2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?

[Bo]

Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani

[Bo]

The Democratic candidate would have won handily regardless of who the nominees were. In a lot of ways, the actual 2008 results were a best case scenario for Republicans. There was enough hatred and ignorance to keep McCain's numbers somewhat respectable.

Not to mention that McCain was perceived as pretty moderate (at least in comparison to the other GOP candidates) but still more or less respectable to the base.

[Bo]

http://

Hillary vs. McCain

lol. If Obama, with all his controversies and inexperience, amanged to defeat McCain in a landslide, Hillary would have as well.

[Bo]

http://

Hillary vs. McCain

lol. If Obama, with all his controversies and inexperience, amanged to defeat McCain in a landslide, Hillary would have as well.

None of that mattered. It was all about the economy and getting someone as far from Bush as possible.

Exactly. Hillary could run on her husband's good economic record and Hillary's policies were farther from Bush's policies than McCain's policies were.

[Bo]

http://

Hillary vs. McCain

lol. If Obama, with all his controversies and inexperience, amanged to defeat McCain in a landslide, Hillary would have as well.

None of that mattered. It was all about the economy and getting someone as far from Bush as possible.

Exactly. Hillary could run on her husband's good economic record and Hillary's policies were farther from Bush's policies than McCain's policies were.

It could be flipped around too based on doing nothing to stop terrorism in several cases and her having nothing to do with the good economy too.

Hillary and Bill Clinton could counter that by arguing that the GOP said Clinton was too obsessed with catching bin Laden in the 1990s, before saying that he was not obessed enough after 9/11. Bill Clinton could also say that Hillary helped him in regards to the economy as President and that she will continue his economic policies. Since many voters gave Clinton credit for the economic prosperity of the 1990s, they will believe what he says in regards to Hillary. Seriously, if Obama managed to defeat McCain in a landslide after going to a racist church for over 20 years, Hillary would have also defeated McCain (or any other GOP opponent) in a landslide.

[Bo]

Hard to see any Republican winning after what George W Bush did to this country. Maybe, if a GOP nominee had had the balls to oppose the bailouts. That was the only chance the Republicans had.

That's why I say that Mike Huckabee might have been a stronger candidate than most people give him credit for.

He might have been, but he would have still lost because many voters perceived him as too religious.

[Bo]

http://

Hillary vs. McCain

lol. If Obama, with all his controversies and inexperience, amanged to defeat McCain in a landslide, Hillary would have as well.

None of that mattered. It was all about the economy and getting someone as far from Bush as possible.

Exactly. Hillary could run on her husband's good economic record and Hillary's policies were farther from Bush's policies than McCain's policies were.

It could be flipped around too based on doing nothing to stop terrorism in several cases and her having nothing to do with the good economy too.

Hillary and Bill Clinton could counter that by arguing that the GOP said Clinton was too obsessed with catching bin Laden in the 1990s, before saying that he was not obessed enough after 9/11. Bill Clinton could also say that Hillary helped him in regards to the economy as President and that she will continue his economic policies. Since many voters gave Clinton credit for the economic prosperity of the 1990s, they will believe what he says in regards to Hillary. Seriously, if Obama managed to defeat McCain in a landslide after going to a racist church for over 20 years, Hillary would have also defeated McCain (or any other GOP opponent) in a landslide.

I'm guessing no one has any arguments with me over why Hillary would have defeated McCain in a landslide?

[Bo]

I don't think Hillary would've won in a landslide. The longer your past, the higher the negatives.

That's not always true.

[Bo]

I wonder how John Edwards would have done, assuming no affair with Rielle Hunter.

For that matter, I wonder how Gore would have done.

Edwards:

Gore:

[Bo]

I wonder how John Edwards would have done, assuming no affair with Rielle Hunter.

For that matter, I wonder how Gore would have done.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPOSED.

He means that Edwards would not have had his affair with Hunter in the first place, thus Edwards would have had nothing to expose.

[Bo]

I wonder how John Edwards would have done, assuming no affair with Rielle Hunter.

For that matter, I wonder how Gore would have done.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPOSED.

He means that Edwards would not have had his affair with Hunter in the first place, thus Edwards would have had nothing to expose.

Well he did have the affair. You mean if it just didn't happen?

Yes. Read the bolded part.

[Bo]

Oh then we would've picked apart his cases as an attorney to make it look like he was on the wrong side of every issue.

Then the GOP would have failed epically, since no one would have cared about that. All they would have cared about would have been the economy. Thus, any Democrat would have defeated any Republican (except maybe Colin Powell) in a landslide in 2008.

[Bo]

John Edwards [no affair]/Hillary Clinton v. Mitt Romney/Condi Rice

Edwards/Clinton - 516 EV - 60%
Romney/Rice - 22EV - 39%
Others - 0EV - 1%

No way Edwards picks Hillary for VP, unless it is a very close race between them for the nomination, and even then I'm not sure he picks her (since Obama didn't).

[Bo]

I don't think Hillary would've won in a landslide. The longer your past, the higher the negatives.

That's not always true.

Yeah but it's true for any Clinton, who would've been haunted by Slick Willie's handling of terrorism that possibly led to 9/11, his personal problems that kept him distracted while the national security rug was being pulled out from under him.

Additionally, her healthcare credentials would have been called into question after she screwed up in Arkansas.

9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's. Also, terrorism and Clinton's affair weren't big issues in 2008. As for healthcare, Hillary could claim that she learned from her mistakes and that her GOP opponent will not implement any reforms at all. If going to a racist church for 20+ years didn't hurt Obama, then none of those things would have hurt Hillary in the general election.

[Bo]

9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

Because he was a coward, that's why. I agree that Clinton deserves some blame for not preventing 9/11, but Bush Jr. deserves some blame as well. Bush Jr. received that Bin Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. Memo in August 2001, where it specifically talked about the possibility of al-Qaeda hijacking planes, yet he did nothing about it. He could have at least increased security at the airports. Anyway, I don't think her husband's failure to prevent 9/11 would have hurt Hillary much in 2008 because people were mcuh more worried about the economy and losing their jobs that year. And since the economy was booming under Bill Clinton's watch, many voters who were worried about the economy would have flocked to Hillary since they would think that she and Bill will be able to fix the U.S. economy again.

[Bo]

9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

[Bo]

9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.

[Bo]

9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.

I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.

That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.

[Bo]

9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.

I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.

That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.

It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?

That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.

[Bo]

9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.

I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.

That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.

It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?

That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.

It was a fake document. http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp

That source says nothing about the authenticity of the Bin Laden memo.

[Bo]

9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.

I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.

That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.

It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?

That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.

It was a fake document. http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp

That source says nothing about the authenticity of the Bin Laden memo.

all the times Clinton missed Bin Laden.

That's true but irrelevant. Bush did get that memo.

[Bo]

9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.

I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.

That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.

It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?

That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.

It was a fake document. http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp

That source says nothing about the authenticity of the Bin Laden memo.

all the times Clinton missed Bin Laden.

That's true but irrelevant. Bush did get that memo.

If you think that's true why wasn't that Kerry's campaign slogan?

Because Kerry didn't know how to run a good campaign.

[Bo]

9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.

I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.

That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.

It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?

That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.

It was a fake document. http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp

That source says nothing about the authenticity of the Bin Laden memo.

all the times Clinton missed Bin Laden.

That's true but irrelevant. Bush did get that memo.

If you think that's true why wasn't that Kerry's campaign slogan?

Because Kerry didn't know how to run a good campaign.

You got that right.

At least we agree on something.

[Bo]

What are we agreeing on?

That John kerry didn't know how to run a good campaign.