<div align=justify>
I personally feel that Kerry will win the nomination and loose the election. I feel that Howard Dean might be the only one capable of giving Bush a good run, especially if no WMDs are found by Nov 2004. Whatever the outcome, it will be most interesting.
My thoughts on the Democrat's debate are; I was suprisingly quite impressed with Sharpton. He seemed very well prepared. Kerry seemed too eager to continue Bush's war and his voice was cracking, which some would associate it as a weak trait, especially for a veteran. The little guy from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich is just pissed at everybody and loud, which translated to me, 'little man syndrome' even though he was making his points. Dean seemed unprepared and bumbling, unfortunate, for I feel his platform and agenda might get the Democrats back on track a give Bush a scare. Gephardt is visually the most presidential out of the bunch, but he's to liberal. His awesome healthcare plan will never fly; thus he's easy pickens! Lieberman doesn't have the look or the platform to distance himself adequately from Bush. Why elect a democrat for president if his views parallel that of the incumbent too closely? John Edwards, the redheaded southerner has future potential but he's too young. I truly liked Carol Moseley Braun, the female ambassador, the best. Her views and concerns seemed most noble and urgent compared to the all the others', but realistically this country isn't mature enough to allow her a chance. Bob Graham is too old and jolly without any color or substance to impress or stand above any of the others.
</div>
www.DeanForAmerica.com
__________________
"...to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government .. " -- The US Declaration of Independence
Last edited by samremy; 06-22-2003 at 03:12 AM..
|