominee is.

You greatly underestimate the power of the right. They have a huge war chest. They will stop at nothing to win. End justifies the means. They have control of much of the media now. Bush will win.

m

 

[ARogueTrader]

No party wins with the type of defeatist mentality as you express.

Quote from MackieMesser:

You greatly underestimate the power of the right. They have a huge war chest. They will stop at nothing to win. End justifies the means. They have control of much of the media now. Bush will win.

m