In 2004 they had Kerry. In 2008 it will be Hillary or Obama... how do they always find the biggest losers? Is there a contest?
2007-07-16 17:09:51 · 21 answers · asked by Mike 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I gotta agree with ya. Bill Clinton is the only good candidate they have had in the past 30 years.
2007-07-16 17:13:16 · answer #1 · answered by beren 7 · 3⤊ 7⤋
Sen. Hillary Clinton is hardly a loser, and neither is Obama. It's funny, the Republicans are the ones who are wringing their hands because they haven't got a viable candidate that can beat her, yet it's the Democrats that have a problem? They have the best field by far, and it's obvious to everyone, even those who can't stand to admit it out loud. Every Republican from coast to coast is praying that Thompson runs because he's the only one who has a shot in hell at beating her. And he's been too lazy to get off duff and mount a campaign!
2007-07-17 00:18:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
It's seems they have there own rural of order for how they want us citizens to live.Like trying to sell us the amnesty bill for our own good.They all voted for it they all wanted it. They can go down with it.Who in there right frame of mind could except what they tried to do an vote for them.The Rep++ at least had a enough sense to not vote for it.Bush doesn't vote so he doesn't count.I sure hope someone drops down from above an gives us some hope.Or We the people are going to play heck with the phone service.
2007-07-17 00:23:17 · answer #3 · answered by 45 auto 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Same as any political party. Decent, intelligent, honest people don't get into politics. What you get are the ones that can talk the talk you want to hear. The ones that reach the most, win.
2007-07-17 00:58:06 · answer #4 · answered by Captain Happy Pants 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think the real question is: why can't ANYONE find a decent candidate? Isn't it ironic how the people you see on the news and think 'Man, that guy should run for President!', is never on a ticket? I think it's just that anyone with any intelligence knows better than to get involved in politics.
2007-07-17 00:15:04 · answer #5 · answered by Dekardkain 3 · 4⤊ 3⤋
The Dem field for 2008 is awesome. Obama's extremely appealing, and while I have many of my own reservations about Clinton, she's extraordinarily intelligent and organized and is more than competent for the Presidency. Not to mention Biden, Dodd, and Richardson, all of whom are eminently qualified, as well as Edwards, who is arguably the most avant-garde policy thinker running in either party.
I think you know that you're asking a specious question.
2007-07-17 00:19:32 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋
I tend to agree with you.
I feel that when the democrats present a far left liberal for their candidate it allows the republicans to offer at best a centralist instead of digging down deep for a real conservative that would stand up for America's Borders language and our culture.
2007-07-17 00:20:34 · answer #7 · answered by dam 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Because there are none, same with Republicans thou except Ron Paul
2007-07-17 00:22:27 · answer #8 · answered by ngcigar 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The guys who would make really good candidates don't want the hassle involved with running so we have to be satisfied with the glory hounds.
2007-07-17 00:18:52 · answer #9 · answered by sissyd 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
They should have chosen Dean over Kerry but the corporate jerks very paving the way for a Bush "victory." Because the cheating wouldn't have been as convincing is Bush were running against Dean.
2007-07-17 00:19:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋
I agree that Kerry was a pathetic candidate and the the Democrats should be ashamed for that. However, that being said, Kerry was still the superior candidate in the 2004 general election.
2007-07-17 00:14:10 · answer #11 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 9⤊ 6⤋