Al Sharpton

Fritz · 08-05-2003, 08:05 PM

I am not saying he is the best dem. candidate, but, in my opinion, Al Sharpton is doing the best job of presenting himself tonight.

Joe Lieberman seems to be a good job as well.

(as of 9 Eastern)

mrskippy · 08-05-2003, 08:12 PM

Where are you watching this at? I really like Lieberman and want him as president even more than Bush. Had it been Lierberman/Gore, rather than Gore/Lieberman in 2000, my vote would have been different.

mrskippy · 08-05-2003, 08:13 PM

Nevermind, found it. CSPAN. Sharpton is on. Cool!!!

mrskippy · 08-05-2003, 08:31 PM

OK Here's how I rank 'em

1 - Lieberman
2 - Gebhardt
3 - Sharpton

I think a few of them are close to what I'd like to see, but not quite. I'd like to hear what John Kerry, John Edwards, Kucinich and even Howard Dean have to say a little more.

Rest of them, I'm not interested in what they have to say -- at least not yet.

I'm seriously thinking about registering as a Democrat and getting behind one of these guys. If one of them win, I stick with them through the General Election. Otherwise, back to Bush.

Thomkal · 08-05-2003, 10:55 PM

Coming from the town that made Al Sharpton famous in the Tawana Brawley case, I can say that Sharpton is quite the performer. Too bad I can never say that about the politician Sharpton or the racial activist Sharpton.

Sharpieman · 08-06-2003, 03:13 AM

Wow, are you kidding me? Lieberman is HORRIBLE this is the same guy who wants to loosen Gun control and limit R rated movies.

mrskippy · 08-06-2003, 03:26 AM

I don't agree with him on all issues. I've never agreed with any president completely, including Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan.

I agree with Lieberman on control. I disagree somewhat on the R rated thing. I think more needs to be done to verify age for entry to R rated films and families need to stop taking their kids to see movies like American Wedding (as I evidenced over the weekend).

The thing with Lieberman is he is probably the most conservative of the group and easily the moderate. He would have the best chance against Bush IMO.

Sharpton is a little far out there for me, but there's just something about that guy that makes him an intriguing vote. I don't know, I just want to see someone a little different in office and shake things up a bit.

It's for that last reason why I really like Larry Flynt so far in the California governor's race. Unless Ah-nold runs.

Sharpieman · 08-06-2003, 03:32 AM

Sharpton is just crazy, he has no chance, Lieberman would be my last choice for President. I don't know who will win in Cali, but I just want Davis out and another Dem to take his place. I really think it won't matter because there is no canidate for cali that can pull billions of dollars out his ass and save california.

mrskippy · 08-06-2003, 04:02 AM

Hey, Larry Flynt wants to end the Indian monopoly on casinos in California (tax it), legalize prostitution (tax it), and a few other hokey things.

I really think the casino one is a must no matter who is governor. Given the popularity of Indian gaming, I think it's time to open it up and start collecting the gaming revenue.

I'm a Republican, want Davis out, and would be perfectly happy if another Democrat took his place. I just want somebody that we can all respect. Whoever it is won't fix the problems overnight, but hopefully can get the state in the right direction.

As for President, I think a good moderate would do well. But besides Lieberman, who among these guys could be considered a moderate?

Sharpieman · 08-06-2003, 05:28 AM

Well, I'm not a Republican, but I wouldn't mind a moderate as much. But I would rather have a progressive thinker as president.

FishFan · 08-06-2003, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mrskippy
As for President, I think a good moderate would do well. But besides Lieberman, who among these guys could be considered a moderate?

I heard Howard Dean is a moderate, but not sure why. Also hear he is very anti-war, so that does not make sense. I think he gets some moderate (i.e. Republicrats supporting him) backing because he could be the most beatable democrat candidate. As one senior advisor in the Bush admin said, "We want this guy."

I have not done much homework on the other guys. Gephardt has tried this before and failed. If the country doesn't want you once, take a hint. Same for Kerry. I don't like the guys that take a run every year. I would consider a darkhorse like John Edwards to come out of the Democratic race.

digamma · 08-06-2003, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mrskippy
Hey, Larry Flynt wants to end the Indian monopoly on casinos in California (tax it), legalize prostitution (tax it), and a few other hokey things.

I really think the casino one is a must no matter who is governor. Given the popularity of Indian gaming, I think it's time to open it up and start collecting the gaming revenue.

The problem is in California's compact with the Indian tribes. Most states require payments to the state in connection with and as a percentage of their gambling revenues. California's compact sets up a Revenue Sharing Trust Fund, which pays other non-Compact (non-gambling Tribes), and a Special Distribution Fund, which does go to the legislature, but must be spent on certain gambling related items (including making up short falls in the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund--non-Compact Tribes are guaranteed 1.1 million a year out of the fund). In sum, the Compact was a bad deal for the state, but a great deal for the tribes. Davis has attempted to renegotiate at times, but the tribes have not been receptive (why would they be?).

digamma · 08-06-2003, 11:47 AM

Dola. And back on topic.

Sharpton's performances have been very impressive to this point. I think one reason for this is that people may have had lower expectations for him, and he is showing that he is not just a street advocate.

Dean is all over the map, and likes to label himself a social progressive. Fiscally, he is one of the most moderate democrats in the field. He is being painted to the left because of his stances on health care, the war in Iraq and civil unions. But, he also has consistently rated very highly by the NRA and he supports the death penalty.

Solecismic · 08-07-2003, 03:11 AM

I'd be tempted by Dean if it weren't for his naivete about the economy. He makes some statements about businesses and jobs that are straight out of James Taggart's mouth (Atlas Shrugged).

Right now, I like a lot of what Lieberman says. I wish he'd lose some of the religious morals baggage, but he seems to understand the issues better than anyone else.

Sharpton is too divisive for me. I get the feeling he sees me as just another white guy.

mrskippy · 08-07-2003, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Solecismic

I wish he'd lose some of the religious morals baggage, but he seems to understand the issues better than anyone else.

Doubtful we'll ever see that happen.

The key with Lieberman is that he'll almost lock the all important Jewish vote. He is an observant (and Orthodox) Jew. He is very pro-Israel.

Cool thing is rather than getting up and hearing how Bush went to church on Sunday, we get up to hear how Lieberman went to Synagouge on Saturday. Oh and the White House chefs would get a free holiday on Yom Kippur. Actually it'd be interesting to see how he mixes the Jewish faith with being President. I can't imagine all the things that would have to change. Is the White House kitchen Kosher? What about the holiday tree lighting? Oh and the holiday traditions at the White House?

Not to mention that he would become the most hated US President in the Arab world.

Lieberman, based on his moderate politics, probably has the best chance of beating Bush.

EDIT: Oh yeah, what would happen to the Saturday morning radio address from the President if Lieberman were in office? I imagine it'd move to another day or to Saturday after sundown.

Blackadar · 08-07-2003, 06:31 AM

Al Sharpton is a racist pig.

Leonidas · 08-07-2003, 08:23 AM

Sometimes I wonder if Lieberman isn't a closet Republican. As for Dean, the Repubs are drooling over the prospects of him getting the nom. He's McGovern all over again. As for Sharpton, doesn't matter how good he looks. There is no way he gets the nom. Let's be real, I just don't see the majority of the party throwing in for him. He could play a spoiler role in some of the primaries, and one of the frontrunners may have to cut a deal for his support (ie a cabinet post or some such thing), but I think that's as far as it goes for him.

All in all pretty entertaining stuff so far.

Wolfpack · 08-07-2003, 09:08 AM

The problem with Edwards is that he's being seen as way too ambitious for the most part. Never held elected office until 1998 when he won Lauch Faircloth's senate seat from NC, beating him basically on youth and good looks. Pretty much after he took office, he's been running for President ever since. True, GW Bush had a similar amount of time in politics as a career, but at least he was a state executive for six years and was only seriously considered for the Presidency after winning re-election in 1998. Edwards, on the other hand, is one of 100 senators and until last year's election was the junior senator of his state, so he hasn't even been close to a leadership position in the Senate. With NC's voting trends over the last several years, he'd be hard pressed to win his own state, let alone anywhere outside the "Gore footprint" of 2000. Polls also show him dragging the rear among the six serious candidates (disregarding Sharpton, Mosely-Braun, and Kucinich).

ISiddiqui · 08-07-2003, 09:29 AM

Well I think Edwards is simply running to get his name out. He either wants a VP job or some play for the next election. It has been done to run too early in order to get people thinking about you for the next election.

clintl · 08-07-2003, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FishFan
I have not done much homework on the other guys. Gephardt has tried this before and failed. If the country doesn't want you once, take a hint. Same for Kerry.

John Kerry has never run for president before. You are probably thinking of Bob Kerrey, who ran for the Democratic nomination in 1992. Besides, until recently, it was pretty common that an eventual president would not win on his first try. Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I are all examples of this.

clintl · 08-07-2003, 10:20 AM

Dola...

My problem with Lieberman (and I have the same problem with Gephardt, Graham, and Edwards) is that he does not seem to have the boldness and personality to be a successful presidential candidate. I think the Bush machine would walk all over him. I'm afraid that if any of them get the nomination, it will be just like Bush I vs. Dukakis all over again.

Dean and Kerry are the only two that so far seem to have what it will take to stand up to what will be the inevitable Bush attacks. They have both shown signs that they're willing to aggressively defend themselves when challenged.

Buccaneer · 08-07-2003, 10:28 AM

clintl, I perceive it is the difference of having decisive leadership (good, bad or indifference) vs. leadership by throwing anything against the wall to see what sticks. Additionally, you shouldn't run a campaign based on contrived differences (even though it's common to do) but by having principles of your own and sticking with them. They can talk all they want about "if I was President, I would be doing this instead" but that's just political-doublespeak and in reality, means nothing. Personally, I won't vote for anyone that speaks of more federal govt solutions, esp. with the economy and health care. That rules out all of the Dems, as usual. The political game really sucks.

Bee · 08-07-2003, 10:29 AM

If Lieberman were to win the presidency I wonder what would be the reaction from the Middle East?

Buccaneer · 08-07-2003, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bee
If Lieberman were to win the presidency I wonder what would be the reaction from the Middle East?

Bad, very bad.

Bee · 08-07-2003, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Buccaneer
Bad, very bad.

The one time Bucc decides to give a short response was when I was looking forward to his response breaking down each country and what type of diplomatic issues would arise with the election of Lieberman.

clintl · 08-07-2003, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Buccaneer
clintl, I perceive it is the difference of having decisive leadership (good, bad or indifference) vs. leadership by throwing anything against the wall to see what sticks. Additionally, you shouldn't run a campaign based on contrived differences (even though it's common to do) but by having principles of your own and sticking with them. They can talk all they want about "if I was President, I would be doing this instead" but that's just political-doublespeak and in reality, means nothing. Personally, I won't vote for anyone that speaks of more federal govt solutions, esp. with the economy and health care. That rules out all of the Dems, as usual. The political game really sucks.

The reality is that during the nomination process, you have a bunch of candidates that more or less agree with each other on most issues, and to win, they have find some way to differentiate themselves from the pack. These "contrived differences" are really the main tools they have to do that. You may not like it, but that's the reality, and the Republicans in 1996 and 2000 were no different in that respect. And any candidate who is not at least aware of how best to present himself and his ideas is doing his supporters a disservice, and not running the most effective campaign he can run if he truly believes in his stated principles.

FishFan · 08-07-2003, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by clintl
John Kerry has never run for president before. You are probably thinking of Bob Kerrey, who ran for the Democratic nomination in 1992. Besides, until recently, it was pretty common that an eventual president would not win on his first try. Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I are all examples of this.

You're right, I was thinking of Bob Kerrey. But, I wouldn't vote for John Kerrey because he just looks to damn weird. Didn't Nixon declare he was out of politics after losing a presidential election of nomination during the 60s?

clintl · 08-07-2003, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FishFan
You're right, I was thinking of Bob Kerrey. But, I wouldn't vote for John Kerrey because he just looks to damn weird. Didn't Nixon declare he was out of politics after losing a presidential election of nomination during the 60s?

That was after he lost the California race for governor in 1962 to Pat Brown.

Leonidas · 08-07-2003, 03:30 PM

All the Edwards talk is really funny. His numbers here in Carolina are down and everyone thinks he's only in it to be Pres. The perception here is he isn't doing squat as their senator. The guy might as well run cause it's likely can't even get re-elected in his own state. There's simply no real enthusiasm for him here.

Besides, he earned millions in lawsuits as a trial lawyer. His biggest source of campaign funds is the American Trial Lawyers Association.

Riggins44 · 08-07-2003, 06:23 PM

I challenge anyone to name one good reason to even consider Al "set my people back 30 years" Sharpton.

Riggins44 · 08-07-2003, 06:39 PM

What's so negative about someone being "moral". I see people commenting on it like it's the plague.

mrskippy · 08-07-2003, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Riggins44
What's so negative about someone being "moral". I see people commenting on it like it's the plague.

Nothing wrong with being moral, but it's when those views are imposed on someone else that people get upset.

tucker342 · 08-07-2003, 08:30 PM

In my opinion, Liebermen is the worst Democratic canadate, and if he's elected in primaries, I'm voting green. He's way to conservative for me. Howard Dean is my favorite right now.

tucker342 · 08-07-2003, 08:37 PM

dola-

There's a guy named Wesley Clark who was a 4-star general under Clinton that seems really good. He hasn't decided if he's going to run yet. If you want to know more about him check out draftwesleyclark.com

Riggins44 · 08-08-2003, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Nothing wrong with being moral, but it's when those views are imposed on someone else that people get upset.

That whole murder is wrong thing has me all twisted up inside.

Really though, I see nothing wrong with a very moral president.

CamEdwards · 08-08-2003, 06:34 PM

skippy,

Whoever's president is going to impose their morality on society as a whole. What's up for debate is whether to elect someone with strict morals or not.

I'd love to see a Dean/Sharpton ticket, by the way. I could have sooooo much fun with that one.

CAsterling · 08-08-2003, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Riggins44
That whole murder is wrong thing has me all twisted up inside.
Really though, I see nothing wrong with a very moral president.

I know this was meant to be sarcastic, but Murder is morally justified in this country (and most countries) because of circumstance, so murder is made subjective and not absolute.

I have a problem with Moral leaders, mainly because they attempt to impose their view of morality on everybody else.
There again I have trouble with religous leaders, leaders who think too much and people who want to improve the life of the less fortunate - basically I have problems with everybody except immoral dictators who have few or no principles (who are ok assuming I get to work directly for them)

Sharpton from what little I have ever noticed about him seems to be more of a thinking mans Jesse Jackson, but heck I can't vote, so I guess I really don't care

08-05-2003, 10:55 PM	#5
Thomkal Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Surfside Beach,SC USA	Coming from the town that made Al Sharpton famous in the Tawana Brawley case, I can say that Sharpton is quite the performer. Too bad I can never say that about the politician Sharpton or the racial activist Sharpton. __________________ Coastal Carolina Baseball-2016 National Champion! 10/17/20-Coastal Football ranked in Top 25 for first time!

08-06-2003, 03:13 AM	#6
Sharpieman Greatly Missed. (7/11/84-06/12/05) Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Palo Alto, CA	Wow, are you kidding me? Lieberman is HORRIBLE this is the same guy who wants to loosen Gun control and limit R rated movies. __________________ Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

08-06-2003, 03:32 AM	#8
Sharpieman Greatly Missed. (7/11/84-06/12/05) Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Palo Alto, CA	Sharpton is just crazy, he has no chance, Lieberman would be my last choice for President. I don't know who will win in Cali, but I just want Davis out and another Dem to take his place. I really think it won't matter because there is no canidate for cali that can pull billions of dollars out his ass and save california. __________________ Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

08-06-2003, 05:28 AM	#10
Sharpieman Greatly Missed. (7/11/84-06/12/05) Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Palo Alto, CA	Well, I'm not a Republican, but I wouldn't mind a moderate as much. But I would rather have a progressive thinker as president. __________________ Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

08-07-2003, 08:23 AM	#17
Leonidas College Benchwarmer Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: East Anglia	Sometimes I wonder if Lieberman isn't a closet Republican. As for Dean, the Repubs are drooling over the prospects of him getting the nom. He's McGovern all over again. As for Sharpton, doesn't matter how good he looks. There is no way he gets the nom. Let's be real, I just don't see the majority of the party throwing in for him. He could play a spoiler role in some of the primaries, and one of the frontrunners may have to cut a deal for his support (ie a cabinet post or some such thing), but I think that's as far as it goes for him. All in all pretty entertaining stuff so far. __________________ Molon labe

08-05-2003, 08:12 PM	#2
mrskippy Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: California	Where are you watching this at? I really like Lieberman and want him as president even more than Bush. Had it been Lierberman/Gore, rather than Gore/Lieberman in 2000, my vote would have been different.

08-05-2003, 08:13 PM	#3
mrskippy Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: California	Nevermind, found it. CSPAN. Sharpton is on. Cool!!!

08-05-2003, 08:31 PM	#4
mrskippy Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: California	OK Here's how I rank 'em 1 - Lieberman 2 - Gebhardt 3 - Sharpton I think a few of them are close to what I'd like to see, but not quite. I'd like to hear what John Kerry, John Edwards, Kucinich and even Howard Dean have to say a little more. Rest of them, I'm not interested in what they have to say -- at least not yet. I'm seriously thinking about registering as a Democrat and getting behind one of these guys. If one of them win, I stick with them through the General Election. Otherwise, back to Bush.

08-06-2003, 03:26 AM	#7
mrskippy Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: California	I don't agree with him on all issues. I've never agreed with any president completely, including Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan. I agree with Lieberman on control. I disagree somewhat on the R rated thing. I think more needs to be done to verify age for entry to R rated films and families need to stop taking their kids to see movies like American Wedding (as I evidenced over the weekend). The thing with Lieberman is he is probably the most conservative of the group and easily the moderate. He would have the best chance against Bush IMO. Sharpton is a little far out there for me, but there's just something about that guy that makes him an intriguing vote. I don't know, I just want to see someone a little different in office and shake things up a bit. It's for that last reason why I really like Larry Flynt so far in the California governor's race. Unless Ah-nold runs.

08-06-2003, 04:02 AM	#9
mrskippy Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: California	Hey, Larry Flynt wants to end the Indian monopoly on casinos in California (tax it), legalize prostitution (tax it), and a few other hokey things. I really think the casino one is a must no matter who is governor. Given the popularity of Indian gaming, I think it's time to open it up and start collecting the gaming revenue. I'm a Republican, want Davis out, and would be perfectly happy if another Democrat took his place. I just want somebody that we can all respect. Whoever it is won't fix the problems overnight, but hopefully can get the state in the right direction. As for President, I think a good moderate would do well. But besides Lieberman, who among these guys could be considered a moderate?

08-06-2003, 11:47 AM	#13
digamma Torchbearer Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: On Lake Harriet	Dola. And back on topic. Sharpton's performances have been very impressive to this point. I think one reason for this is that people may have had lower expectations for him, and he is showing that he is not just a street advocate. Dean is all over the map, and likes to label himself a social progressive. Fiscally, he is one of the most moderate democrats in the field. He is being painted to the left because of his stances on health care, the war in Iraq and civil unions. But, he also has consistently rated very highly by the NRA and he supports the death penalty.

08-07-2003, 03:11 AM	#14
Solecismic Solecismic Software Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Canton, OH	I'd be tempted by Dean if it weren't for his naivete about the economy. He makes some statements about businesses and jobs that are straight out of James Taggart's mouth (Atlas Shrugged). Right now, I like a lot of what Lieberman says. I wish he'd lose some of the religious morals baggage, but he seems to understand the issues better than anyone else. Sharpton is too divisive for me. I get the feeling he sees me as just another white guy.

08-07-2003, 06:31 AM	#16
Blackadar Retired Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fantasyland	Al Sharpton is a racist pig.

08-07-2003, 09:08 AM	#18
Wolfpack Pro Rookie Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Raleigh, NC	The problem with Edwards is that he's being seen as way too ambitious for the most part. Never held elected office until 1998 when he won Lauch Faircloth's senate seat from NC, beating him basically on youth and good looks. Pretty much after he took office, he's been running for President ever since. True, GW Bush had a similar amount of time in politics as a career, but at least he was a state executive for six years and was only seriously considered for the Presidency after winning re-election in 1998. Edwards, on the other hand, is one of 100 senators and until last year's election was the junior senator of his state, so he hasn't even been close to a leadership position in the Senate. With NC's voting trends over the last several years, he'd be hard pressed to win his own state, let alone anywhere outside the "Gore footprint" of 2000. Polls also show him dragging the rear among the six serious candidates (disregarding Sharpton, Mosely-Braun, and Kucinich).

08-07-2003, 09:29 AM	#19
ISiddiqui Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Decatur, GA	Well I think Edwards is simply running to get his name out. He either wants a VP job or some play for the next election. It has been done to run too early in order to get people thinking about you for the next election. __________________ "A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams

08-07-2003, 10:20 AM	#21
clintl College Starter Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Davis, CA	Dola... My problem with Lieberman (and I have the same problem with Gephardt, Graham, and Edwards) is that he does not seem to have the boldness and personality to be a successful presidential candidate. I think the Bush machine would walk all over him. I'm afraid that if any of them get the nomination, it will be just like Bush I vs. Dukakis all over again. Dean and Kerry are the only two that so far seem to have what it will take to stand up to what will be the inevitable Bush attacks. They have both shown signs that they're willing to aggressively defend themselves when challenged.

08-07-2003, 10:28 AM	#22
Buccaneer Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Colorado	clintl, I perceive it is the difference of having decisive leadership (good, bad or indifference) vs. leadership by throwing anything against the wall to see what sticks. Additionally, you shouldn't run a campaign based on contrived differences (even though it's common to do) but by having principles of your own and sticking with them. They can talk all they want about "if I was President, I would be doing this instead" but that's just political-doublespeak and in reality, means nothing. Personally, I won't vote for anyone that speaks of more federal govt solutions, esp. with the economy and health care. That rules out all of the Dems, as usual. The political game really sucks.

08-07-2003, 10:29 AM	#23
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	If Lieberman were to win the presidency I wonder what would be the reaction from the Middle East?

08-07-2003, 03:30 PM	#29
Leonidas College Benchwarmer Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: East Anglia	All the Edwards talk is really funny. His numbers here in Carolina are down and everyone thinks he's only in it to be Pres. The perception here is he isn't doing squat as their senator. The guy might as well run cause it's likely can't even get re-elected in his own state. There's simply no real enthusiasm for him here. Besides, he earned millions in lawsuits as a trial lawyer. His biggest source of campaign funds is the American Trial Lawyers Association. __________________ Molon labe

08-07-2003, 06:23 PM	#30
Riggins44 High School JV Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Ontario, CA. USA	Dems I challenge anyone to name one good reason to even consider Al "set my people back 30 years" Sharpton.

08-07-2003, 06:39 PM	#31
Riggins44 High School JV Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Ontario, CA. USA	Morality What's so negative about someone being "moral". I see people commenting on it like it's the plague.

08-07-2003, 08:30 PM	#33
tucker342 Pro Starter Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Iowa City, IA	In my opinion, Liebermen is the worst Democratic canadate, and if he's elected in primaries, I'm voting green. He's way to conservative for me. Howard Dean is my favorite right now.

08-07-2003, 08:37 PM	#34
tucker342 Pro Starter Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Iowa City, IA	dola- There's a guy named Wesley Clark who was a 4-star general under Clinton that seems really good. He hasn't decided if he's going to run yet. If you want to know more about him check out draftwesleyclark.com

08-08-2003, 06:34 PM	#36
CamEdwards Stadium Announcer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Burke, VA	skippy, Whoever's president is going to impose their morality on society as a whole. What's up for debate is whether to elect someone with strict morals or not. I'd love to see a Dean/Sharpton ticket, by the way. I could have sooooo much fun with that one. __________________ I don't want the world. I just want your half.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)