<p>Democrats Rule!!!!!!!!! Yeah</p>
<p>I agree....yeah :)</p>
<p>Although I'm not a democrat...just liberal.</p>
<p>futurenyustudent- It's from past experience that the majority of Democrats I meet are anti-globalization</p>
<p>I'm not a democrat.</p>
<p>I'm a left wing liberal independent.</p>
<p>Yeah, well, I begin to think of overvaluing the democracy as the US government presents it. Here's an example of 'democratic evangelism' dialogue:</p>
<p>US - Guys, how about we'll do a democracy in your country?
Iraq/Ukraine/Georgia/etc - Well, you know, we don't really want it coz we don't really feel like it.
US - Shut up! Democracy is not a privilege! You will be a democratic country even if you don't want it and we will send a couple thousands of planes to help you in the process.</p>
<p>If we're talking about democrats party here then yes, I'm more inclined on their side. Even though there are some things that I clearly don't support (gay marriages for example) I think it's better than wars.
I clearly think that democrats will win if not next election then the election after that. My topic in 8th grade project was on this thing: balance of democratic-republican domination. Basically, the idea is that each side has it's own positive features and country can't fall to neither democratic nor republican extremes.</p>
<p>well as long as you dont like Noam Chomsky or support Tobin Tax...</p>
<p>
[quote]
I clearly think that democrats will win if not next election then the election after that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're wrong on that. Democrats seem to have horrible taste in selecting their candidates. The party has a whole sometimes baffles me in its actions. This isn't political at all; republicans are just performing better at a political game. John Kerry was a complete mistake in 2004, but the democrats won't even learn from that.</p>
<p>Watch, they'll nominate Hilary. Republicans will nominate someone like McCain or Guliani. Hilary will be absolutely destroyed in the 2008 presidential election. Hopefully republicans "settle" for McCain in the primary, realizing that if they go for a true 100% conservative, he will fail in the election.</p>
<p>Democrats don't do this. They nominate the 2nd most liberal member of the senate (Kerry), and try to push him off as a "middle of the road" (COUGH FLIPFLOPPER COUGH) candidate. I hope they nominate Ted Kennedy for 2008 lol. That would be a rofl.</p>
<p>Democrats are so dumb. The Republicans keep making mistake after idiotic mistake, and the democrats just stand around shaking and whispering to each other, "Oh my god what do I do? Should I take advantage of the situation? What if something goes wrong? What if nobody likes me? What if someone brings up religion? Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...."</p>
<p>And Ted Kennedy will never get nominated. He'll never even run becuase of his driving history.</p>
<p>Also, it would almost be worth having a psyco like hillary as president just to see what Bill would do in the whitehouse a second time</p>
<p>join the facebook group "liberals have better sex"</p>
<p>Liberals have sex? Sorry, but hillary clinton and Janet reno are huge turnoffs for me. Ann Coulter is an idiot, but at least she's hot.</p>
<p>She has an Adam's apple..she's a man baby.</p>
<p>At least she has shape, unlike janet reno.</p>
<p>Yeah, well, Bill Clinton is a pimp.</p>
<p>Maybe bill's the whore and hillary is his pimp. that would make more sense to him</p>
<p>Laura Ingraham? Diana Irey? Heather Locklear? Yvette Rachelle? Martina McBride? Lauren Bush? Bo Derek?</p>
<p>Wow I would. I didn't know she was so hot.</p>
<p>but i have to pay to see pictures of her on her site. what kind of operation is she running there?</p>
<p>To win this election, the Democrats need to nominate John Edwards. While I'm not a huge fan (he's kind of inexperienced, but of course anyone would be better than George), he has the best chance of winning because he's a southerner (from NC) like Clinton and has small children, making him more approachable.</p>
<p>Too many people hate Hillary, and while I love her, there's just too much opposition and she doesn't have enough support to win against the Republicans.</p>
<p>Lieberman needs to step out of the race to help ensure a Democratic victory. Running on the Independent ticket will just take valuable votes away from the Dems like Nader did in '00. </p>
<p>The Democrats have a tendency to screw themselves over. If they presented a united front (something they historically never do, unfortunately), they'd naturally have a much better chance of winning.</p>
<p>..dear God, please, please, let them win..lol</p>
<p>
[quote]
John Edwards
[/quote]
Democrat's best chance is Lieberman. One of the few Democrats with character. America will never elect a bottom feeding scumbag like Edwards.</p>
<p>I prefer Lieberman tenfold over Edwards, but realistically an amiable southerner with cute kids has a better chance of winning the election as opposed to a northern and more intensely inellectual Jewish guy, and a Democratic win is the most important thing here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Lieberman needs to step out of the race to help ensure a Democratic victory. Running on the Independent ticket will just take valuable votes away from the Dems like Nader did in '00.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Lieberman won't step out though. Quite frankly Lamont doesn't really have anything to stand for besides his Iraq stance; he's a single-issue candidate. I don't agree with most of Lieberman's views, but I actually like him. He's levelheaded, experienced, and wise.</p>
<p>Lieberman will win the Connecticut senate seat as an independent.</p>
<p>John Edwards just seems like only a pretty face to me. I just can't get past my perception of him as a complete talking head. He seems like a modern version of JFK, except with much less of a brain.</p>
<p>I think nominating Edwards would be screwing the democrats over, not saving them. He would be alright as a VP on the ticket for someone again like Lieberman in order to secure a few southern (even though he probably wouldn't carry many) states and even more younger vote. But, they need someone really experienced for president. Not someone "experienced" like John Kerry. Not another old new england ultra liberal. Someone like Lieberman is perfect.</p>