Edwards is the only one that has the slightest shot at defeating Dubya

[Jacknife]

And even his chances don't look so good. Can't the democrats get better candidates then these?

[maddezmom]

1. so is Edwards your candidate? n/t

[Jacknife]

3. No

n/t

[AP]

5. Is your candidate Bush?

[Jacknife]

7. No

Why, just because I don't support Edwards I support Bush?

[AP]

14. Just asking. It's a reasonable quetion.

[Jacknife]

16. Ok

What's the deal with all of those pictures?

[AP]

20. I'll cut it down later today.

But I really like them all.

[Jacknife]

2. kick

n/t

[creativelcro]

6. was that posted before or after drinking the beer ?? :)

[Jacknife]

9. I guess after

I have been drinking for 15 years so I say after.

[AWD]

13. It's not working....

...time to stop drinking.

[Jacknife]

15. Who are you to tell me I shouldn't drink?

n/t

[creativelcro]

18. it figures: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/05/1070351768518.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/05/1070351768518.html

Keep doing it... The R. party needs people like you :)

>>
I have been drinking for 15 years so I say after.

[AP]

4. I agree with part of this.

I think many Democrats here are way overestimating the abitlity of Dems to win in 2004. I think they underestimate the media whoreishness, and the Bush strategies.

However, I think in many ways Edwards is the ideal candidate for the times and for the opposition. I don't think the advantages he has are apparent to many right now because of the nature of the campaign at this stage (he's running against other Dems at this point).

But I think that if he gets nominated, these strengths will quickly dawn on people.

[HuckleB]

8. So you're not a Democrat?

Sorry, this field of candidates is exemplary. The GOP has not had a field of this quality in my lifetime. The Dems haven't had a field of this quality in many years. What on earth are you talking about?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AP]

17. You're right.

This is a great field.

I can't think of many more Democrats whom I'd love to hear from.

It would be cool if Hal Ford were running, or Debbie Stabenow, or Ruth Ann Minner.

But, really, there aren't many more I'd like to see running. At least four of these Democrats would make very fine presidents.

[PVnRT]

10. OK...

Can you back it up or are you just bored?

[VermontDem2004]

12. Didn't you post another thread saying the exact same thing?

:shrug:

[prolesunited]

19. Who did you vote for

in the last election? What do you think of Bill Clinton? Do you think we should run Hillary in '08 or put her in the race now? Who would you like to see on the Dem ticket?

[creativelcro]

21. he voted for Bush, obviously.

[Jacknife]

22. Irrelevant

You are changing the subject, the fact is Edwards is the only one who has a chance to beat Dubya.

[BigMcLargehuge]

23. locking ... again.

please review the rules for posting a new thread in GD before posting a new thread in GD. And reposting threads identical to those locked is a no-no.

Thanks

1. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include profanity, excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation. Inflammatory rhetoric should also be avoided.

3. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

4. If you wish to start a vanity thread (ie: a discussion thread in which the sole purpose is to share your personal opinion) you must state your opinion in a non-inflammatory manner which respects differences in opinion and facilitates actual discussion.

5. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.