<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040428/ap_on_el_pr/gore_kerry' target='_blank'>Article</a>

I'm not pointing fingers, republicans probably have the same. But $6 million seems like alot. Gotta wonder if he spent it, maybe he would have won. (Especially if he had bought votes. Dems do that all the time!) Seriously, I'm not sure what you do w/ leftover campaign funds, but that's alot of dough sitting around for 4 years. Maybe the reforms should address this too.

This is sort of a guess, but it sounds like it was in a different account from your typical general campaign fund.

It may have been raised to help with legal expenses in Florida and what not. Thus strings were attached. Donating it to the DNC and what not will remove those strings.

Well, one thing seems certain, and that is that AlphaGore knows the game is up, for good, for him. If he is giving away his campaign money, its a sure sign.

I would like to say I am relieved. Actually, all that is happening here is that the way is being cleared for Hillary!. The Demo politburo handled Dean, and then Dean handled himself. They will reach some deal with Edwards. They will let the Prince of Ketchup be their lamb this season. They should know that with the Senate tied up, nothing very dramatic is going to happen adverse to their interests. And better yet, the George the Dumber is racking up enormous deficits, and this is going to be really good stuff for Demos to use in four years. We will have reverses in the war. They can bide their time, try to get Hillary! in together with a sweep in the Senate and maybe the house too.

In other words, you have about four years to get your affairs in order and/or find a nice place abroad

If we Democrats don't win the White House in 2004, I'd prefer to see Edwards try again.

I proudly voted for Hillary Clinton, and I'd do it again if I still lived in New York. But she rubs too many people the wrong way -- for silly reaons, but there it is.

Edwards would be a stronger candidate.

Schadenfreude Wrote:Edwards would be a stronger candidate.

The criticisms on Edwards were that he had only 1 Senate term and was likely to lose that if he tried for re-election. He has very little track record, and none in the executive branch.

I don't think Edwards is a very strong candidate at all in the mainstream, after you get past his grass roots.

Clinton rubs people the wrong way b/c she's a pseudo-intellectual who feigns alot of great theoretical ideas but can't get anything done in the real world.

You forgot the main reasons, Torch. She's a woman, her name is "Clinton", and she doesn't take $#!t.

Oddball Wrote:You forgot the main reasons, Torch. She's a woman, her name is "Clinton", and she doesn't take $#!t.

Maybe so. I don't live in NY, but I don't hear her name much when it comes to great legislation.

I know people say the same thing about Martha Stewart. Frankly I like Martha, and was disappointed that she evidently committed a crime. But, Martha has clear talents and can produce. Hillary hasn't a clue when it comes to reality.

Yet Kenny Boy walks the streets unindicted. Only in America!

Hell, forget King George's friends. Let's look at Shrub.

Does the name Harken ring any bells?

<a href='http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/bush_harken.html' target='_blank'>http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/bush_harken.html</a>

DrTorch Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:Edwards would be a stronger candidate.

The criticisms on Edwards were that he had only 1 Senate term and was likely to lose that if he tried for re-election. He has very little track record, and none in the executive branch.

Yeah, George Bush's resume blows that away. :rolleyes: