Kerry had a 6% lead over Bush in March 2004

[hill08]

Kerry had a 6% lead over Bush in March 2004 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/09/main/index.html) and got the nomination and lost miserably. People say that since Obama has a lead over McCain at the current moment, he must be the nominee. But he is in the same situation as Kerry: not much is known about him, expect that he is a good speech-maker and it is much easier to distort his image to a farther extent than it is in Hillary's case. Hillary on the other hand has been in the public view for many years and there is not much new negative information that can emerge that can make her look worse, even with all the anti-Hillary press.

When people say "are you suggesting we choose the nominee who performs worse in the polls", "there is no incumbent running right now" are intellectually dishonest. Hillary has been villified for 15 years and she still holds her own. If you want to believe that Obama can hold his when he is carefully scrutinized, this is just a "belief" not supported by years of evidence.

[babylonsister]

1. There is NO COMPARISON between 2004 and now. People woke up

for the most part. Bush is reviled, as is this illegal occupation.

And my years of evidence suggest Clinton isn't all that popular with many people for many reasons.

[ProSense]

2. Some people seem to think Hillary is running against Kerry! n/t

[abluelady]

4. Where Do You Live

Here in central Virginia, Bush still has lots of supporters. It is disgusting. I hope you're right about the rest of the country!

[babylonsister]

8. I live in TX, and yes, there are still some supporters out there, but they

are few and far between. Speaking of VA, didn't the Dems get a whole lot more primary voters than the rethugs did? Maybe they're just sitting this one out after the travesty that was/is *.

Check out any current polls. * is in the toilet, and Cheney is just about flushed.

[abluelady]

32. I'm An Old Lady

I learned a long time ago how little polls mean. The numbers are not few and far between here. I'm glad to hear your confidence, though. It is so upsetting to me to hear support for that moron. As far as the primaries here yesterday, they are open, and I am hearing that there were a number of voters on the Democratic side who were Repukes voting for Hillary or Obama because they felt that was a vote for McCain! The Democratic primary had 4 times as many voters as the other side at my polling place, but, as I said, I know there were those from the other side playing the game!

[babylonsister]

40. OK, but think about this. How many republicans are actually aware

enough to have 'a plan' to get McCain in by voting Dem now? Most people aren't that politically active or aware, at least from my experience. If they were, the number of people voting for Dems wouldn't be so phenomenal. Keep the faith, abluelady! :hug:

[abluelady]

46. I Have To Share A Story With You

My signature line on my personal email is the countdown until Bush leaves office. I have had people ask me not to email them anymore! Believe me they still support the moron around here.

[DB1]

65. This AM on Cspans WA journal, 2 texas Repub voters called in.....

both said they were crossing over to vote for Obama with passionate thought provoking reasons why. They weren't scamming and they won't be alone. The more Texas sees of Hillary the better for Obama. I'm thinking she will be lucky to hit 50%.

[babylonsister]

67. Thanks for sharing that, it's encouraging! nt

[griffi94]

55. that's not been my experience

i live in texas as well and i still see the bush 04 stickers everywhere

[babylonsister]

63. In Austin? I'm surprised. I'm in Houston, and there are far less than there

were 4 years ago; FAR less. I only see them occasionally now.

[griffi94]

77. what part of houston are you in

remember that austin is surrounded by the hill country...lots of cowboys and bikers...and lawyers....lots of lawyers.....we're in good shape inside the city limits.....but drive north into williamson county....or south into hays county...and take a look around

[Freida5]

5. We thought the same thing in 04

[blm]

72. The difference is DEAN building party infrastructure McAuliffe let stay in collapse

even after 2000s theft.

He didn't care. He was just skating till it was Hillary's turn. The RNC stle that election and DNC let them do it. Again.

[hill08]

6. If you believe that people woke up

and will remain awake until November, you could be deluding yourself. Obama is a big risk, but no one wants to admit that, because the do want to be another Don Imus.

[babylonsister]

19. Obama is less of a risk than HC. And McCain is really not that

beloved, especially among conservatives if you've been paying attention. The rethugs have the best of a bad lot with him. The thinking ones know what's happened in the past few years has been a disaster.
Unless the election is rigged again, I just don't see McCain winning.

[AX10]

10. Sure they have.

:eyes:
The people can easily be bought of still.

[jlake]

18. Oh dear. Do you really think Bush is that unpopular?

Sorry to tell you - but he is NOT as unpopular as we would like to believe.

[babylonsister]

24. I don't think it, every poll I've seen in the past year+ shows how

unpopular he is. Google it if you don't believe me.

[jlake]

26. He's up at 35% nationally, and the way that those people are distributed still

makes flipping many red states very hard.

[babylonsister]

36. 35%, wow, impressive. nt

[jlake]

39. It's alot of people.

1 in 3 people still supports Bush.
That is ALOT of people.

[babylonsister]

47. 2 out of 3 don't; THAT'S a lot of people. nt

[jlake]

50. Yes, and I am glad that 2/3 or people have woken up - but

an election won't be easy to win until 9/10 of people realize a disaster when they see one.

[griffi94]

60. yep

texas will go to mccain...regardless of who runs for the democrats

[stillcool]

37. I just don't understand...

what the record breaking turnouts to vote in this Primary Season is all about..do you? Has it been brought about by the genius of Karl Rove?

[babylonsister]

42. No, Rove is so yesterday. It's the genius of Obama and his campaign,

and the hard work they've been doing on the ground to make this happen in every state, and the people who are turned on by the whole process thanks to all that hard work!

[stillcool]

75. It is an amazing time...

It's hard to keep what's going on in perspective from what I read here. Thank Goodness for YouTube and the interenets! I was trying to inject humor in my post above. I can't seem to get the hang of it!

[AndyTiedye]

28. But They Give McCain a Pass on All of That Because the MSM Says He's a "Maverick"

Cain is promising more of the same, only bigger, more deadly and more costly, but that doesn't matter as long as the MSM keeps cooing about what a wonderful "moderate" he is and how "America loves mavericks". :puke:

[babylonsister]

51. McCain is all the rethugs have. He was the 'best' of a horrid bunch

of people. Even the conservative rethugs can't stand him and have been taking him to task (Rush, Hannity, et al)

I think any Dem who is up against him will win handily. This country is sick of rethugs and sick of war. We have pressing issues at home, but McCain isn't opposed to a 100-year war? I don't see that flying at this point.

[sjdnb]

49. Yet, nothing substinative happens to Bush & Co.

even with all those 'wide awake' people and a Dem majority.

I'm not holding my breath for any real change from either O or C. I, personally, believe they'll both hit the same brick wall Carter did And, I have not seen any actual legislative or political actions from them, or the rest of the Dem majority in office, to make me believe otherwise.

While impeachment and other investigations languish in committee, no one is willing to lay it on the political line. And, now FISA is passed with immunity? It's like they're holding a pair of Aces, but they are so afraid of Bush Co., they fold before the cards are played.

[babylonsister]

57. For a change, I'm with you. I fault the Congress for so much, but

the candidates can't deal with every issue now; they have to focus on the ones that Americans will hone in on, issues that affect Americans. If I've learned nothing else, I've learned that the process is oh so slow. But I've also learned that we've been let down by the House and Senate, sometimes through no fault of their own. I won't forget that.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

3. Wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin

Kerry didn't lose "miserably", in fact many people believe he didn't lose at all.

Kerry had been a prominent public figure for decades. He did a guest spot on Cheers back in the '80s forgodssake!

There is plenty more negative information that can surface about Hillary Clinton and her husband. More shady donors, this latest revelation about selling donor lists, and Bill's recently wandering pee pee. All those things do is intensify the already (admittedly mostly unjustified) high negatives she has.

Obama has been carefully scrutinized and smeared, by the Clinton campaign.

Just to name a few problems with your thesis.

[hill08]

11. Can you honestly say that

Kerry was well known before 2004? Are you kidding me? The only reason I knew his name was because he was the richest senator.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

23. People knew about his anti-war activism, POW work, and BCCI investigations

Granted, he wasn't as famous as Teddy Kennedy but it wasn't like he was unknown either.

[YvonneCa]

52. You are either...

...very young, or confused. What do you think about his 1971 Senate testimony?

[Frances]

22. If you think that the Repubs won't be 100 times worse

about attacking Obama than the Clintons, you are mistaken.

Have you forgotten the lies that were told about Kerry's medals for heroism?

We ain't seen nothing yet.

But I still hope that Obama wins if he is our nominee, as I expect he will be.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

27. Well I guess we just shouldn't run a candidate then.

Let's just concede to the GOP now, and spare ourselves the futility. :eyes:

[Frances]

81. It sounds as though you have the attitude

that if it isn't a cakewalk, you don't want any part of the election.

I am realistic; it will be very hard to defeat the Repubs, who are our real enemy (not one of our own Dem candidates), but it can be done if Dems are sensible and work hard.

[YvonneCa]

48. Thank you...

...for saying this. I agree.

[THUNDER HANDS]

74. here's that clip of Kerry on Cheers....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8cYgYU5OGI

[Frances]

7. And Dukakis was over 10 points ahead of the first Bush

at this point in 1988.

Those people who think that either Hillary or Obama will have an easy time in the general election are in for a shock.

I have already voted in my primary, so at this point, I am just hoping that our nominee, whoever it is, wins in November.

[KaryninMiami]

9. Kerry won the election in 2004 - would probably have been larger then 6%-

that is of course, had all of the votes been counted, machines not been rigged, thousands not been disenfranchised, etc.

Pick up a copy of "Uncounted" and see for yourself or click on any of the links below or head over to www.bradblog.com where you will find more facts then you can even begin to imagine about what really happened in 2004 (and 2006 and what could happen again in 2008).

http://www.uncountedthemovie.com/about-the-film.html
UNCOUNTED is an explosive new documentary that shows how the election fraud that changed the outcome of the 2004 election led to even greater fraud in 2006 - and now looms as an unbridled threat to the outcome of the 2008 election. This controversial feature length film by Emmy award-winning director David Earnhardt examines in factual, logical, and yet startling terms how easy it is to change election outcomes and undermine election integrity across the U.S. Noted computer programmers, statisticians, journalists, and experienced election officials provide the irrefutable proof.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.
ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.

www.bradblog.com

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.html
The 2004 US Elections: The Mother of all Vote Frauds

http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/election-fraud.htm
Peter Phillips: Election Fraud Continues in the U.S.: New Data Shows Widespread Vote Manipulations in 2004, Global Research .ca, August 12, 2005


Need more reading material? Send me a PM- I've got tons of it.

[hill08]

15. all these articles

mean nothing. Bush got the 2nd term, Kerry lost.

[YvonneCa]

54. Why do they mean nothing? n/t

[griffi94]

66. because winning a poll

isn't the same thing as getting sworn in....gore got the most votes....but bush got sworn in.....
i agree that this won't be easy..

[blm]

62. Clinton's DNC machine made sure 2004 was lost for ANY Dem. Kerry won and RNC stole it

for Bush while the DNC sat on their greedy hands and LET it happen.

[Tweed]

12. So Hillary will lose by 10 points and Obama has a 50/50 shot?

:shrug:

[GarbagemanLB]

13. If Clinton gets the nomination, it will be 2004 all over again but worse.

"I voted for the war before I was against it". I can just imagine the GOP ads to rile up their base and turn off independent voters. Talk about shooting ourselves in the foot by nominating the weaker of the two candidates in an election we should have in the bag.

[Bicoastal]

14. That's the whole point! She ISN'T holding her own!

She's losing to Obama AND to McCain. You better believe people from both parties ARE scrutinizing Obama... and he's still leading both of them in the polls! Why?

Because the dirt they've found on him just isn't that good, that's why.

[hill08]

34. Obama is a flavor of the month

And I don't care if Obama supporters call me a racist, because that what Obama supporters will do. Had Obama been white, he would be just another John Edwards. I only hope the convention realizes that and makes the right choice. Call me a cynic or whatever, but an inexperienced black candidate with shady mentors like Rezko doesn't stand a chance against war hero McCain

[YvonneCa]

59. I didn't know...

...a convention could realize anything. ???

[DesEtoiles]

16. well, at least he wasn't...ahem...losing

[HeraldSquare212]

17. She's not been vetted, there's plenty more out there.

Bill will be the gift that keeps on giving for Republicans in the general election.

[theaxe7]

25. and how about Obama, you want to talk about vetting

The dirt they can dig up on this guy......holy cow.

[HeraldSquare212]

30. Not even close. Unless you want to offer some support that I'm not aware of...

Just whats been reported on Bill re: Kazahkstan, the stock manipulator he helped out, Ron Burkle, Jeffery Epstein...there's plenty there.

[theaxe7]

35. dude, by November...

...Obama will be a dangerous white hating Malcolm X clone who's related to Osama Bin Ladin. And get used to hearing the word HUSSEIN.

Remember what they did to John Kerry. Practically turned him into some metrosexual french gigolo. He was a war hero!

They'll dig through every single document, every word he's written. We'll hear about Roy Obama, we'll hear about this Odinga guy.

You think the madrassa story is dead?

[griffi94]

69. yer right

and if the repubs look into obama past and can't find anything...well...they'll just make shit up....
look at how they torpedoed gore....kerry too....

[theaxe7]

20. remember we all thought the war would be a big issue in 2004

It wasn't

guess what, it won't be the central issue in 08 as well.

[babylonsister]

44. I think you're wrong. It will be a defining issue between McCain and

whoever wins the Dem nod. There's a huge difference there, and it will be discussed, as it should be.

[NMMatt]

21. Of course polls can change...

But it is much better to start up 5% than down 5%. Obama has to either build or at least maintain his lead. Clinton has to over take McCains. In every election so far the opposite has happened. Obama has gained ground on Clinton as the election day approached. Clinton lost ground as the election neared.

So the fact that Kerry lost his lead is misleading at best, i.e. it only show what COULD happen, and in no way is evidence in favor of Clinton.

[NMMatt]

29. By the way...

Clinton fans are really starting to grasp at straws at this point. I mean really. All Clinton had to do was put away a freshman Senator from Illinois with little name recognition, and in fact, probably negative name recognition given it's unusualness :P.

The fact that she couldn't do THAT speaks more about her electability than any kind of "I took crap when I was the first lady so I'm used to it" spin.

[1620rock]

31. Heh, Kerry probably had a 6% lead over Bush when the election was stolen.

[OzarkDem]

33. All true

Obama hasn't been exposed to the close media scrutiny that comes w/ any presidential campaign. He's still an unknown quantity to most voters.

[NMMatt]

41. But wouldn't you prefer...

An unknown candidate that outpolls the known opposition candidate and has gained in the polls in every election so far, as opposed to a known candidate who trails the opposition known candidate and slides in the polls in every election?

[OzarkDem]

43. No, because the unknown candidate will quickly become known

and his own popularity will drop as a result. In this case, I prefer the candidate who has the most experience.

[NMMatt]

58. Which is Obama

He actually has more experience running for office than Clinton.

[griffi94]

76. no

i wouldn't prefer a candidate who has yet to win support of traditional democrats...but instead is counting on crossover repubs and independents...and a huge number of youth voters...here's why....youth voters are notoriously unreliable....should some damaging bit of info on obama come out...and the rw echo chamber is business for that very purpose....who the hell knows what the youth vote will do.....as for the crossover repubs and independents....mccain is going for the same demographic....and whether anyone wants to think about this....haters go vote.....right now the repubs hate hillary as she is the primary target....but as soon as they dispatch her...it will be obamas turn.....and he won't win dick in the south...he'll probly lose fl....has anybody been reading the blogs and seen the little flap about obamas houston office with the cuban flag with the pic of che on it...if not keep watchin...cause that'll come up again....he won't win any of the rocky mountain states.....and there are parts of the midwest where he'll have a hard time.

[NJSecularist]

38. I agree that national polls between Obama vs McCain mean shit right now

But can we stop projecting what happened to Kerry upon Obama?

Kerry ran out of money. From a certain point in May to the convention, he had no money, and let the Republicans define him due to his lack of funds.

That won't happen this time.

Obama's fundraising model is much more secure.

[stahbrett]

45. Obama won't run out of money, and is not running against an incumbent

And he's 1000 times the speaker that Kerry is, Obama's wife is actually a great asset, and Obama's campaign is being run a lot better.

[NJSecularist]

53. Obama's campaign isn't ran by B-0fer-b Shrum either

[blm]

71. The difference is a DNC that has rebuilt party infrastructure in states long collapsed

by previous chairs.

[stahbrett]

79. Plus a candidate who created his own infrastructure from scratch in many states (eom)

[blm]

80. heh...with a few wise men who put their existing networks at his disposal.

That's working out well for the primary races. In the general, the nominee taps into the party infrastructure as it exists - and Dean is doing a great job rebuilding those infrastructures in states where they had been long collapsed.

This will make an enormous difference. It would have made a huge difference in 2000 and 2004, too. But McAuliffe was just a Clinton loyalist only using the party to advance Clintons.

[blm]

56. Kerry won. DNCs weakened infrastructure allowed RNC to steal it for Bush.

You know - the same DNC people put in place by Clinton machine that is losing right now.

[YvonneCa]

61. Have a heart...

...blm. :7

[blm]

70. Smooches back at you, kiddo. ;)

.

[madrchsod]

64. this is`t 2004

anyway kerry won in ohio

[NMMatt]

68. Exactly

From the way people talk about it, you would have thought Bush won by more than 100,000 supposed votes in Ohio. Given his lack of funding, his weakness on the stump, his lack of charisma and poorly managed campaign, it says a lot that he almost won it.

Compare that with a well funded, highly charismatic, great on the stump and well managed candidate who is about to take out the most formidable Democratic election machine in our lifetime, and I'd say we have nothing to worry about with Obama.

[Webster Green]

73. But Kerry won..

Here's Rove changing the Ohio vote count using his computers, which Blackwell had arranged to be tied into the Ohio voting machines.

[Thrill]

78. McCain isn't near the candidate Bush was

Bush was great on the stump and was good with the one liners. And he was an incumbent President. I see comparison