The official kickoff to the 2008 Edwards for President Campaign! - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-10-2004, 07:16 AM   #91
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:40 AM
Edwards did win the South Carolina primary. The guy was too much of a novice, an unknown, to win; Senator Kerry has been around 20 years and the people wanted a known quality. North Carolina is a rock-solid Republican state, and it's kind of strange that someone like him could even win a Senate race there. I have family in North Carolina, and they are diehard Republicans. They are always teasing my mother, who's a diehard liberal. They are on my mother's side of the family. No one ever expected Senator Kerry to carry the Carolinas. Democrats don't carry them when they win. They went for Bush Sr. and Dole when Clinton was getting elected. I don't expect conservatives to like the guy as he's not exactly one of them. His ADA score is lower than Kerry's (70% to Kerry's 85%), thus he's less liberal, but still too much of one to appeal to rock-solid conservatives. C'est la vie.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 11-10-2004, 05:07 PM   #92
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 05:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
And for Hillary - will another liberal from the Northeast really be the DNC's best bet?
Hillary is from Arkansas isn't she? She moved to New York to get elected as a senator. She's a smart woman, but I'd think you need someone much more moderate than her.
__________________

__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 11-10-2004, 05:44 PM   #93
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe


Hillary is from Arkansas isn't she? She moved to New York to get elected as a senator. She's a smart woman, but I'd think you need someone much more moderate than her.
You might be a bit surprised at the number of liberals who don't particularly want her as the Democratic nominee. In fact, *this* liberal doesn't even think she can win the nomination because she's divisive and controversial. She was born in Illinois, established residency in Arkansas and now represents New York in the Senate. It takes more than brains to win the hearts and minds of an electorate.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 11-10-2004, 11:34 PM   #94
The Fly
 
Stonewall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Manhattan, N.Y.
Posts: 152
Local Time: 04:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe


Hillary is from Arkansas isn't she? She moved to New York to get elected as a senator. She's a smart woman, but I'd think you need someone much more moderate than her.
Hillary Rodham was born and raised in the "blue" state of Illinois; however, at that time, she was Republican. Hillary only married an Arkansanian. Like our Verte, Hillary comes from a Republican family even though she herself is now a Democrat. Personally, I believe that is a plus as the person can see things from "Both Sides Now". Remember, famous Republicans such as Ronald Reagan, Frank Sinatra, Charlton Heston, Dick Cheney, Rudy Giuliani, et al. were ALL formerly Democrats!

Verte, we know that Johnny Edwards won the Dem primary in South Carolina; it's the only one he won. But, as U must know, we are talking about the actual presidential election. Thus, Edwards could not deliver his born (SC) or home (NC) states. Most people believe that a chief reason why JE was chosen to run as the V.P. nominee -- besides that he doesn't look like one of the scary extras in Michael Jackson's "Thriller" video -- is that he could "help" with the South. Edwards did not!
__________________
Stonewall is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 05:49 AM   #95
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:40 AM
Well, first of all, Stonewall, I'm not really from a Republican family because my parents are staunch liberals! Most of the rest of my family is Republican, however, and they think we're nuts. They may be right. After all, we're crazy artists. When Kerry picked Edwards the press rightly said "not even the most romantic Democrat thinks this ticket can carry North Carolina". They felt like he could help in some swing states with big conservative areas, like Ohio, which has a liberal north and a conservative south. But as U2democrat pointed out the running mate hasn't impacted the election since 1960. OK, maybe Fritz Mondale didn't hurt Jimmy Carter in 1976. Carter had a tough time up east, barely carrying New York, and some thought the liberal Mondale helped him there. But usually the running mate doesn't have much of an impact on states carried. I don't think Clinton carried Tennessee because of Gore, for example. I think he carried Tennessee on his own strengths as a candidate. Like I said I don't expect any conservatives to be impressed with the guy. But, not all of his fans are from the female gender. If Howard Dean gets the chairmanship of the DNC we'll see some changes for sure, and maybe some new people will be prominent by 2008. Some of the current stars may be written off as "old guard" or whatever. We'll see.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 05:51 AM   #96
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 09:40 AM
i find it interesting that this is the only thread you post in.

People do NOT vote for the vice presidential candidate! I never once believed he would deliver the south, and I know that as a southerner! In fact, I lobbied one of Kerry's top aides for months to put Edwards on the ticket, knowing that he could not deliver the south. He has other qualities, you know.
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 07:51 AM   #97
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:40 AM
For that matter, I'm a Southerner also. Edwards has alot of appeal to liberal Southerners. It's interesting that this is the only thread you're posting in. You've just got problems with Edwards. Fair enough, all political candidates are fair game for pickets, protests and objections. But we're not disagreeing with you just because we're females who think the guy is sexy or whatever. If I judged political candidates based on their looks my voting history would be different, trust me. Good looks is an asset in show business, but it's probably a liability in politics.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 02:10 PM   #98
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 04:40 AM
I thought this was a great article for the future no matter the nominee.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/emb...the_divide.php
Embracing The Divide
David Corn
November 11, 2004
...
And what further convinced me there was no cause for the anti-Bush partisans to soften their language was history. This week I have been attending a conference hosted by the USC Annenberg Institute for Justice and Journalism for its ten 9/11 Security and Liberty Fellows (of which I am one). One of our first speakers was Joyce Appleby, a noted historian. She focused on the rise and fall of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. And it was as if she was describing the present. Not that the Bush is going to throw his critics into jail. But she reminded us that the 1790s was a time of extreme partisanship. As Appleby described it, the Federalists generally wanted the people (that is, white male landowners) to vote for the rulers and then leave the governing to an enlightened ruling class that ought to be revered and trusted. But the French Revolution fired up Americans—including Thomas Jefferson—and persuaded them that common folks could play a greater role, and that included criticizing elected leaders. Jefferson and others formed the Republican Party to oppose the Federalists. And the politics of the day were passionate and harsh, with sharp and scurrilous accusations routinely hurled. Republican newspapers lambasted Federalists, and—gasp—even denigrated a “toothless” George Washington. Men who had fought with one another in the Continental Army but who now were on different sides crossed the street rather than have to tip their hat to the other.

President John Adams and his Federalist allies in Congress—aghast that the riffraff was questioning the motives and actions of officeholders—passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which gave Adams the power to imprison or deport aliens he deemed a threat and which made it a crime to criticize government officials. Republican newspaper editors were indicted and their papers were shut down. Not a single one was publishing by the spring of 1800. A New York congressman was arrested for petitioning against the sedition law. Thomas Cooper, a prominent journalist, went to jail for writing that Adams was “hardly in the infancy of political mistakes.” A typical punishment under the sedition law was two years imprisonment and a $2,000 fine (which would be an $80,000 fine today). When Moreau de Mery, an owner of a bookstore, was threatened with deportation, he attempted to learn how he had offended the Adams administration. Adams offered this explanation: “He’s just too French.” (Sound familiar?)

Talk about a bitter partisan divide. And Adams’ extreme tactics didn’t work. Thomas Jefferson and his Republican Party won power in 1800, and the Alien and Sedition Acts were repealed or allowed to expire. The dissenters in jail were released. Republican newspapers were revived and flourished. The politics, though, remained bare-knuckled—and worse. Duels were popular. Three-quarters of them, Appleby said, were political. A congressional dueling grounds existed in Maryland. (A field trip for Zell Miller?) The intense partisanship—sparked by Jefferson—did not fade. And today he is on the nickel.

The disputes at the turn of America’s first century were significant and focused on fundamental issues of governance. The arguments of today are just as consequential. Should a president be allowed to get away with launching an elective war on the basis of untrue assertions? How best can the nation protect itself from real threats? Should the wealthy receive tax cuts while poverty increases? Should the administration be permitted to do nothing about global warming? If this is not the stuff of passionate discourse, then what is? Applying her reading of history to the present, Appleby remarks, “It is up to the opposition to be as strong and clear as the Jeffersonian opposition. A lot of responsibility belongs to the party that lost.” Democrats and other Bush foes need to preserve the profound split in American politics, celebrate it and figure out how to win over a majority to their side of the gulf. There’s nothing wrong with divisiveness in politics. It is a grand tradition that ought to inspire today’s Democrats. But in the spirit of reaching out, I am willing to make one concession: Let’s all agree—no sedition laws and no duels.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 03:19 PM   #99
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:40 AM
Great article. If the Republicans think we lefties are just going to sit around, twiddle our thumbs and placidly acquiesce to a national leadership we really do not support for four more years, they've got a heck of a shock in store. We don't speak that language. Protesting is as American as God, mother and apple pie.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 03:22 PM   #100
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:40 AM
That's great

But I think there should be a self assessment of what was accomplished over the last 4 years
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-12-2004, 08:33 AM   #101
The Fly
 
Stonewall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Manhattan, N.Y.
Posts: 152
Local Time: 04:40 AM

U-2 Dem, U are very observant. I luv it! U're right (sorry about that pun) that I haven't posted elsewhere yet. I have to make quite a time point to at least post here for the time being. After all, this is the aftermath and future of the current timely topic: President!


roll: Ironically, another positive outcome of the Election of 2004 is that I found out about this website through someone on it who must have visited the website for my organization, the STONEWALL Veterans' Association (use search engine Overture). The person rather smartly extrapolated a photo of one of our honorary members, namely America's Mayor Rudy Giuliani. The photo -- the cover of Time mag -- is on this thread! So many people visited it that it showed up in the SVA's statistics. I'd gladly post the SVA website address but the policy here on U-2 is that U have to first post "15" times (who came up w/ that odd #?) before U provide any website links. So, now U know how I got here and why, to date, I've only been on this file.


Scarlet Wine, your essay is well-written and sedately witty, but that historian Joyce, of course, left out one major overlooming factor that we didn't have in 1798 with the Alien & Sedition Law and that we have now -- besides electricity, cars, planes, radios, tv's, phones, beepers, computers, cellphones, DVD's, etc. The answer is the Arab Muslim extremist coward terrorists stealing our American commercial jetliners and with our American citizen passengers on board and insanely crashing these hugest planes into our landmark buildings -- and open fields -- causing great loss of life, vile injuries, billions in damage, 100,000 jobs, etc. Since Sept. 11th, I, for one, have never flown on a plane.
__________________
Stonewall is offline  
Old 11-12-2004, 09:05 AM   #102
The Fly
 
Stonewall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Manhattan, N.Y.
Posts: 152
Local Time: 04:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Verte76
....But we're not disagreeing with you just because we're females who think the guy is sexy or whatever. If I judged political candidates based on their looks, my voting history would be different, trust me. Good looks is an asset in show business, but it's probably a liability in politics.
Girlz, "beauty is usually in the eye of the beholder". Prez BUSH is definitely good-looking; in fact, I'd say cute! He's also well-built, athletic, virile, etc. We can't say any of that about Johnny Boi Edwards. Remember, one of U-2 Girlz honestly and accurately posted herein that Johhny Boi's too-many-double cheeseburgers (with Freedom Fries and shakes) are going to his emerging stomach and expanding waistline. Next up, having three sisters, I first triple-checked with them, too. Don't U Girlz who go for looks in a political candidate also consider other assets such as endowment and butt. From what I've gathered or observed, the 2 Dem candidates lacked both!! I believe most straight women would find strutting BUSH more attractive and much hotter than a hair color kinda femme guy with a girly combover and too much daytime make-up.

Verte, if U think looks doesn't matter or is a liability (not!) in politics, don't despair. While it obviously doesn't -- and can't -- always, think handsome and great hair Prez Kennedy in 1960 and handsome, good hair and very muscular Governator Ahnold a year ago!
__________________
Stonewall is offline  
Old 11-12-2004, 09:14 AM   #103
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 09:40 AM
Oh Mr. Edwards has a nice butt, trust me, I've checked it out in person
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 11-12-2004, 09:30 AM   #104
The Fly
 
Stonewall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Manhattan, N.Y.
Posts: 152
Local Time: 04:40 AM
Johnny Boi Edwards' Butt!

Quote:
Originally posted by U2 Democrat
Oh, Mr. Edwards has a nice butt, trust me, I've checked it out in person
I ass-ume that when U write that U find it "interesting that U only post on this file" that U are referring to me? If so, I'm gald that U find me interesting. That's nice to read. Although not with the majority on Election Day, IMHO, U are in the majority on this one about me.

U-2 Dem, I do trust U, especially on JE's butt. Having said that, he should have taken his jacket off while campaigning. It could have made a difference in the "swing state" of O-HI-O! If U recall, and I'm sure U do, BUSH was frequently ripping his jacket off -- if he even wore one -- and tossing it. He's no fool.
__________________
Stonewall is offline  
Old 11-12-2004, 09:33 AM   #105
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 09:40 AM
There were times when he campaigned with his jacket off. We have a whole thread of pictures dedicated to him, and many of them are of him rolling up his sleeves. We all agreed in that thread that if Kerry wanted to win all the campaign needed to do was put out a John Edwards calendar.


It's all tongue in cheek of course.
__________________

__________________
U2democrat is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com