To: Richard S who wrote (480243 ) 10/23/2003 12:52:50 AM From: American Spirit Respond to of 769667 Clinton didn't succeed because he was a goo-goo eyed liberal, he succeeded because he knew how to give the people in the middle what they needed to trust him. Until Monica, he won their trust, even afterward he still had most of it. Granted CLinton was also a governor from a small state, but 2004 post 9-11 against Bush is much different than 1992. Clinton admits that if he had faced this election climate he probably wouldn't have been able to beat Bush Sr. even with a lousy economy. People want a candidate with proven balls who can take the military issues away from GW. That means an expert in military matters. That means a proven military hero. To beat Bush, who's so successful in the pro-military area, you almost have to be a combat hero. I don't think anyone else can beat him. In fact I want two combat heros on the ticket just to make sure. Kerry alone can't even beat Bush for sure. He needs Clark. But Clark wont help Dean much. Dean will be cremated by Bush if he gets nominated. It will make you nauseous and want to cry. It will be a terrible tragedy. I admire Howard Dean, but not in 2004, not as the nominee, no way. I will actively fight against him for the sake of winning. The Demcratic party will be strong under Kerry. He is the most experienced candidate running, rspected by all, as honest as they come and can handle anything. He could be one of our greatest presidents winning respect from all sides of the political spectrum. But this isn't about Kerry or Dean it's about beating Bush and his cronies. That's where you have to be extra smart and not idealistic. The left-wing backs Dean and they can easily be beaten by the Bush brigades. That is a fact. And all the little internet contributions in the world wont change that.