Warner-Feingold 2008

[Proud2BAmurkin]

Can I get an Amen

[MadMaddie]

1. I was thinking Feingold/Clark...

As long as Feingold is in the mix...

Or even Gore/Feingold actually I like this one the best!!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

16. I am with you on that one MadMaddie !

[JackBeck]

25. I agree. I wrote this in another thread, as well. I could also support

Gore-Feingold.

[Padme Amidala]

2. You have to be kidding about Warner.

Feingold has been doing some good stuff lately. I'd like to see a ticket with Feingold and Kucinich.

[PVK]

3. Reverse the order and then I'll give you one.

Don't like Warner. See Molly Ivins article.

[More Than A Feeling]

87. Sign me up for "Reverse the order" as well.

Feingold is my #1, and I like Warner because of the expectation that he will be able to carry Virginia.

[JohnnyCougar]

4. Amen!!!

If you switch it around, I think that would be the perfect ticket. Both guys are true leaders, and have an unsurpassed ammount of dignity. I think this ticket would slaughter the competition.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

10. Feingold's been divorced twice right?

He's out as a viable candidate at the top of the ticket

[derby378]

15. Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole were divorced, too...

I think Feingold's got a decent shot at 2008 if these two could secure the GOP nomination.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

19. Clinton would be too, if not married to Hil

[WorseBeforeBetter]

60. Doesn't matter - the Swift Boaters for Staying in Lousy Marriages...

would attack Feingold. And the American Idiots, including those who are divorced, would hold that against him.

[dogday]

68. McCain left his first wife to marry a 2nd rich wife

Rudy, well we all know about him.... I don't think this makes a difference... Even Kerry was on marriage #2....

[JohnnyCougar]

35. Aren't a lot of Americans divorced?

And even if they are, they know someone who is divorced.

My mom is the only one of her sisters that is not divorced right now. I don't think divorce would limit a presidential candidate.

[Imagevision]

84. It doesn't matter - Big business runs the country regardless of the Prez

in the WH.

[AmericanDream]

5. And, why should Warner lead the ticket with just one term as governor & no

foreign policy experience? Whereas, Feingold, the guy who has actually engaged in national and international issues is stuck at the bottom?

Has anyone even heard Warner talk about foreign policy issues... on This Week with Georgie, he could barely string together a sentence about Iraq. He has completely no knowledge or vision about the world or foreign policy issues... we can't have such a person in charge of our country at this point in time.

[Perky]

23. If you take that tact

The Bill RIchardson should be at the top of the ticket because he is eminently qualified in FOreign Policy issues.

Ad I will say it for the umpteenth time... Senators do not win in November. JFK was the only one. and he followed the last General we ever elected.

The only people who win are Governors and Vice Presidents.

[leyton]

41. I wouldn't go that far.

JFK is not the only Senator to win - Warren G. Harding also won the Presidency. And of the last four Senators to run and win the nomination, JFK was the only one not challenging a sitting President. Goldwater and Dole were both challenging popular incumbents, and McGovern just ran a horrible campaign. Also, a few governors have done well (Carter, Reagan, and Clinton) because they were challenging unpopular incumbents. I'd also point out that several governors have lost - like Stevenson, Dewey and Dukakis. All in all, though there are certainly advantages and disadvantages to each position, you can hardly say that "Senators never win" and that we must nominate a governor. When you consider each race as a whole, there's simply not support for any sort of absolute claim like that.

[Perky]

6. Yep Absoutely

The problem is that while a progressive like Feingold would not hurt the ticket. I do not know if he would buy all that much. I do not think he would be as valuable electorally as a Richardson.

[mattclearing]

21. Wrong.

Richardson has more skeletons in his closet than a Biology professor.

Feingold is principled, takes no bullshit and has a great relationship with rural voters. He would resonate much better than Richardson or Warner.

[Perky]

37. Richrdson is Hispanic

THat puts Colorado. AZ, Nevada and Florida elecotrally in the DEM column with an uphill climb for the GOP to make into a fight.


Feingold might solidify Iowa and obviously Wisconsin which we arguably would win regardless.


TO me it is an issues of math and Richardson still has better credential on Foriegn policy. Having said that the skeleton issue can be overcome with some work.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

42. Well, I have heard that Richardson has "womanizing" problems.

[mattclearing]

51. Hence my skeletons remark. n/t

[PVK]

59. Richardson blocked the recount in New Mexico. He's out. n/t

[mattclearing]

45. I don't believe that people vote solely on race.

Your electoral math simply doesn't follow.

[Perky]

49. Sure it does and I am not suggesting that HIspanic voters are lockstep

WHat I am suggesting is that he would like be able to generate a much larger Hispanic turnout because of his heritage. It makes for a great coming of Age in America story. It represents Hispanic culture gaining political power in an anglo world. It is a success story.

[mattclearing]

52. Yeah, that's great, but it would be even better if it were a Hispanic

politician with credibility. I hate to say it, but Richardson is a clown. He would doom any ticket.

[Perky]

53. Based on what?

Congressman, UN Ambassador, Personal Foriegn Envoy. Cabinet Secretary and two term Governor of a western state. He would be the best credentialed VP we have ever had.


Clown for what? Having a lead foot? rumored womanizing? Wen Ho Lee?

[mattclearing]

55. No, actually, his worst crime is being a DLC Establishment Dem.

I didn't like the way McAuliffe wanted to put him in the VP slot instead of Edwards. I am fed up with Dems who only care about winning, not about policy or doing right by their voters. Richardson fits that mold to a tee.

But yeah, the womanizing and Wen Ho Lee issues are severe liabilities.

[Perky]

57. My God

Yes its always better to stand on principle and cede power to Richard Nixon Ronald Reagan and Poppy Bush , then actually stand up someone who can win like Bill Clinton and AL Gore.

Liberals Do not win! They never have. Particularly liberal senators with long voting records. They are red meat for the opposition and we do a lousy job at countering for the fear of scaring away the muddled middle.


You would really have a liberal who is destined to lose to a rabid right winger than a Moderate Democrat who has a decent shot.

[mattclearing]

65. Moderate Democrat, Right winger...the differences are slim.

Clinton won because he was Clinton. Richardson, charismatic though he may be, is no Clinton.

Given the choice between a real Republican and a fake Republican, voters will take the real one every time.

Trying to outflank Republicans on national security only works if you're Wesley Clark.

Even Kerry couldn't do it, and he's a bonafied war hero.

Liberals aren't destined to lose. Clinton was fairly liberal when he came into office, though he understood economics. It wasn't until after 1994 when Dems got their asses handed to them that he started shifting to the right.

But some "moderate Dem" poseur is never going to make it with the American electorate. They'd rather have someone who means it. Feingold and Clark are people who can impress the American people.

Richardson is not.

[Perky]

72. McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale

vs. Bill Clinton who hadidly won re-election even after his Health Debacle and who along with Al From started the DLC.


Liberals Do not win. It really is that simple. Liberal Senators have to much voting record to exploit.

[mattclearing]

80. Yeah, he started the DLC, but the DLC of today

would never back the Clinton of 92 and you know it.

Completely disingenuous argument.

[Perky]

81. You still have not dealt with the core issues

Liberals do not win.

[mattclearing]

83. You haven't dealt with the core issue: Clinton was a liberal. n/t

[Perky]

86. I would Argue two things

1. He has some manueverability becuase Perot was in the game.
2. The how would you ecplain Welfare Reform.

[mattclearing]

88. How about:

1. Most of DU will confirm that Clinton still wins without Perot...the argument has played out here several times, and that is always the outcome.

2. Like I said, Clinton changed after 94. He moved to the right (slightly) in order to get things done. The Telecom Act and the Welfare reform were his major concessions to the Republican congress.

My point is that today's DLC would never, ever consider backing a candidate who evaded Vietnam, admitted to doing drugs, vocally pushed for pro-gay policy on the campaign trail, favored a government based health care reform, a less aggressive military, etc. It wouldn't happen.

Clinton won because he was vocally liberal, and was good at arguing in favor of his positions.

Which is the exact opposite of many of the DLC people we've seen recently: Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, Mark Warner, etc. They are moderate conservatives (Lieberman actually is a conservative) with D's next to their names.

[Perky]

94. Do you think Clinton Ran as a Liberal?

I don't. Remember He won on the Heals of landslide lossses by Liberals MOndale and Dukakis. He was arguing that he was a "new Kind of Democrat"

Now reards Perot. I think CLinton wins regardless. But what I was suggesting is that he could afford to move a bit to his left in thte 1992 race because those he pissed off would be more inclined to vote for Peror then Poppy.

THe good question is would he have run a traditional liberal campaing in a two person race?

I still think You are ignoring unabashed libearls losing in landslides

[mattclearing]

95. "new kind of Democrat"

That's a fiscal conservative, socially liberal Democrat. Just like Howard Dean, the present DLC's nightmare.

1992 Clinton and 2004 Dean agreed on almost everything. And the DLC of 2004 HATED (and still HATES) Howard Dean.

Mondale and Dukakis lost because they didn't fight back. They let the Republican slime machine walk all over them. And the media helped...remember when Bernard Shaw ambushed Dukakis with the question about the raping of his wife and capital punishment, and how he mealy-mouthed his way through it, just like every lame parsing of policy to get to "moderate" that DLC Dems do.

We're never going to agree on this.

Your theory doesn't hold up. It's the same tired DLC logic. They keep taking credit for Clinton, despite the fact that they haven't done anything since Clinton. At some point, the clowns in the DLC will realize that Clinton would have won with or without them.

It's because he didn't take Republican bullshit, he had an organized media campaign, and he was constantly countering Republican attacks with positive rhetoric, while explaining why the Republican policies simply wouldn't work.

Try watching the War Room sometime. See that James Carville, and compare him to the guy that was on Crossfire for the past few years. Night and day.

But believe what you want.

[Pithy Cherub]

46. Richardson of the Wen Ho Lee debacle,

needs to work on getting New Mexico to re-elect him. They are making LOUD noises about his jetsetting around and not being in New Mexico enough. Richardson is too much work to shore up the amount of serious negatives he brings.

[Perky]

48. Wen Ho Lee would not be brought up in a post 9/11 world

Better safe than sorry. What???? we can eavesdrop without warrant but we can't conduct an above board crimininal investigation.

It would come up and be over with in a couple of weeks. NO biggie.

Jet setting to North Korea at Bush's request?? Next??

[Pithy Cherub]

50. LOL! keep thinking that.

Richardson's motives and past creds are open for great interpretation. Clinton would go to North Korea before they let a 2008 aspirant go.

[Perky]

54. He went at Bush's request twice in the first term

because North Korea ask for him and Bush was looking for ways to calm down the eacalting rhetoric between Bolton (among others and the RPK leadership)

[Pithy Cherub]

7. No.

Feingold has many wonderful attributes, strongly held principles and policies that are not Warner's. Warner is a one term technocrat with no national security credentials.

[me b zola]

8. No to Warner

I would love to see Feingold/Gore

[movonne]

9. Gore and Feingold, would be my choice...

[radio4progressives]

13. yes... mine too..

[kerstin]

26. What a team. Can you just imagine it? n/t

[radio4progressives]

11. not from me... sorry..

Feingold/Edwards

or

Gore/Feingold

or

Feingold/Obama

or

Feingold/Clark maybe..

but not Warner... that may as well be a Hillary/Warner combo and i would be ill for the next decade.

[LaPera]

12. Any democrat can beat the republicans-Dem's have won the last 4 elections!

But the last 2 elections the spineless Dems have refused to fight even with the obvious fraud in Florida and Ohio (and other states not as critical) that would have put the Dem's in the WH.

They didn't want to look like sore losers...so what do we have now...

So what will make 2008 any different now the republicans have all their electronic voting machines even more firmly in place?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

14. NO. Get a copy of the NYT mag from yesterday. Giant expose on

Warner. Won't say anything if too political, like if he is against war. Much to conservative for my blood.

[MadMaddie]

20. Isn't he a homophobe also....???

[Renew Deal]

29. And doesn't he beat his wife?

:spank:

[Laura PourMeADrink]

36. Is that better or worst than having her lobotomized (Laura)?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

32. Well, he won't condone or come out against same sex marraige.

Actually, I didn't read the whole article since I was so pissed at NYT. They mention prestigous lineup for 2008 and did not mention Gore or Clark - my personal favorites. They talk about how Hillary will have 80 million starting out and would be hard to beat. They mention Biden - and he is at the bottom of every barrel poll I see. Said Feingold was a "protest" candidate. Ugh and Evan Bayh - yuck.

They must not look at one single poll off progressive blogs/forums.

But you know what, almost anyone would be an improvement, huh..

[JackBeck]

33. Not for nothin', but that picture on the cover was pretty creepy.

And really toothy.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

38. haha. I thought the same thing. bucky !

[mattclearing]

17. Ummm...no.

Feingold is great. Warner is merely okay.

[incapsulated]

18. Huh??

Weirdest ticket yet, lol.

:silly:

[mattclearing]

24. Seconded. LOL n/t

[incapsulated]

27. Biden/Boxer 2008!

lol :D

[JackBeck]

30. Lieberman-Biden 2008!

}(

[mattclearing]

31. Clinton/McKinney 2008!!!!

This could go on for days.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

39. Is that the Repig ticket?

[Renew Deal]

22. I could live with that.

Execitive and Spine :patriot:

[HillDem]

28. Amen!

I'd even take Feingold/Warner

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Reverse it and you might have a deal.

Warner is too right wing.

[laruemtt]

40. Gore-Feingold-Clark-Conyers

any of the above in any order or mix! :bounce:

[Laura PourMeADrink]

43. sounds like a perfect cabinet, if not the two top spots. !

[theHandpuppet]

44. You can get a HELL NO on Warner

Near dead last on my list.

[Pithy Cherub]

47. He doesn't even qualify for mine. n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

56. Are you sure you got the order right?

It think it should be the other way around, to say the least.

[lastknowngood]

58. Look Warner is a repug. He ran as a dem to get the fools in Va

to start paying for their road construction.

[sellitman]

61. Feingold- Boxer

or visa-versa


Throw Conyers into either roll and you won't get an argument with me.

[spuddonna]

63. I like that!

Feingold-Boxer sounds excellent!

[Sparkly]

62. I say "no" to Warner.

Clark/Feingold is my ideal.

[lovuian]

64. No for Warner he was picked by the Bildebergers

just like Edwards was ... Try Feingold and Kucinich

[ShortnFiery]

66. Yes, that's the winning Democratic ticket ... I say a big AMEN!

[jackpan1260]

67. AMEN!!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

69. Why Warner on any ticket?

Is he really, as the NYT suggested last Sunday, the DLC's backup idea for a candidate who won't inconvenience the Republicans too much, if Hillary doesn't survive the primaries?

[ShortnFiery]

70. Warner's NOT totally corrupt ...

Kind of like an highly intelligent Panda Bear (McCain) crossed with an Olympia Snowe. He comes accross as genuine and caring like McCain but an moderating influence like Ms. Snow.

He's far from my first choice - but he is The Genuine Article - and one who will appeal to The South.

He will NOT spill American blood via warmongering without a true reason. IMO he would refocus on Afghanistan.

That's enough to win my support.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. He's not Bush, is what you're saying.

and you just compared him to not one, but TWO Republicans.

I don't want a candidate whose main claim to fame is that he reminds you of two Republicans. I want one who can get voters excited about strong Democratic ideals.

[ShortnFiery]

73. Sorry, but I CAN understand and accept the compromise of a

Highly Intelligent and Genuinely Compassionate MODERATE Democrat that may or may not equate by some definitions as a Moderate-Liberal Republican. I'm a liberal, left of center in most of my political beliefs. However, living in the real world, I'm thoughtful enough to realize that without a Free Press, the best that the Democratic Party can do is run a Centrist as president but perhaps a more populist candidate for Vice President.

In other words, there's not much difference in the traditional ideologies of conservative democrats and moderate republicans.

Yes, I'll dutifully vote "the democratic party ticket" for the house and senate this year - and I'd prefer to have the Democrats win the Presidency in 2008. However, I'm not so blinded by party loyalty to ignore the fact - that some of our democratic representatives are AS CORRUPT as most of the Republican cronies.

We need to get Democrats in the Houses and/or Executive Branch. Only then can we proceed to clean house of those democrats who serve as corporate enablers.

First things first. :hi:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

74. Look, I know we can't run Cynthia McKinney, but

blandness is not the same as acceptability.

The mistake we made in 2004 was thinking more of who the swing voters would accept as opposed to how we would convince them that a change was necessary. We thought, "Oh, yeah, war hero. The swing voters will like that."

And yes, the Republicanites cheated, but a different approach could have given us a cheat-proof margin.

I'd be happy with a moderate who would go beyond "I'm not Bush" to make some bold initiatives that would convince the cherished swing voters that their lives would improve in specific ways if they voted Democratic.

We need someone with a forceful personality, someone who doesn't take any guff from the Republicans, someone who anticipates the dirty tricks before they happen, someone who can come across as genuinely tough yet compassionate, someone with the common touch who can convince people that he understands them, someone who pushes his own ideas and doesn't let the Republicanites sidetrack him.

I'm sure Warner is a nice guy. But nice won't cut it in today's cutthroat world of national politics.

I fail to see any advantage in nominating such a lightweight for anything, and I have to suspect that some of his staffers are on DU trying to push him, because otherwise it's hard to explain why he's being mentioned so often. Either that, or it's a sign of desperation among certain DUers whose only thought for 2008 is "Who can fool the Republican voters into thinking he's one of them?"

[ShortnFiery]

75. Read a little bit more on Warner and you'll quickly realize ...

that he is far from bland. He is The Genuine Article.

Voting for Warner is a true Compromise. I hope that we as a Democratic Party still remember that in order to run a candidate with this cut-throat republican noise machine and RW press, we must run a Centrist or not run anyone at all.

I'm sorry that we disagree and I fear that nothing I further convey will help convince you that running a Warner-Feingold Democratic Presidential Ticket is the way to win back the White House for the Democrats.

We MUST be willing to draw in some of the disenchanted Republicans into the fold. There are many good people who mistakenly draw in the disinformation and vote republican. We need to WORK WITH the moderate-liberal republicans to get any DAMN thing done in this Congress.

Again, I regret that I can not find common ground with your perspectives. However, it's only through working together - the moderates - across the aisles will we stand a ghost of a chance to retain our freedoms and get control of the bloated budget.

http://www.draftmarkwarner.com/

[Lydia Leftcoast]

76. He'd have to go a long way to convince me that he has the

requisite spark to actually attract voters to him positively instead of just away from Bush.

The Republicans' strength was that their voters actually loved Bush and were eager to act as "missionaries" for him. (I saw this happen.)

Democrats were motivated more by getting Bush out of office, and their feelings about Kerry were mixed.

I wish we could have a candidate whom voters would feel a positive attraction to on his own merits, someone who would inspire people to vote for him even if no Republicans existed.

[ShortnFiery]

77. With this bought and paid for Corporate Media ...

Even if such a person did exist ... and some say so for Kucinich, they would be "spun down" as the Devil Incarnate.

In order to have a functioning government, we must at least be willing to communicate with the moderates who slipped and voted for republicans. If we wish to overwhelm and outperform the Diebold Machines, etc., we must draw in folks who are a little to our right into our MOST noble cause ===> vote an Intelligent, Honest, and Compassionate President back into OUR White House.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

78. Warner doesn't have the personality to do it

He's not ready for prime time.

I'm not the only one who thinks so, either, so why are you arguing with me?

[ShortnFiery]

79. I'm not arguing with you, for I know you will remain unconvinced ...

What I have done is merely counter your barbs toward Warner.

Why? He's intelligent, empathetic, level-headed, able to balance a large state budget, and most important - appeals to MODERATES of all stripes.

BTW "He's not ready for prime time" is also a published RW talking point. Why? Because the wingers know that he would be a formidable opponent.

Although we disagree, please note that when Mark Warner's name rises to the top, I promise that I will not be so obnoxious to snipe, "I told you so!" :hi:

Since you have done nothing less than flatly dismiss him, I can not hope to reach you ... but I can help clue in others whose opinions are more malleable.

http://www.draftmarkwarner.com/MeetMark.pdf

[ronnykmarshall]

82. Amen!

[FrenchieCat]

85. I don't think so.....

#1. No Foreign Policy or National Security experience - Why do this to us, just when we finally won some brownie points in that area. Most here didn't choose to be at war, but committing suicide by putting in the #1 spot a guy with no experience is crazy. To prove his worth, he'll be more hawkish then he should (and like Clinton, will be hamstrung by the Republicans) if he should win (and that's questionnable considering the mantra that the GOP will use--"post 9/11 world". Mark Warner is 6'2" I believe with a very large head, and Fiengold is 5'6"...which will make them look more of an "odd" couple than required. Plus Warner is only an "make-believe" anti-Hillary....cause the only difference between the 2 of them is that Hillary is more liberal than Mark Warner...who said very recently "America hates Democrats" - http://gadflyer.com/flytrap/index.php?Week=200611#2625

At the end of the evening, according to people who were there, as some of the guests walked Warner to his car, one woman vowed to educate him on abortion rights. That was all he could take. "This is why America hates Democrats," a frustrated Warner blurted out before driving away. (Still piqued a month later, Warner, speaking to The Los Angeles Times, summarized the attitude of the assembled guests about their plans to save the country: "You little Virginia Democrat, how can you understand the great opportunities we have?")

I don't know what went on at this meeting, and it doesn't matter. What matters is that Mark Warner believes that "America hates Democrats." No one who believes that is ever going to be a forceful advocate for his party or their vision for the country. Until we hear different, we have to assume that Warner is going to be apologetic and timid, unwilling to stand up strongly for the values on which his party was built.

This has nothing to do with ideology. There are plenty of centrist Democrats who haven't internalized the Republican critique of their party, who don't just mindlessly repeat what Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove say about them. But it looks

#2. I think Feingold in the No.2 spot erases the GOP ready made label for him as a "Liberal near radical/Never met a defense bill he liked/twice(not once) divorced/single/Jewish" that might hamper Feingold at the top of the ticket during a General election (sure, maybe he can overcome those labels...but the general election voters brainwashed by the media will make it an uphill battle)....and provides him with a chance at the Presidency after his 8 years as VP (as he is relatively young)--and he won't be running as a senator by then, which will provide him with what he needs to become unassailable.

Revised ticket would be Clark/Feingold for me-
Clark understands Foreign policy, is strong on National Security, thereby attractive to crossover voters in a post 9/11 world, isn't controllable by the DLC or anyone else for that matter, understands Grassroots power, is more southern than Warner, more physically attractive, more forceful, more opinionated, more of an open mind, is an outsider but understands washington, is strong enough to not have to appease Republicans on military matters (including cutting the Pentagon Budget waste), won the last war America won (to fight Genocide no less), drew up plans to intervene in Rwanda, and is a fighter like Feingold--who both are leaders, not followers of the Poll winds. Clark was endorsed by Lesbian/Gay groups including the Washington Blade, and attracts minorities.

Clark/Feingold just makes more sense than Warner/Feingold, IMO.

Warner/Feingold will not make it during a post 9/11 world as the media GOP tools continue to tout as the mantra whenever they feel like it and its convenient. An Osama Tape would get rid of of that Democratic ticket pronto (as I don't underestimate the GOP's will here)-- plus whomever is on the GOP ticket....National Defense experience will certainly be on there, don't even doubt it!

So I go with a Can of General Clark Whoop Ass and a dose of Feingold Maverickisity to do the trick! (plus Clark and Feingold would look better on a stage together than Warner could ever hope!

[ShortnFiery]

89. Your post had made me like Warner even more ...

No one appreciates "over the top" people forcing their "wedge issue" views on them ... especially after a long night of campaigning.

"You little Virginia Democrat, how can you understand the great opportunities we have?"

I agree. We don't have to sell our soul nor change our positions to be civil and show basic respect to our moderate republican neighbors. To allow folks who view life differently, without being radical, a chance to to the right thing: Vote Democratic. All it takes is empathy and education to change many Southern Minds toward the light.

One small step - attitude change - at a time.

[FrenchieCat]

92. Good for you! Glad I could provide you with some insight!

If there are more like you out there....then Warner's "American hates Democrats" and the "Unlike other Democrats, I'm not here to refight how we got into Iraq", and his amnesia induced-- War, what War? attitude should for sure cinch him the nomination from the Democratic party regardless in 2008! I would'nt be a bit surprised....I mean, the Republicans votes against their best self interest all of the time too! :hi:

[imlost]

90. Clark-Feingold-Gore

[obnoxiousdrunk]

91. Clooney- Clinton 2008 n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

93. Warner...HELL NO...he's a DLCer. Feingold yes