Replies

From what I see Kerry is like a potemkin candidate, looks good but nothing really there.

You're right and it could be a very apt description of Clinton in '92. There was nothing to Clinton if you discount his voracious sexual appetite. But that didn't stop the sheeple from electing him. Twice. I don't want Bush 43 to go down the same road as Bush 41. If he lets Kerry and the Rats keep on hammering him without answer, the only thing echoing in the empty minds of the majority of the electorate will be the unanswered charges and allegations of the Rats.

"There was nothing to Clinton if you discount his voracious sexual appetite."

Well, I hate to say a good word about Clinton, so let me start with: of course you are right. And with Gennifer Flowers and the draft-dodging it was obvious he was a no-good-nik. But when he first ran for pres. he did at least try to position himself as a "new" democrat. There was none of this old-hat "people vs. the powerful" crap. And heck, that would have been A LOT easier to take from Bill Clinton than it is from Al Gore or John Kerry, children of privilege that they were and remain.

So what can I say, Clinton was bad, but Kerry is unbearable. A rich phoney, a toff as the Brits say.

Bush better beat his hiney, and he won't get it done without the base. I hope W's ready to fight the culture wars, because I think they are going to be a big factor this year.