I liked the skating and team play.
It is improving each olympic game.
Democrats maneuvering for '04 or '08 Presidential Bid
-
Man, you are behind the times.
Hollywood stars align behind Kerry By Lisa Friedman,DC Bureau(Found this through Drudge…it was news.com or something like it. Sorry!)
_Vermont Gov. Howard Dean made an early splash in the Hollywood money scene as an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, but the entertainment industry gave more to Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. With the Iraq war no longer looking like a winning political issue for Democrats in the 2004 presidential race, political analysts speculated Monday that Dean’s popularity with the stars might boil down to a walk-on role.
_“The war is over, and a lot of his early Hollywood support really did have to do with the war,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, political science expert at the University of Southern California.
_“The early interest was in Dean. I just don’t know where it is now. It will depend on who looks to be the most electable. If that’s the goal, they are more likely going to take a look at John Kerry.”
_According to campaign donation reports filed recently for the first quarter of 2003, Dean did not rake in the most money from celebrities among Democratic presidential contenders. That distinction went to Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who – according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. – took in $159,350 from the entertainment industry, compared with Dean’s $64,710.
_But in the battle for top billing, Dean seems to have come out a winner with financial backing from the likes of actor-director Rob Reiner, actor Michael Douglas and two-thirds of the group Crosby, Stills & Nash. “The West Wing” star Martin Sheen also has endorsed Dean’s candidacy, although according to financial reports has not donated any money to the campaign.
_Political observers say the end of the war in Iraq could mark a significant point in the anti-war Dean’s campaign for the Democratic nomination. “His issue is gone,” CNN analyst Bill Schneider said. “(Hollywood) wants someone who can beat George Bush. That doesn’t at the moment look like Howard Dean. Now those same people are going to be looking at the field again.”
_Schneider said he expects celebrities will now be casting their eyes toward – and opening their wallets for – Kerry. His celebrity donations have included $2,000 from actor Alec Baldwin; $1,000 from “American Beauty” star Thora Birch; and $1,000 apiece from directors Sydney Pollack and Wes Craven.
_“(Kerry) has a lot of money, and that impresses people in Hollywood,” Schneider said.
_Former Democratic Minority Leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri took in $10,250 from the entertainment industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
_While the total is among the lowest for the big-name Democratic contenders, he did manage to pack in his share of stars. Among them, “The West Wing” actor Bradley Whitford; “Who’s the Boss” star Judith Light; and “That Girl” Marlo Thomas, each of whom donated $2,000.
_As far as “Let’s Make a Deal” host Monty Hall was concerned, Joseph Lieberman was behind door No. 1. Hall gave $250 to the Connecticut senator. Meanwhile, “Will and Grace” star Debra Messing sank $2,000 into Lieberman’s campaign. Yet Lieberman’s candidacy has not sparked much interest among the celebrity set, a factor pundits attributed both to his support for the war and outspoken stance against sex and violence in the media.
_“He’s not where their hearts are,” Schneider said, adding that religion also might be keeping the stars away from Lieberman. “A lot of them are Jewish and they probably worry about whether a Jewish Democrat can get elected.”
_President George W. Bush has not begun to campaign formally for the 2004 race and has not filed any campaign reports.
_In the past, however, actress Bo Derek(Woo woo!), actor Bruce Willis and actor/former National Rifle Association leader Charlton Heston have buoyed the Republican ticket’s star power.
_But of course, Jeffe(political science expert at the University of Southern California) said, Bush “doesn’t need Hollywood money.”NOTE: Kerry has a lot of $(600 million),
but Bush(Worth what? 60 million$, tops!)doesn’t need Hollywood $!
–--------------------
What’s with this F_alk? Has he got a multilingual spellcheck program?
No posts on this thread, then BAM! -
And then there’s the investigation into
Senator Edwards campaign contributions. See …http://www.journalnow.com/wsj/MGBNR9U8WED.html
PS-Oh! Don’t forget Senator Gary Hart’s entrance( ),I mean exit from the 2004 Democrat Presidential Candidates’ Race. See…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21566-2003May6.html
PSS( :) )Anybody see the debatezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
A few jabs at Sharpton(the only one with flair and charisma, yikes!) by a coupla cowards. Every candidate got to ask one ? of another candidate and it was like they were waltzing together…YEEEEEEEEEEEEuck!And yet I read a few writers who said Kerry was the winner?
More like whinner! -
And the DNC tries to get in its licks. :roll:
Yesterday on Meet the Press, Tim Russert spoke with Mary Matalin and James Carville.
Russert read Mary an excerpt from a letter her husband wrote on behalf of the Democratic National Committee. Part of it read, “These people are playing for keeps. If we give this Bush crew four more years in the White House to do their dirty work, we won’t recognize the America they’ve created. Worst of all, they lie.”
Here’s Mary’s response: “Well, he is the resident national expert on lying presidents. I don’t get his mail, actually, and I’m quite sure he didn’t write it and I hope that nowhere in that letter are the words George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and ‘lie’ in the same sentence. To paraphrase your president; you will not be having relations with this woman.”
HAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAAHAAHAHAA!
ROTFLMAO!
–-------------------------------------
Next operation…Overtake TG MOSES VI! -
MID MAY, 2003
LJ,
What are you a politophile!?!See…
http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/national/bone05152003.htmSo the news is that John F. Kerry(JFK) is a member of the Skulls. There need be no more Dem/Lib/Moderate comments about GW Bush being a Skulls member.
How 'bout dat A Skulls v Skulls election!
The Illuminati are coming! The Illuminati are coming! :wink: -
How about those democrats maneuvering themselves into a hotel down near Texas? Rat bastards….
…send the Texas Rangers in after them :P
-
Mid May, 2003
I know it’s early for anyone to be paying attention to who’s running as a Dem Prez candidate , but…
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/13/opinion/polls/main553730.shtml
66% couldn’t name ONE?
-
Tells ya how stupid a lot of Americans really are. Ignorance is a crime against yourself.
-
…and then there’s the perfect Democrat…
…Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.)
http://www.hillnews.com/news/052003/gephardt.aspx
If he can’t be there for votes
on topics he stands strongly for
where will he be as President? -
END of MAY, 2003
Now the DNC has decided to save money by cutting its staff in preparation for the 2004 Presidential campaign. The problem is that all the staff cuts are minority black staffers. :oops:
Source:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/05/28/national2138EDT0778.DTLHmm! I seem to recall that the DNC refused to help the black Democrat candidate for Gov. of NY with funding or staff support. The Republican candidate won. I also recall that the current DNC plan has Sen. Carol Mosley-Braun and variuos other favourite son African Americans running against Rev. Al Sharpton to dilute the black vote.
Democrats are for minorities as long as these minorities keep their mouths shut and until they get their vote! -
66% couldn’t name ONE?
WOOHOO! Now Yanny and I can look forward to Bush getting re-elected! :P
-
Senator JFK is having $ problems…
See…
http://www.lasvegassun.com/drudged/060404635.htmlHe cannot use his rich wife’s, Mrs. Heinz Kerry, money!
But the last few lines of the article explain tha t she cann give her money to an organization with no direct connection to JFK. This organization can spend the money to support the Senator’s campaign.
Sounds to me like CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM FELL THROUGH!
Or did I miss the US Supreme Court knocking its block off.
-
Don’t tell me a law is actually going to stop a democrat…:wink: :wink:
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
Don’t tell me a law is actually going to stop a democrat…:wink: :wink:
Actualy I think that applies to polititions in general. :roll:
-
Ouch!!
No doubt the Democratic party is in disarray, and no doubt there be factions that would wish to dilute the potency of a Sharpton… still I don’t think that anyone had to coerce Mosely-Braun into running!By the way, I’ve met the former Dem NY governor candidate (Carl McColl) and he’s all right – but – the party just didn’t see the upside in writing a major check for TV commercials in what was already a failed campaign! Pataki (the then and current governor) had it sewn up. Naturally, this being politics, and NY politics at that, there was plenty of screaming and yelling and accusations of betrayal etc. (sometimes referred to as "a candid and open discussion of the issues).
So what’s the handicapping look like now? My personal feeling is that Kerry, as front runner, could pick Graham for VP to help win Florida in Nov04. Or pick a California moderate as running mate – although California is probably one of the ((few)) “theirs to lose” states for the Dems.
A friend of mine says root for Vermont governor Howard Dean – on the theory that if you’re going to lose anyway, might as well go down in flames having made the case for the higher principles – as for example, the universal healthcare program that Dean launched in VT a couple of years ago.
The rest are mainly running now for name recognition with an eye on '08 (Edwards) or because they’ve learned that you can earn major influence and $$$ by running for president (Lieberman), making it one of the more rewarding things you can do with your clothes on ((or in Clinton’s case, otherwise)).
-
still I don’t think that anyone had to coerce Mosely-Braun into running!
She was planning to run for the other Senate seat in IL(the one she didn’t lose.) But the DNC talked her out of it… destroy Sharpton’s chances and keep/eliminate a black woman from the senate(killing 2 boids w/1 stone.)
@ZimZaxZeo:By the way, I’ve met the former Dem NY governor candidate (Carl McCall) and he’s all right – but – the party just didn’t see the upside in writing a major check for TV commercials in what was already a failed campaign!
Could they be setting him up for a second run in 2006 with face/name recognition? We’ll see…
@ZimZaxZeo:My personal feeling is that Kerry, as front runner, could pick Graham for VP to help win Florida in 2004. Or pick a California moderate as running mate – although California is probably one of the ((few)) “theirs to lose” states for the Dems.
I’ve seen/heard Graham mentioned elsewhere, but the way he’s handled the Democrat debates would you want him on your ticket?!?
@ZimZaxZeo:Vermont governor Howard Dean – might as well go down in flames having made the case for the higher principles – as for example, the universal healthcare program that Dean launched in VT a couple of years ago.
Though I believe he left his state in a poor financial situation…
@ZimZaxZeo:The rest are mainly running now for name recognition with an eye on '08 (Edwards) or because they’ve learned that you can earn major influence and $$$ by running for president (Lieberman).
Here we agree completely. Each will now be introduced as former Democrat presidential candidate… incorrectly as only one will have that distinction.
I wish to point out, as in a previous post, that most of them are senators. Recall that senators have a poor won/loss record running for US President.
With what Bill and Hill are putting the Democrat Party through now I’d say they are preparing the Dem Party for a 2004 loss. Then Hillary can run against a newcomer/not incumbent in 2008. 2012 will be too late as Hillary will be 65… too old for most voters now… after Bush, Clinton and W!
-
The year that Hillary runs will be the year that the Republican party raises the most money ever. Anyone disagree?
-
Ho-hum. This is like below WWF in entertainment value, once you’ve seen the first ten minutes.
Yet the outcomes affect everyone’s life – especially those in the middle class and below. Interesting how my sister despises Hillary on supposed moral grounds, while my mother admires her as a woman of achievement.
Certainly she has “brass tubes” that workaholic blonde lawyer – and without a doubt she has plunged into Senatorhood with her eyes on the White House… she has the highest negatives of any woman in politics, for sure - - and so did Eleanor Roosevelt!
In a sense, she ought to incorporate herself as a licensed money-printing machine for both parties! She is a polarizer. At least she’s not made out of oatmeal.
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
The year that Hillary runs will be the year that the Republican party raises the most money ever. Anyone disagree?
The year she runs, and I think we can agree that she will try, I will not only make the first political donation of my life, but I will go to my local Rep. party HQ and volunteer some time.
That s all we need Clinton with PMS. :roll: :o :( :roll:
-
@dzfish:
That s all we need Clinton with PMS.
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
**dzfish!**How rude!
:oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:
But true:so true!
:P :wink: 8) :D :lol: -
June 27, 2003
Results of the moveon.org Democrat members poll…
In most presidential primary processes, pundits, pollsters and wealthy donors determine the outcome long before the actual primaries. By the time the rest of us cast our ballots, the nomination is typically a done deal. The MoveOn.org PAC primary allowed hundreds of thousands of voters to speak out now.
On June 24th and 25th, 2003 we held an online vote to help our members express their preferences among the current field of Democratic candidates. This vote also served to determine if there was consensus among MoveOn members for a candidate endorsement for the 2004 presidential contest. In just a little over 48 hours, 317,647 members voted, making this vote larger than both the New Hampshire Democratic primary and Iowa caucuses combined.
No Candidate Wins Majority
in MoveOn.Org PAC First-Ever Democratic Online “Primary”Estimated $1.75 million raised in pledges to Democratic contenders
Most votes to **Dean, followed by Kucinich, and Kerry.
Friday, June 27, 12:00pm—No candidate won a majority in this week’s first-ever Democratic online presidential primary, therefore MoveOn.org PAC will not make an endorsement at this time. Howard Dean received the highest vote total with 43.87% of the vote (139,360 votes); followed by Dennis Kucinich with 23.93% (76,000 votes); and John F. Kerry with 15.73% (49,973 votes).
The rest of the field was in single digits: John Edwards, 3.19% (10,146 votes); Richard Gephardt, 2.44% (7,755 votes); Bob Graham, 2.24% (7,113 votes); Carol Moseley Braun, 2.21% (7,021 votes); Joe Lieberman, 1.92% (6,095 votes); and Al Sharpton, 0.53% (1,677 votes).
MoveOn.org PAC hailed the primary as a tremendous kick-off for the campaign to defeat George Bush next year:
-
317,639 votes were cast in the “primary,” more than the 2000 New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary, the Iowa and South Carolina Democratic presidential caucuses, combined;
-
54,370 voters pledged to volunteer for their preferred Democratic contender;
-
77,192 voters authorized MoveOn.org PAC to give their e-mail addresses to the candidate of their choice; and
-
49,132 voters pledged to contribute money to their candidate, for a total estimated at more than $1.75 million ($35 average contribution).
“And one of the most promising results for Democrats in 2004, is that most MoveOn.org voters said they would ‘enthusiastically support’ a broad array of candidates as the party’s nominee next year,” said Wes Boyd, MoveOn.org PAC treasurer.
“This is only the beginning,” continued Boyd. “Our most important objectives have been met: early Democratic grassroots involvement; increased contributions and volunteer support for each campaign; and mobilization of the Democratic base to defeat George Bush. We wanted people to have a seat at the table, and they have taken it.”
I’d say this shows liberals trying to take full control of the Democratic party. Who was the last iberal, or if you prefer the term ‘progressive’, to run as either major parties candidate? George McGovern(1972. I was to young to vote, but knew what was going on.) Did he win. No! I recall he planned to cut each branch of the the military by 1/4 or as much as 1/3. I remember he had a history of flipping on the issues.
DEAN/SHARPTON in 2004!!
Go! Go! Go! Go! Go! Go! Go!** -
Suggested Topics
