Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CHARLITE
The nominating process was so front-loaded neither John Edwards nor Wesley Clark had a real chance to catch him.

And if Edwards or Clark had caught Kerry, it would have meant...what?

10 posted on 05/18/2005 6:15:25 PM PDT by TheGeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: TheGeezer

Yawn!


11 posted on 05/18/2005 6:18:15 PM PDT by ClaireSolt (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: TheGeezer

"And if Edwards or Clark had caught Kerry, it would have meant...what?"

Right, that's basically what I said on another thread on this same basic issue, changing the primary process.

Edwards was bad enough on the stump as the Veep. Clark came across as at least as looney as Dean. For a while I thought they'd blown it by rejecting Dean, but now that he's head of the DNC, it's clear I was wrong about that. I don't know the last time America elected a churl to be president, but they won't be doing that in the age of Oprah.

In my 20/20 hindsight Kerry was the best they had. And it is arguable that could he have made up his mind on ANYTHING, and had he not been a comrade in arms with Hanoi Jane Fonda, he might have even prevailed.

Two bigs ifs, admittedly. But none of the others were a wit better. And if they think they can win with Hillary, good luck on that count too. The really, really, really, really sad part is, Kerry was the best they had, and Hillary is the best they've got.


16 posted on 05/18/2005 7:00:32 PM PDT by jocon307 (Irish grandmother rolls in grave, yet again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson