2004 HillaryClinton v GeorgeWBush - Hillary would have won by __ votes.

[blm]

With the 2004 media climate still in protect the Bushboy mode, with Bill Clinton and most Dem senators aligned with Bush on Iraq, and with Terry McAuliffe's targetted state strategy in place, what would you guess the outcome of a Hillary-Bush race would have been?

In 2004, Hillary Clinton v George W Bush would have resulted in __________________.



As way of reference, there were approx. 120-125million votes cast for Dem and GOP candidate in 2004.

[AndyTiedye]

1. The Wingnuts Would Have Turned Out By The Busload to Vote Against Hillary

Bush** might not even have had to steal it.

[wyldwolf]

2. they turned out in busloads to vote against Kerry

Bush - most votes of any presidential candidate. Ever. 2004.

[ProSense]

3. Democrats turned out in busloads to vote for Kerry, most votes ever for a Democrat. n/t

[wyldwolf]

8. yeah, so? Pretty common knowledge. Fact is....

...that would have been the case with ANY Dem.

[ProSense]

13. No, only the nominee. The assumption is that she would have made it out of the primaries. n/t

[wyldwolf]

15. the assumption is pretty well grounded.

[ProSense]

17. Yeah, because all the candidates

in this race made it out of the primaries. :sarcasm:

[ProSense]

4. If she could have done better, why didn't she run? n/t

[wyldwolf]

10. who said she could have done better?

[blm]

19. McAuliffe has been saying the only problem in 2000 and 2004 were

Gore and Kerry's campaigns. He said any Democrat should've beaten Bush by 10% in both years. Excuse me, but Bill Clinton never even beat a GOP by 10% even when he had all the media power of the presidency to make his case.

[wyldwolf]

21. I distinctly remember Kerry fighting back against the swift boaters like a mad man...

... or not.

[blm]

24. I remember all the BIGNAME Dems who sided with Bush and never showed up to defend Kerry

on the nightly shows the way Giuliani, McCain and Dole showed up for Bush and defended him.

Do you?

[wyldwolf]

28. Really? During the swiftboating of Kerry, name one BIGNAME Dem who sided with Bush?

[blm]

34. They sided w/Bush on policy and DIDN'T show up to defend Kerry on the swifts

or any other issue while Bush had Giuliani, McCain and Dole on tv almost every night sticking up for him and attacking Kerry.

[wyldwolf]

40. Post 21. My comment was on the swiftboating. Name one Dem who sided with Bush?

ya got nothing. As usual.

But since you want to go in that direction, tell me the Dems who sided with Bush against Kerry on the campaign issues of 2004.

[blm]

43. Bill and Hillary Clinton stayed closer to Bush on terror and Iraq than they did Kerry.

And name the bigname Democrats who showed up to counter Giuliani, McCain and Dole on tv the last two months of the campaign.

[wyldwolf]

45. really? Show me a point by point comparison with examples.

[blm]

49. You know it's true. There were plenty of threads on DU the past 4 years furious about it.

Only recently has Hillary even attempted to move away from Bush.

[wyldwolf]

50. ya got nothing! You can state a "fact" but you can't back it up.

[blm]

67. You can't cite the many times bigname Dems COUNTERED Giuliani, McCain and Dole

YOU are the one making a claim that bigname Dems did show up to dfend Kerry and attack Bush on all the nightly shows.

I and most of DU would say that they stayed away off the nightly shows during the last two months of the campaign while the bigname GOPs were there almost every night for Bush.

[wyldwolf]

96. I don't HAVE to 'cause I've made no claim to the contrary..but you have!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. don't forget the bin Laden tape

they turned out in buslaods to support the president- Bush happened to be the guy, but it was 'anti-Islam, pro-American, remember 9/11' busses.

[wyldwolf]

11. right - and any Dem candidate would have suffered electorally.

[blm]

7. Yeah, and 5 million of his votes were Kerry's. Terry Mac sure can secure an election, eh?

.

[wyldwolf]

14. and 5 million would have been Hillary's. You sure are getting desperate

...what should be call this? Alternate-History-retroactive-Clinton bashing. LOL!

[blm]

22. Why? Because you believe if Hillary was the nominee then, McAuliffe would've done his job

and secured the election for 2004? McAuliffe would've taken the election fraud seriously in 2000 and worked to secure the elections in 2002 and 2004 if he knew Hillary would be the nominee?

[wyldwolf]

25. Why do you presume to tell me what I believe? As usual, BLM, ya got nothing...

...but conspiracy theories and a lot of time to formulate them.

[blm]

27. McAuliffe said any Dem should've won by 10%. All you have to do is answer would Hillary

have won by 10% had all the SAME 2004 factors been in play for her as they were for Kerry?

[wyldwolf]

29. I've already answered that question. Post 8

[blm]

70. Hillary would have won by 10% in 2004 with the DNC's targetted state strategy.

.

[blm]

5. According to McAuliffe, Hillary would have won by 10% of the vote.

That ANY Dem should have won by 10% of the vote.

That the only reason Gore and Kerry lost was because of their bad campaigns and people didn't like them as much as they liked George Bush who everyone wanted to have a beer with.

Has anyone been listening to Terry when he gets on the RW radio shows?

[PresidentObama]

9. And we should listen to Terry why?

2002 and 2004.

If anyone knows about losing elections it's Terry McAuliffe.

[blm]

30. According to McAuliffe's MANY radio interviews, Bush won because he's likable

and Gore and Kerry were not. And that any Dem would have won in 2000 and 2004 by 10% but most people didn't like them.

So - How many votes would have been cast for a Hillary v Bush2 race in 2004?

[PresidentObama]

56. What a load. McAuliffe shouldn't even speak.

Again, losing elections is something he's familiar with!

And Hillary is likable? I think she's alright, and I'll vote for him if she gets the nomination. But likable? I don't get that vibe from HRC.

And obviously Terry has been listening to too much media coverage where they described Gore and Kerry as likable as a wooden board.

[Clark2008]

116. Must be an awful lot of people who like "stupid."

I, to this day, haven't figured out what so likable about Bush. He's not very bright, not very attractive, can't carry on a conversation and calls everyone inane nicknames. I'd rather hang out with the people rejected from the top jock fraternity for being TOO vulgar. At least some of them can tell decent dirty jokes, if nothing else.

[zulchzulu]

76. McAuliffe must have scored some good weed recently

To say that Mrs. Clinton would have beat Bush by 10% is indeed a bong lover's hallucination. Where the f*ck would these magical votes have come from? Fiji?

[Old and In the Way]

Maybe a different outcome...

there'd have been an entirely different reaction by DNC and McAuliffe to the Ohio problem...they'd have been contesting Blackwell and the Republicans much more vigorously than they did for Kerry. I think they'd have been all over Ohio well before the election.

[The Count]

12. Hillary by the very same number of votes Kerry won. Only she may have fought

for her win. Maybe.

[blm]

16. Really? How would she explain why Bill sided with Bush's war position over hers?

Or why most of the senate sided with Bush'smilitary positions over hers?

[wyldwolf]

58. Really? That happened in the 2004 presidential season?

[wyldwolf]

18. Alternate History retro-active Clinton bashing.

via the flux capacitor in her moped, BLM has proof Clinton would not have done as well as Kerry in 2004 and is baiting us to challenge her.

Great Scott!

[ProSense]

20. Yeah, but you had no problem with post #2. n/t

[wyldwolf]

23. I stated a fact. How does that equate to not having a problem with it?

It is a FACT Bush not only got more votes than Kerry, but Bush got more votes than anyone. Ever. I'm not happy about it. But it is a fact.

[ProSense]

32. That may be, but your busload comment has nothing with the facts. n/t

[wyldwolf]

35. LOL! OK, they drove cars and SUVs, not buses.

[ProSense]

39. LOL, so did the Democrats. n/t

[wyldwolf]

42. ok. So if it's made you happy, no one showed up in buses to vote.

[blm]

26. Nope. Point is that McAuliffe didn't do his job and blames Gore and Kerry while

we are supposed to believe that if Hillary were the nominee she would have won by 10% according to McAuliffe's logic.

[wyldwolf]

31. nope! Point is blm has a new comedy routine on DU.

[PresidentObama]

38. Nice rebuttal.

Terry is that you? :eyes:

[blm]

And you have the same Clinton apologistitis. And McAuliffe apologistitis.

.

[ProSense]

41. Yeah, take that America! n/t

[oasis]

33. More women would have voted for Hill&Bill. Sorry, but Teresa Heinz is no rockstar.

Health permitting, Bill would have barnstormed the country for Hill. He's an irresistable pitch man.

[blm]

37. You mean Bill WOULDN'T have sided with Bush2 on military policy if Hillary was running

the way he sided with Bush2 on military policy PUBLICALLY while Kerry was running?

[wyldwolf]

44. Alternate History retro-active Clinton bashing.

[blm]

46. HA...you know it's true. And anything true is called bashing by you.

.

[wyldwolf]

48. because she can't win on facts, blm wants to argue "what ifs"

[blm]

51. Fact: Bigname Democrats NEVER showed up on tv during last 2 months to counter

the bigname GOPs like Giuliani, McCain and DOle who showed up almost every night to defend Bush and attack Kerry.

Name the bigname Dems who countered them in reverse.

YOU know it's true so you attack me - as usual - you can't handle the fact that some people NOTICED the failures of the entire Dem machine while Terry McAuliffe and Hillary want to put all blame only on Kerry.

[wyldwolf]

53. Is it a fact? Prove it.

[blm]

60. You know it. Only Cleland and Clark showed up regularly. And they had low name recognition.

.

[wyldwolf]

62. Cleland and Clark have LOW name recognition? LOL! LOL! ya got nothing, blm!

[PresidentObama]

65. I feel like I'm witnessing....

A 15 year old on AOL Instant Messenger.

"LOL! LOL!"

GEEZ-US.

And yes, I like Clark a lot. But he has low name recognition with the American people.

[wyldwolf]

95. I feel like I'm witnessing a couple of people not grounded in reality

[blm]

66. Low name recognition in 2004. WAY less than Giuliani, McCain and Dole. You know it

you just don't have respect for the truth when you need to jump into McAuliffe and Clinton apologista mode.

[wyldwolf]

97. Clark, at one time, was the Dem frontrunner and polled over Bush!

Talk about not respecting the truth!

[oasis]

54. If Hillary has ever said a single word in criticism of John Kerry, I'd like to know what it was.

:shrug:

[blm]

57. McAuliffe and Carville have been doing it for a long time.

They aren't speaking just for themselves.

[wyldwolf]

59. like I said before. Ya got nothing, blm.

[blm]

63. Only the truth - and you get crazed when these truths are told and kick into

gear squawking the same attacks on me over and over.

It's your MO.

[wyldwolf]

98. only wild unsubstantiated conspiracy theories - so I guess that is something!

[oasis]

61. McAluiffe spoke against Kerry during his 2004 presidential campaign?

If true, no wonder he lost.:wow:

[blm]

64. We lost because McAuliffe didn't do his job to secure the election process for 4 yrs

he was charged with doing so.

[oasis]

69. That's your answer for questions in #54 or #61?

Alrighty then. ;-)

[blm]

71. McAuliffe and Carville aren't acting in a vacuum, oasis. You know that.

They acted the way they were directed to act. A person would have to be very politically naive to believe that McAuliffe would have used the exact same strategy for Hillary in 2004 that he used for Gore and Kerry.

I would bet my house that if Hillary had been running in 2004, McAuliffe would have assured the election process had been secured and the targetted state strategy would have targetted 10 MORE states with strong measures to strengthen the infrastructures and secure the votes cast and counted.

[oasis]

83. Terry M didn't tell JK what to say about his Iraq vote that day in the Grand Canyon or tell

him to say "I voted for the 80 million before I voted against it". That was our guy, Kerry doing it to himself.

[blm]

87. Didn't Hillary vote for that 87 billion before she voted for it again?

ALL senators vote FOR one version of a bill before they vote for or against another version.

And the point is that Terry McAuliffe is badmouthing Gore and Kerry when the truth is that he did nothing to secure the election process in the years before the election and with an unsecured election PROCESS the DNC could not get all the votes they both earned counted.

Personally, I believe you wish Terry Mac and Carville were NOT trashing Gore and Kerry, but because you know they are doing it for Hillary, that makes it somewhat acceptable to you.

[oasis]

92. "Trashing Gore and Kerry"?

Harsh language.If Terry is critical of the 2000/2004 campaigns, he probably thinks it useful for him to reassure prospective campaign donors that he won't employ a losing strategy, i.e. Gore and Kerry's.

He would be foolish to claim any responsiblity for their losses.

[blm]

94. So targetted state strategy was a winner, but Gore and Kerry were big losers.

I am quite certain that Gore and Kerry would both have won if McAuliffe had done the job he promised and secured the election process so the votes they earned could be cast and counted.

[mtnsnake]

103. Don't believe any of that nonsense

She's throwing Gore into the picture only for effect because Gore is incredibly popular and Kerry isn't. Ask her for a link to show that Gore was trashed and see what happens.

[mtnsnake]

99. We lost for one reason. Kerry was pathetic as a candidate, period.

The man simply couldn't connect.

[HughBeaumont]

110. I think it was more like he wasn't comfortable lying to the people.

His campaign seemed to me like he was inches short of admitting that "corporations run this country, not the government". His promises didn't come off very convincing. I still voted for him because far too much was at stake.

I'm still going to fight like hell to keep Hillary out of the GE. I cannot support a pro-free-trader/pro job offshorer. Even with the Dem victory in 2006, I'm still not convinced she would turn one 2004 red state.

[oasis]

52. The makeup of the ticket would have been different. Gen. Clark would have

taken the lead on military policy. Bill and Hill would have focused on domestic policy and a broader foreign policy.

[blm]

68. So Bill/Hillary would NOT have sided more with Bush on military policy if SHE was running

in 2004?

They only sided more with Bush on military policy than with Kerry because she WASN'T running?

Strip it down to its basic logic and that is what it comes down to.

[oasis]

80. A different ticket changes the dynamics. An alternate strategy would likely

be put to use. As for Bill&Hill's "siding with Bush" and to what degree,would require calculating a "what if" laundry list of enormous proportions.

That being said, it's probably a question only the Dalia Lama could answer.

[blm]

82. But they DID side more with Bush on military policy than they did with Kerry. Would that

have changed if Hillary was running?


You know it would have - because they probably always were closer to Kerry on military policy but wouldn't RISK being that far apart from Bush if they were eying a 2008 run.

[oasis]

84. Please

You're argument is starting to take a turn down :tinfoilhat:Avenue .

[blm]

85. That still wouldn't change that they DID stay closer to Bush on military policy

than they did with Kerry.

You are welcome to say WHY you think they did that, just as I submit that they kept Hillary close to Bush on policy BECAUSE they were looking to a run in 2008.

So - mine is tinfoil to you. What is YOUR explanation for why they sided closer to Bush on military issues in 2003 and 2004?

[oasis]

89. Why do you assume

that I accepted your premise in the first place? "Sided closer to Bush on military issues".Your perspective on this may be entirely different from someone else's.

"Sided closer to Bush on military issues" what exactly do you mean, and to what degree?

[blm]

93. Neither said a word about Tora Bora, HRC didn't back up Kerry on Rumsfeld's firing.

but of course, none of the bigname Dems would.

And you know, we were both on the forums then, and many threads were started bemoaning how Bill was too supportive of Bush on terror and Iraq.

And Hillary has only recently begun separating herself from Bush as of last summer. But before that she was pretty much taking his side on Iraq. To what degree probably pretty close to 95%. The first time she separated herself from him was her vote for the nonbinding vague withdrawal alternative to Kerry-Feingold last summer.

[zulchzulu]

73. Actually, Teresa is a pretty solid intelligent woman

Don't diss Teresa. She does indeed rock.

[oasis]

86. I like Teresa, but she's no match for Bill when it comes to salesmanship.

That's all I'm saying. Within the context of "what if it were Hill and Bill running in 2004?"

[blm]

88. Doesn't matter - what would DNC strategy have been if Hillary was running then?

And Bill advised Kerry to support some state antigay measures that were on ballots. Thankfully, he wouldn't

But...would Bill have advised Hillary to do that?

[politicasista]

78. But she has more dignity n/t

[natrat]

36. hillary is a fraud -bush would have trounced her

If Hillary is the Democratic candidate for President, as unpopular and disliked as she is, then it is obvious that the Democrats and Rebublicans are one in the same - working together, not for the American people (as they are paid to do) but for One World Government.

By: falco on February 02, 2007 at 02:34pm

[wyldwolf]

47. Rock me, Amadeus!

[oasis]

55. Hillary ="One world government"? Who's your candidate, Lyndon Larouche?

:shrug:

[zulchzulu]

72. I assume you don't think she would have been "swiftboated"

It's kind of a silly notion to think she would have won in 2004, imho. I think the question is fairly pointless, unless you want to cream your pants that McAuliffe is a friggin' rock star with all the answers...

The mere possibility of a Clinton getting back in the White House would have mobilized the Righties even more than the lies and distortions that were hammered on Kerry.

What the question does raise is WHERE was the Clinton Machine in 2004? Certainly, we know where Carville stood on the matter on Election Eve when he told Kerry-Edwards strategies to his skanky wife, who then told the enemy.

[blm]

74. Would McAuliffe's targetted state strategy put Hillary in the WH in 2004?

That is the question. And it is asked because McAuliffe is doing radio shows, including RW radio shows where he claims Bush won because he's likable, but that Gore and Kerry should have won by 10% but their campaigns were so bad.

I believe that Gore or Kerry would be in the WH today except McAuliffe collapsed the party infrastructure so badly in so many states that the votes they earned couldn't even be counted as the DNC had no secure election process in place in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

[zulchzulu]

79. McAuliffe's 2002 election skills are enough to prove he's full of sh*t

Targeted state strategy, my buttocks... So Kerry-Edwards had no idea what states to target after? I'd like to see McAuliffe's little magic list...what a wanker.

[mtnsnake]

100. Hillary wouldn't have lost to a moron like Kerry did, & she would've fought back

against the Swift boat assholes instead of turning the other cheek until the allegations stuck.

She also wouldn't have courted a Repuke to be her running mate like what Kerry did when he wooed John McCain to be his VP. I'm just glad that McCain said no. Man, that would've been embarrassing to have a Kerry/McCain ticket. Yuk.

Kerry Woos McCain

By KURT NIMMO

John Kerry wants John McCain to be his running mate.

http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo05172004.html

[AtomicKitten]

118. It's no sillier than insisting she would have lost.

It's all speculation launched from bias. Nothing more, nothing less.

[sampsonblk]

75. Only a few

Any legitimate candidate could have beaten Bush in 2004. Only by a few votes though. He still had his die-hards on his side back then.

[politicasista]

77. Would they have had a fair and balanced media?

And a strong DNC infrastructure? Any candidate would have been swiftboated. Bush had a strong GOP base backing him up. What did the DNC do?

[sampsonblk]

90. It all boils down to fighting back

Kerry, like most candidates, had a lot of flaws. But had he just fought back at every step, he'd be in the White House now. It turns out that some voters will vote for the person who stands up for what he believes in - even if they disagree with the specifics. In an effort not to offend swing voters, Kerry (and many other Dems) fell into the trap of appearing not to have any strong beliefs. If a group shows up and says all your medals are fakes, and you say nothing, what does that say about you and your medals???

*I am not sure what you mean about fair and balanced media. I do know what we need is truthful media. Fair and balanced, in my opinion, is part of the problem.

[blm]

101. Take a trip to the DU Research Forum. Read the data on Swifts and Kerry campaign.

.

[blm]

81. With the exact same DNC targetted state strategy and no secured election process?

And the exact same media protecting Bush2?

[sampsonblk]

91. Just my opinion, but yeah

The targetted state strategy could have worked for a stronger candidate, imho. I am for the 50-state strategy, but that's more of a building process that can keep our party in power for a long time. Back in 2004, I still think a hard fighting candidate could have pulled it out by a nose. Some here still think Kerry won. It was close enough that a better campaign could have made it happen.

Remember the pro-war "reporting for duty" convention disaster. Erase that and you've got a real chance to win. Erase the "I voted for it before I voted against it" quote and I would say Kerry would have won the thing outright.

[blm]

104. At the time Kerry got great reviews on that convention speech.

And if Kerry campaigned so poorly why did BushInc have to go to such great lengths to suppress the vote, purge voter rolls and rig machines all over the country to stay in office?

The revisionism going on is BECAUSE Kerry pulled in 10-15 million more votes than in 2000, and won all 3 debates more decisively than any candidate in recent history, and held rallies that saw more people attending than for any other candidate in history.

So, after BushInc stole it, the revisionists set about tearing at Kerry IMMEDIATELY and directing ALL BLAME onto him, though it was obvious to many of us that the DNC had LIED to us when they said that election fraud would never happen again and they failed to secure the machines and the election process for the four years they were charged with doing so.

Kerry's few mistakes were NOT insurmountable. McAuliffe failing to counter the RNC's tactics of vote suppresion, purged voter rolls and their gained control of the input and output of the voting machines WAS an insurmountable mistake.

[sampsonblk]

105. I call BS on that one

The simple answer: Bush had to cheat because he and his war were so unpopular at the time of the election that any reasonable candidate could have beaten him. Fortunately for him, our side did not field a decent candidate. Hey its only an opinion. But I am definitely NOT alone in thinking this.

I am not the only die-hard Dem that saw Kerry's campaign for what it was. It was an awful strategy executed awfully. And like many others here, I voiced that opinion at the time. Revisionism? Not me.

[blm]

106. What was Kerry's awful strategy? Win the debates decisively and submit solid policy

that can effect people's lives? To keep riding Bush on his faillures at Tora Bora and keep hounding Rumsfeld's failed military strategy?

What you didn't see was a contingent of bigname Democrats showing up on the nightly shows to counter the bigname GOPs who showed up regularly for Bush - Giuliani, McCain, Dole all were there consistently to defend Bush and attack Kerry. The bigname Dems didn't show up to counter them, defend Kerry and attack Bush.

Everyone in the Dem party and leadership had jobs to do during a presidential election year - some of them didn't bother to do their part. Kerry got all the blame.

[The Magistrate]

107. Sen. Kerry, Ma'am

Failed to win the office of President in 2004, and is not running for that office now, or next year. No amount of "woulda, coulda, shoulda" is going to alter these facts.

[blm]

108. Pre-determined

I wish I had seen this at the time - William Greider in early 2003:

>>>
A darker scenario was suggested by a Democratic lobbyist who described "Team Clinton" scurrying around Washington, setting up independent money pots and "issue" fronts to pre-empt other voices and to define the broad agenda for 2004 in Clinton's New Democrat terms. The ultimate objective, in this scenario, is to prepare the ground for Senator Hillary Clinton's eventual run for the presidency (when Mr. Bill might return to the White House as First Spouse). This insider chatter sounds melodramatic and way ahead of the story, but it's not exactly paranoid fantasy. The Clinton circle is busy building things.
>>>

Gee - is this why McAuliffe never countered RNC tactics to suppress votes and didn't secure election process?

Is this why Carville and Grunwald stayed silent about WH outing Plame?

Is this why Carville tipped off Matalin that Kerry would be contesting provisional ballots in Ohio, and shortly after the number of provisional ballots dropped by 100,000?

You and your side may end up winning in 2008, but it will be an UGLY and UNCONSTITUTIONAL form of victory for the Coverup Wing of the Democratic Party that would be based on sabotage and betrayal.

[The Magistrate]

111. People Who Will Not Put Their Name On Record, Ma'am

Do not suffice for witnesses. This remains what the author himself described it as: mere melodrama. Since there are people, as you are well aware, who do not like President and Senator Clinton, even within the Party, there will always be a supply of dark tales spread about them, and when they are spread anonymously, the reason those who spread them insist on remaining nameless will be that they know their tales would stand revealed as expressions of their animus rather than accurate statement of fact and reasonable theories of events by the revelation of their identities.

[blm]

112. Yep - and you are a coincidence theorist who thinks McAuliffe just FORGOT to secure the

election process and Carville FORGOT that the wife he was telling Kerry's election night strategy was in the WH with Bush at the time. And coincidence that Shrum told Kerry campaign not to bring up BCCI, because it confused voters.

And that the bigname Dems just FORGOT that they should show up on nightly shows in the two months before election day and counter Bush's bigname GOPs defending him and attacking Kerry.

And that Carville and Grunwald KNEW the WH outed Plame but kept the secret while Joe Wilson was vilified from July 2003 as someone lying to help the Kerry campaign attack poor Bush.

Too many coincidences that all add up to sabotage, betrayal, and treason.

[The Magistrate]

119. Your Statement, Ma'am, that The Democratic Party Conspired To Defeat Its Nominee

Requires proof, if it is to be taken seriously and treated as fact, and you have failed woefully to provide any such proof.

If you imagine references to the near twenty year old scandals of the B.C.C.I. would have turned the e;lection, you are free to do so, but you are quite mistaken in that belief. More to the point, if your imagined crusading Senator John Kerry actually existed and was resolved that these matters opuight to be the focus of his effort for the Presidency, a few words from Mr. Shrum could not have stopped him: he would have been crying the matter to the housetops. You have created in your mind, Ma'am, a vision of Sen. Kerry that is as far removed from the real man as the writings of Parson Weems were of Gen. Washington.

[blm]

120. The Dem party did not - TeamClinton DID. BCCI is CURRENT and showed up again last

week in the Libby case. BCCI has been relevant EVERY DAY since 9-11, but those involved in protecting SECRECY and PRIVILEGE certainly don't want that discussed.

Do you?

And yeah - coincidence, too, that Hillary had HER book come out in 2003 during primaries and Bill had his book come out during general in 2004 - and completely exing Kerry out of important issues like normalization with Vietnam which he credited to McCain and only LISTED Kerry as someone who gave him cover, when everyone INVOLVED with that matter, including McCain all said it would never have happened without Kerry's leadership. McCain even credits Kerry with keeping him from an emotional breakdown throughout that time, but Clinton directed the credit AWAY from Kerry and unto McCain.

[SmellsLikeDeanSpirit]

102. 2004: Bush 53% vs. Clinton 46%

[Awsi Dooger]

109. More stupid comparisons to previous cycles

Bush had significant advantage in 2004, an incumbent with his party in power only one term. That's now 9 of 10 successful re-elections since 1900. I was posting that before the election, trying to get DUers to realize what we were up against. Bush had the automatic benefit of a doubt.

It takes charisma to oust an incumbent in a situation like that. I'll always believe Edwards was our only shot, and that's why I supported him on this forum and elsewhere beginning in late 2002.

[Anaxamander]

117. I still think

Edwards is our best shot. Most regular people I know love Edwards.

[MrSlayer]

113. Bush would have legitimately won.

Instead of having to steal it.

[IndianaGreen]

114. The GOP stole Ohio in 2004. It would have made no difference who the Democratic...

nominee was. The only thing one could speculate is that perhaps the GOP would not have had to steal as many votes with Hillary as they did with Kerry.

[enough already]

115. A Bush Landslide

No question about it.