Why do the Democrats keep picking bad people to run for president?

Question

Okay we had Al Gore and John Kerry, enough said. No there's Barrack Obama and Hilary. Hilary is pure evil, and is less popular then Bush, she is cold and isolates voters in middle America. Obama is unexperienced, only votes party lines, and only tells people what they want to hear, on top of that, the media treats him like he's the savior (we as Amercians should always be skeptical of what the media tells us to believe). Okay, these two don't look like very good candidates but they're the best two! Do the democrats have anyone else, that is electicible for 2008? Why must they keep shooting themselves in the foot?

Answer 1

I'll get thummed down for this. Hell. I'll probably get reported.
Kerry would have been ok. Gore would have kept the budget balanced and old folks could have afforded medication.
Obama and Clinton are dangerous Hilary has always had an agenda that put too much power in one side of the population.I'm sure the feminists will love her. Obama is just another "yes man".
I'm retired Army and I truly believe we need a candidate with some command experience. As long as we are at war I think we need a good "for the soldier" Candidate. No one, on either party, so far, has it.
It's not just the Democrats that shoot themselves in the foot.
Republicans have thrashed the country so bad we cant afford to live $2,400 a month in medication bills. not medical bills. just medication, is what I pay for my mother. Who dropped the ball?
We need someone with balls enough to tell the big corporations to STFU. We need someone that wont be pushed or controlled by special interest.
You want that in a candidate who do you ask to run?
The Norman Schwartzcof type is what we need.
A man or woman with a spine that wont put up with games.

Answer 2

The elections nowadays are very polarized and both parties nominate the lesser of evils per party and turns the elections into a sucker. I'd like to tell people that if they don't feel that the Republicans or Democrats have done what they had to do, then they should all vote for a third party candidate. 1/3 of the Americans are independent and if that were put into play, then many elections would be very tight, even in some safe states. Having a candidate like Perot gather enough votes from the duopoly in each state would make states like California or New York closer than they are now. I think that the Democrats should nominate either Edwards/ Obama or Clinton/ Obama. It would be easy now to say who you vote for but I think the smart voters wait a while, read each candidate's platforms on issues that concern them the most and vote. So if you say that you vote for Clinton now but in the primaries you vote for Obama or Edwards, it could confuse you. Just vote with your heart but make sure the candidate represents you the best. Happy Holidays to all!

Answer 3

The Dems have a basic problem -- they have no clue what they stand for.

Like it or not, most of the GOP is conservative, and most of them still subscribe to Reagan's ideas, or maybe the Contract For America.

However, the Dems are really badly split. You've got the Kennedy liberals. You've got the Clinton wing. Now you have the Blue State Dems. One of Kerry's many problems is that he couldn't articulate policy on things like Iraq because his own party couldn't articulate a policy (and still can't). Al Gore was in a similar spot, trying to reach out to both his liberal base while trying to keep the Clinton middle.

Worse yet, the Dems keep nominating Senators and former Sentators. Since 1922 or so, the only Senators that have won a Presidential election are either running against Senators (Kennedy, Nixon, etc) or an incumbent (Truman). If the Dems nominate a Senator, then their voting record will be picked apart. Witness Kerry having to say "I voted for it before I voted against it", and the current scrutiny on Obama's and Hillary's voting record.

The Dems need to find a non-Senator, or hope that the GOP runs a Senator (McCain, and that won't happen) too. They also need some sort of unity in their ideology, and I just don't see that happening.

Answer 4

You have some good ideas here, as far as I'm concerned, though you could have gone a bit more in depth about some of it. Foreign policy, for example. I agree with what you said, but you didn't say enough. You didn't tell us anything about true foreign policy, rather you told us about Iraq, oil and a major environmental issue... Expand your thesis a bit. As for who you should vote for... Personally, I vote Dem, but only because the world has had enough GOP destruction over the past 8 years and we need a break. Run yourself? Anyone, no matter how altruistic, who seeks to have so much power as is given to the American president is, by their very nature, corrupt and therefor unworthy of trust. So you run for pres if you like, but doing so will lose the respect of the people you may have previously won, or gained in the future. Just become a political activist. Think Martin Luther King Jr. and others...

Answer 5

As much as they claim to avoid 'Ideological' candidates, the fact is everyone has an ideology and votes based on it. The Democrat candidates are not 'bad people' according the the ideology of most Democrats. The real question is which ideology do most voters identify more closely with. That is the real factor in most elections.

Answer 6

Not that there bad canididates the democrat presidental contenders as with the republican. Money buys elections is the sad part for both parties. Your not selling a vision, and purpose for the country or desity. The presidental canidates are Pollitcally correct car salemen or ladies than visionaries most times. Elections will be closer now than years ago because of technology, and the fast flow of information will give no big advantage to cannidates anymore.

Answer 7

The Democrats continue to choose bad people to run for president for the same reason that the Republicans do; it's all smoke and mirrors. The facade that Americans have a choice for president has been carefully contrived and implemented by the "inner circle". If all the money spent by political parties during election campaigns was used on poverty instead, it would make a huge dent on worldwide hunger. Instead the millions of dollars are spent on the continual misleading of American Citizens. We are fools and will ultimately pay the price for our ignorance.

Answer 8

I don't think they were bad candidates at the time they were chosen. After the republican thrashing they quickly bacame bad, with a little help from bad decisions like Gore getting in Bush's face during that debate, but if you take away the slander and lies from the right, John Kerry was a very good candidate...

Answer 9

Cause the Rep. do the same. Are they doing the same thing? One party is just as bad as the other. So where do we go? An independent again? My idea that we need a different kind of leadership. What we had wasnt worth a damn. I say shoot both parties in the foot and see who will recover and run for cover.

Answer 10

I really think they're going to blow a perfectly good opportunity if this comes up. But Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama keep pushing leectable people out of the race, like Evan Bayh and Mark Warner its too bad for them because they probably had a good chance to get a democrat in.