<p>Hillary's too much of an oportunist, like the guy who went to South Dakota to defeat Dashle. You really shouldn't move to a state just to run for office.</p>
<p>I'm switching to democrat</p>
<p>Edwards is a bottom feeding trial lawyer. America said no to the two faced traitor in 2K4. What makes you think they won't reject Edwards?</p>
<p>My point is that Edwards would certainly appeal more to the average voter--he's an "everyguy" type of candidate, and the Democrats need that wide audience to score a win.</p>
<p>Lieberman is just too, frankly, intellectual. As much as I respect him as a politician, he's not the right candidate for this election.</p>
<p>I dislike Edwards as well. But, I think he fits the mold that would be good for a democratic VP candidate for 2008. America said no to Kerry, not Edwards. With a reasonable candidate running for president, the democrats would have won and Edwards would have served his purpose on the ticket well.</p>
<p>Lieberman has a spine, and he is an honorable man.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Lieberman will win the Connecticut senate seat as an independent.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is it possible that, after this primary and after his fellow democratic senators have publicly turned their backs on him, Liberman is sick of being a Democrat and will permantly become an Independent? It's not like the republican will ever win that race, so he'll either lose it or win it, and not be a spoiler.</p>
<p>But Liberman was the Democrat's best chance at ever moving into the white house again. If he and Gore switched spots, he would already be living there. But in all reality, who in the democrats has a real chance of winning? Pelosi could, but she needs to become more of a public figure (will help if she becomes Speaker). Obama maybe, but I get the impression he's moving left very quickly. And neither of these people could beat say, a Gulliani.</p>
<p>What Democrats need is a governor, as former governers are 4-0 in the last 4 presidential elections. Their best shot in all reality would be Montana Gov. Brian Schwitzer (I am from Montana by the way), but he is a NRA member and has cut taxes, so it's not like democrats will ever nominate him.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What Democrats need is a governor, as former governers are 4-0 in the last 4 presidential elections.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah that's true. I remember reading somewhere some explanation of why that is. Governers are used to being executives, which is what the candidate needs to be during the election. He needs to dictate and distribute power to his staff. Senators, on the other hand, are used to working with a smaller staff and they're obviously in the legislative branch. Also governers can say, "I am qualified to be president since I ran an entire state." Hmm but also senators can say that they worked on the national level in Washington, rather than on the state level.</p>
<p>If all you democrats want a democratic president, this man will win. Check out these links</p>
<p><a href="http://schweitzerforpresident.blogspot.com/%5B/url%5D">http://schweitzerforpresident.blogspot.com/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://schweitzerforpresident.com/%5B/url%5D">http://schweitzerforpresident.com/</a></p>
<p>As an independant who will go for either parties candidate that appeals to me most....the Democrat I would vote for, and that I would really like to win...is Mark Warner. One of the best Governors of Virginia, and he's used to being an executive (nextel I think)...but Id vote for him if he wins the primary</p>
<p>Well since my version of crack is playing with Dead Rising, San Andreas, and Saints Row demo, the 2 people I WON'T vote for will be Clinton and Lieberman. ;)</p>
<p>Also, Edwards: politician+used car salesman=no vote.</p>
<p>Lieberman couldn't even win the primary here in CT (although I voted for him). + I don't dislike Lamont (I especially like his more liberal views) </p>
<p>but independents rarely win...(and he's being a Nader!!! jerk! lol. Democrats really need to run the house n senate and hopefully presidency. It's time for the Republicans to step down for a little while and see if the Democrats can fix some of the wrongs. </p>
<p>I'm just afraid that Clinton (if elected to run) won't be appealing enough to Republicans to get some switch hitters lol</p>
<p>OBAMA for PREZ 2012!</p>
<p>Barak Obama is a mess and a poser. He has no chance in 2012. You heard it here first.</p>
<p>whats up with barack?</p>
<p>obama wont have a chance for a good while....his race and his age will play heavily into that...maybe a couple of elections down the road</p>
<p>his race and his age?!? this is 2006 not 1959</p>
<p>mr pink, why do you say he has no chance?</p>
<p>haha, yea but since when have we elected a black man to run for president, and someone as young as him? It will take some time for america to warm up to that</p>
<p>mmm, i think we're ready.
by the way, you totally lost the argument on that other thread.</p>