Whistle Ass / George Bush 2004

THANKS Senator Barbara Boxer & US Representative Tubbs Jones

THE TRUE HEROES OF TODAY'S DEMOCRACY
Statement On The Historic Objection To The Certification Of Ohio’s Electoral Votes

George Bush will lose; as long as we remain steadfast

Monday, September 20th, 2004
Put Away Your Hankies...a message from Michael Moore

9/20/04

Dear Friends,

Enough of the handwringing! Enough of the doomsaying! Do I have to come there and personally calm you down? Stop with all the defeatism, OK? Bush IS a goner -- IF we all just quit our whining and bellyaching and stop shaking like a bunch of nervous ninnies. Geez, this is embarrassing! The Republicans are laughing at us. Do you ever see them cry, "Oh, it's all over! We are finished! Bush can't win! Waaaaaa!"

Hell no. It's never over for them until the last ballot is shredded. They are never finished -- they just keeping moving forward like sharks that never sleep, always pushing, pulling, kicking, blocking, lying.

They are relentless and that is why we secretly admire them -- they just simply never, ever give up. Only 30% of the country calls itself "Republican," yet the Republicans own it all -- the White House, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court and the majority of the governorships. How do you think they've been able to pull that off considering they are a minority? It's because they eat you and me and every other liberal for breakfast and then spend the rest of the day wreaking havoc on the planet.

Look at us -- what a bunch of crybabies. Bush gets a bounce after his convention and you would have thought the Germans had run through Poland again. The Bushies are coming, the Bushies are coming! Yes, they caught Kerry asleep on the Swift Boat thing. Yes, they found the frequency in Dan Rather and ran with it. Suddenly it's like, "THE END IS NEAR! THE SKY IS FALLING!"

No, it is not. If I hear one more person tell me how lousy a candidate Kerry is and how he can't win... Dammit, of COURSE he's a lousy candidate -- he's a Democrat, for heavens sake! That party is so pathetic, they even lose the elections they win! What were you expecting, Bruce Springsteen heading up the ticket? Bruce would make a helluva president, but guys like him don't run -- and neither do you or I. People like Kerry run.

Yes, OF COURSE any of us would have run a better, smarter, kick-ass campaign. Of course we would have smacked each and every one of those phony swifty boaty bastards down. But WE are not running for president -- Kerry is. So quit complaining and work with what we have. Oprah just gave 300 women a... Pontiac! Did you see any of them frowning and moaning and screaming, "Oh God, NOT a friggin' Pontiac!" Of course not, they were happy. The Pontiacs all had four wheels, an engine and a gas pedal. You want more than that, well, I can't help you. I had a Pontiac once and it lasted a good year. And it was a VERY good year.

My friends, it is time for a reality check.

1. The polls are wrong. They are all over the map like diarrhea. On Friday, one poll had Bush 13 points ahead -- and another poll had them both tied. There are three reasons why the polls are b.s.: One, they are polling "likely voters." "Likely" means those who have consistently voted in the past few elections. So that cuts out young people who are voting for the first time and a ton of non-voters who are definitely going to vote in THIS election. Second, they are not polling people who use their cell phone as their primary phone. Again, that means they are not talking to young people. Finally, most of the polls are weighted with too many Republicans, as pollster John Zogby revealed last week. You are being snookered if you believe any of these polls.

2. Kerry has brought in the Clinton A-team. Instead of shunning Clinton (as Gore did), Kerry has decided to not make that mistake.

3. Traveling around the country, as I've been doing, I gotta tell ya, there is a hell of a lot of unrest out there. Much of it is not being captured by the mainstream press. But it is simmering and it is real. Do not let those well-produced Bush rallies of angry white people scare you. Turn off the TV! (Except Jon Stewart and Bill Moyers -- everything else is just a sugar-coated lie).

4. Conventional wisdom says if the election is decided on "9/11" (the fear of terrorism), Bush wins. But if it is decided on the job we are doing in Iraq, then Bush loses. And folks, that "job," you might have noticed, has descended into the third level of a hell we used to call Vietnam. There is no way out. It is a full-blown mess of a quagmire and the body bags will sadly only mount higher. Regardless of what Kerry meant by his original war vote, he ain't the one who sent those kids to their deaths -- and Mr. and Mrs. Middle America knows it. Had Bush bothered to show up when he was in the "service" he might have somewhat of a clue as to how to recognize an immoral war that cannot be "won." All he has delivered to Iraq was that plasticized turkey last Thanksgiving. It is this failure of monumental proportions that is going to cook his goose come this November.

So, do not despair. All is not over. Far from it. The Bush people need you to believe that it is over. They need you to slump back into your easy chair and feel that sick pain in your gut as you contemplate another four years of George W. Bush. They need you to wish we had a candidate who didn't windsurf and who was just as smart as we were when WE knew Bush was lying about WMD and Saddam planning 9/11. It's like Karl Rove is hypnotizing you -- "Kerry voted for the war...Kerry voted for the war...Kerrrrrryyy vooootted fooooor theeee warrrrrrrrrr..."

Yes...Yes...Yesssss....He did! HE DID! No sense in fighting now...what I need is sleep...sleeep...sleeeeeeppppp...

WAKE UP! The majority are with us! More than half of all Americans are pro-choice, want stronger environmental laws, are appalled that assault weapons are back on the street -- and 54% now believe the war is wrong. YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO CONVINCE THEM OF ANY OF THIS -- YOU JUST HAVE TO GIVE THEM A RAY OF HOPE AND A RIDE TO THE POLLS. CAN YOU DO THAT? WILL YOU DO THAT?

Just for me, please? Buck up. The country is almost back in our hands. Not another negative word until Nov. 3rd! Then you can bitch all you want about how you wish Kerry was still that long-haired kid who once had the courage to stand up for something. Personally, I think that kid is still inside him. Instead of the wailing and gnashing of your teeth, why not hold out a hand to him and help the inner soldier/protester come out and defeat the forces of evil we now so desperately face. Do we have any other choice?

Yours,

Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
mmflint@aol.com http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-09-20

John Kerry's 2004 Vice President: Who will it be?

Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack appears to be the hot name of the week in John F. Kerry's secretive search for a running mate, having been spotted with the right people recently...
...The speculative list goes on and on: Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), who is also being vetted; Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.); retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark; Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.); former Nebraska senator Bob Kerrey; former Georgia senators Sam Nunn and Max Cleland; Sen. Bill Nelson (Fla.); Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius; and, of course, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12863-2004May9.html

Democrats or Republicans: The America I Live In: Notes for the Campaign, 2004

By Bernard Weiner

This is the America I live in.

A normal, average citizen, I unlock the front door and enter my home. I don't know if anyone has entered surreptitiously -- perhaps a sneak-and-peek job by Ashcroft's black-bag boys.

I boot up my computer to go online. I don't know if my email is being monitored, if my keystrokes are being recorded.

I call my attorney, about a family matter. I don't know if communication with my lawyer, previously regarded as "confidential," is being listened to. (This, and the other examples above, and many below, flow from the Bush-Ashcroft "USA Patriot Act.")

I visit my physician, and learn later that my employer found out about a chronic condition I had and laid me off, to keep his insurance costs down. The doctor-patient confidentiality I thought existed is now breachable by government agencies in cahoots with insurance companies... (read the disturbing rest)...

It's Super Tuesday, folks; Time to Vote!

In Minnesota, click the link below to find where you go to vote:
http://www.dfl.org/
In Minnesota, voting begins at 7pm and goes until 8pm.

General Wesley K. Clark, Election Night Remarks: Congratulates Kerry & Edwards...

February 10, 2004
Transcript of Clarks Concession Speech

"Thank you, Tennessee! As one of my favorite country singers, and Tennessean, George Jones, likes to say: "It just don't get any better than this."

Thank you for your support.

Thank you for standing by me.

And thank you for working so hard to take back the White House for its rightful owners - the American people.

I've spent almost every day of the last week here with all of you, traveling from city to city on a bus. I've loved every minute of it!

And I want to thank the volunteers who made the phone calls, licked the envelopes, and knocked on the doors day after day after day. Now I really understand why they call Tennessee the volunteer state.

I just called John Kerry to congratulate him on his victories in Tennessee and Virginia. I'd also like to congratulate John Edwards. They are good men, good Democrats, and real patriots - and they've run great campaigns.

We may have the lost the battle today, but, I'll tell you now, we are not going to lose the war for America's future.

Our goal remains the same: to change the direction of our country and bring a higher standard of leadership to the White House.

And there is no party more committed to that effort, no party more committed to the American people, than our party ... my party ... the Democratic Party.

George W. Bush has had three long years to keep our country moving forward.

But instead, he's done nothing but set us back.

3 million lost jobs.

Exploding deficits.

44 million uninsured.

And the wrong war at the wrong time.

It's time we reclaimed the mantle for a better America.

It's time we took America back for its rightful owners -- the American people.

An America where we don't just talk about family values, but where we actually value families. And where a job, an education, and health care aren't just luxuries for the chosen few.

An America where we don't just preach our faith - we practice it.

And those that have the most reach out to those with the least.

An America where everyone has a shot at the American dream, no matter where they're from.

And where everyone is included - recognizing that our diversity is our greatest strength.

An America where we understand that debate and dissent - that questioning your leaders and holding them accountable - is the highest form of patriotism.

And where being patriotic means using force only as a last resort, not as a political tool.

An America where we look up to our leaders, and trust our commander in chief.

These are the values we must champion.

I leave Tennessee even more full of hope, and even more committed to building a better America than when we began this journey five months ago. That's because of all of you.

Together we can move America forward!

Thank you and God bless you. " http://www.americansforclark.com/speeches/042/

Wesley Clark: Tennessee Supporter/Campaign Worker Comments and encourages Clark's possible role in future administration

The following received e-mail was posted Feb 11, 2004

I have worked here in the Wes Clark, Tennessee headquarters in Nashville, actively assisting the Clark for President Campaign for the last two months. Like a lot of people, we have long awaited this past week to campaign directly with General Clark and travel from event to event across the State of Tennessee. I can only say that, after having done so and hearing General Clark take and address impromptu questions from audience participants, I am even more impressed with his leadership abilities for this nation.

The National Media pronouncements that after Iowa and New Hampshire, the race was in essence over, did not exactly encourage voter participation and turnout in Tennessee or elsewhere in our country. Low Voter Participation is not good for our primary, our party, our country, and certainly did not help General Clark. Yet, General Clark made a respectable showing in this important southern state.

Howevere, as is his right, General Clark determined that Tennessee was the final key battleground state for his presidential campaign. And he has accepted the results, which were respectable, but did not win, with the same honor by which he has served this country over the years. I still believe that the continued involvement of General Clark in the debate over the major national security and international affairs issues facing our nation and the world are very important to the democratic party and the American People. We need his expertise and his leadership through a continuing role of General Clark in some form in this Democratic Party National Campaign. His national security experience and leadership are vital to a successful democratic party campaign in November, 2004. This is the # 1 issue facing America and the world. And I believe, after campaigning with General Clark and speaking with him on numerous occasions, that he has so much to offer the democratic party as a new democrat with experience in this vital leadership role. He is, personally, one of the most likeable persons in politics that I have ever met. His wife, Gert, and son Wesley, Jr. also convey a caring attitude and warm personality to voters and campaigners. I believe they really like being around people of every background and are "inclusive" in their attitude toward politics. Is this inclusiveness a rare enough quality in politicians and political operatives to make a big deal over? Well, first of all, General Clark would remind us that he's not a "politician"...and his new entry into the political office seeking field after 34 years in the military demonstrate the truth of that assertion. But, he has entered the electioneering process with an inclusive, friendly, down to earth demeanor which is a refreshing change in national politics. I only wish more voters could have seen General Clark address issues of national concern, one by one from audience members in his campaign events, on T.V. programs like Meet the Press and other talk show formats to let people get to know him better and hear the reasons why he would make a Great President.

There is still a role for General Clark in THIS National Campaign. If we pay attention to developing a much needed Southern Strategy for the Democratic Party, to reaching out to Voters from all regions, to encouraging voter participation and involvement in this coming election in Novemeber and to resolving important issues facing this nation and the world, we will pay continuing attention to General Wes Clark.

For those who agree with me on encouraging voters in America to consider and advocate General Clark for Vice President, email me at:
larocrim@aol.com

John Kerry with Hillary Clinton as Vice President Possible

Hillary's Veepstakes By Dick Morris CQ Services Thu, 05 Feb 2004 3:45 PM

The demise of Howard Dean's candidacy opens the door to a Kerry/Clinton ticket in 2004. As long as Dean was favored to get the nomination, Hillary likely wasn't interested in the second slot on the ticket. With the Vermont governor almost certain to go down to a massive defeat, Hillary probably wanted no part in the ensuing carnage. But now that the Democrats have a real chance to win, it makes all kinds of sense to offer her the nomination and for her to accept it.

Very few vice-presidential candidates can actually win votes for the top of the ticket: Hillary can. She is the most popular Democrat in the nation. And a woman vice presidential candidate - particularly Hillary - would electrify the Democratic base and guarantee a huge turnout. It would transform a campaign into a crusade.

The voters she'd alienate? Already voting for Bush. And much as they might like to, they can't vote against Hillary more than once (one hopes).

Just as no presidential nomination in the 1970s was complete without a ritual offering of the VP slot to Ted Kennedy, so it is quite likely that whether Kerry, Edwards or Clark wins the nomination, he'll pick up the phone and call Hillary.

Why should she accept?

First, it's a free shot on goal. She doesn't have to give up her Senate seat to run. If she wins, she's vice president. If she loses, she's still U.S. senator from New York until she has to run for re-election in 2006. First, it's a free shot on goal. She doesn't have to give up her Senate seat to run.But the big reason Hillary should run is that the Democrats might well win in 2004. If a new president takes office in 2004 - and runs for a second term in 2008 - Hillary will have to keep fresh for eight years, a hard task in the best of times.

In the Senate, she would be, at best, an onlooker as the action moves to a Democratic White House. But as vice president, she would have the on-deck circle to herself and would be the presumptive nominee in 2012.

Remember that of the past 18 major-party presidential nominees, eight have run first for vice president (Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Mondale, Bush, Dole and Gore).

If Hillary doesn't run for vice president on the Democratic ticket in 2004, the person who does will be a strong candidate against her in 2008 if the ticket loses and a presumptive favorite in 2012 if it wins. She doesn't need the competition.

Should Bush win re-election, it will likely not be by the massive margin by which he would probably have defeated Dean. There would be no shame for Hillary in running for vice president on a ticket that narrowly lost.

In a sense, Hillary has already served as vice president and found it both enjoyable and rewarding. During the first two years of Bill's first term, she was a de facto chief of staff. But for the remainder of his White House tenure, she was, in effect, another vice president, roaming the world, speaking out on issues she cared about, and raising money for the party. It's not a bad job. The voters she'd alienate? Already voting for Bush. But Hillary has one other good reason to say yes: Rudy Giuliani. If the former mayor runs against her for the Senate seat in '06, polls indicate that she would face a very, very tough fight. Her first race against Rick Lazio would be a cakewalk next to a battle against Giuliani.

Rudy may run against Hillary - even though he'd rather be governor - in order to accumulate points with the Republican faithful so that they consider him for president in 2008.

Giuliani's pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-affirmative action, pro-gay-rights positions won't endear him to the GOP right wing. But knocking off Hillary might engender the forgiveness he needs.

So, if Rudy might run, wouldn't it be the better part of valor to get out of the way of the charging bull and run for vice president instead?

http://www.cqservices.com/MyCQ/News/Default.asp?V=7000

The Honest General Speaks About Kosovo War: Wesley Clark Comes Clean Once More And Proves Again that He Does Not Avoid Tough Questions and Personal Information Requests by replying with double-speak or typical political rhetoric...

Clark Papers Talk Politics And War
General Cites Pressure From Clinton Aides Over Kosovo Conflict
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 7, 2004; Page A01

Some top Clinton administration officials wanted to end the Kosovo war abruptly in the summer of 1999, at almost any cost, because the presidential campaign of then-Vice President Al Gore was about to begin, former NATO commander Gen. Wesley K. Clark says in his official papers.

"There were those in the White House who said, 'Hey, look, you gotta finish the bombing before the Fourth of July weekend. That's the start of the next presidential campaign season, so stop it. It doesn't matter what you do, just turn it off. You don't have to win this thing, let it lie,' " Clark said in a January 2000 interview with NATO's official historian, four months before leaving the post of supreme allied commander Europe.

In his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, Clark has repeatedly made his conduct of the war a central theme, arguing that his leadership skills and experience in building coalitions with allies make him better suited for the White House than President Bush. He made the papers from his 34-month tenure as NATO's top military officer available in response to a request by The Washington Post.

The papers document that throughout the war, Clark was frequently at odds with top officials in the Clinton administration, including senior officers in the Pentagon, and that he was deeply skeptical that Washington was making good policy. "I know this region a whole lot better than a lot of these guys back in Washington do," Clark said in one private interview.

In describing White House pressure to end the war for political reasons, Clark did not name the officials involved or state how he knew about it. He described the pressures while detailing for the historical record the conflict's frenetic final months, when many in Washington openly worried it was dragging on too long and Clark was among a few officials urging escalating NATO's role in the war.

But on June 10, 1999, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic -- under pressure from NATO's bombardment and Russia's withdrawal of political support -- capitulated to the West's demands for the pullout of all Serbian forces and the deployment of Western peacekeepers in Kosovo, a major and continuing NATO engagement.

That was the day Clark had privately identified as his deadline for formally recommending an escalation of the bombing campaign instead of launching a ground war involving tens of thousands of troops -- a plan he knew would give Washington pause, according to the papers. "Whether they would have fired me or not, I don't know, but it would have been pretty nasty," he told the NATO historian, according to an interview

No attempt by Clinton administration officials to manipulate the timing of the war's end was reported at the time. But this week, Clark confirmed through Jamie P. Rubin, a Clark campaign adviser who was a spokesman for then-Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, that he stands by his account of the pressures.

Rubin added that Clark, who was campaigning in Tennessee, could not immediately recall further details of the episode.

Asked about Clark's account, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, the national security adviser to President Bill Clinton at the time, called Clark a friend but said any implication that the White House was prepared to hurry the end of the war for political reasons was "categorically and completely false."

"The White House was totally committed to victory in Kosovo, no matter how long it took or what it took," he said.

A former senior administration official, however, said Clark might have been referring to a Washington meeting of top policymakers in late spring at which Gore allegedly expressed concern that the war might interfere with his campaign. Gore formally announced his candidacy one week after the war ended, on June 16, 1999.

Gore, through a spokesman, declined to comment directly. Leon Feurth, his national security adviser at the time, said that politics were not discussed at White House national security meetings, and that while Gore opposed preparing for a ground war, he supported continuing the bombing as long as necessary to win. Gore "was prepared to take a political hit" on such issues, Feurth said.

In his papers, Clark made clear that he frequently urged a harder line than Washington and its allies preferred, accusing the Defense Department at one point of urging "a sellout" in 1998 negotiations over a plan to begin international monitoring of Serbian activities in Kosovo. Berger, Clark said, believed at the time that the risks posed by those actions were "not real" and favored a weak solution.

"That's the flavor of it. 'It's not like this is a really serious problem.' It's like, 'Hey, let's jerk this guy's [Milosevic's] chain.' [Then,] 'Okay, we can't stand [it] anymore, it's too embarrassing politically,' " Clark said, adding: "I don't take it that way. I take it as a very serious threat to European security."

"All along, I always had a terrible feeling about Milosevic, that we were really sort of making a compromise with Hitler in 1943," Clark said. He expressed particular regret that both Washington and Europe had failed to intervene against Yugoslavia in the summer of 1998, when, he said, Milosevic had timed a campaign of ethnic cleansing to coincide with Western officials' summer vacations.

Berger disputed Clark's account of his views, calling it "garbled hearsay that is just incorrect," because "I was a strong advocate of action on Kosovo."

Clark told the historian that he chafed during the war at having to submit individual bombing targets to the White House and the French government for approval. He said Clinton reviewed them directly, apparently because of embarrassment over the U.S. military's 1998 bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. He also quoted a deputy French defense minister as acknowledging that Paris rejected some of his target choices simply for the sake of "saying no."

Clark said his reaction was to ask for approval to bomb "more than you expect" to get.

He was scathing in his papers, as he was in a book he wrote in 2001 about the Pentagon's refusal toward the end of the war to endorse his use of Apache helicopters to attack Serbian ground forces. "The Army didn't want to be involved because they were afraid of being embarrassed or afraid of taking risks or whatever," Clark said. "The Navy didn't have a dog in the fight but [wasn't] too interested. And the Air Force, well, they would support me, but then they sent their henchmen down to make sure the [Apaches] would never fly."

Clark denigrated criticism of his plan as "all hype and [expletive]" and told the historian that even Clinton was unwilling to listen to his advice. During the president's visit to Brussels on May 5, 1999, "he's sitting next to me, and he says, 'Well, I guess the Apaches are too high-risk to use.' I said, 'No, Mr. President, they aren't.' Boy, he didn't want to hear that! He turned his head away . . . and that was the end of the discussion."

In early June 1999, after negotiations had finally begun to end the war, Clark told then-U.S. Ambassador to NATO Sandy Vershbow that "the Pentagon is pushing for any way out, pushing for a softer line, get us out, save money," according to a transcript of the telephone conversation in his papers.

"I think there was a lot of animus at the time," Clark later told the historian. "People knew I was fighting this thing [an early draft of the cease-fire agreement] . . . as it was being dragged to the conclusion, because I felt we were giving too much away. And what was coming from Washington was, get an agreement at any price."

The papers also shed new light on Clark's role in a notorious incident of rekindled East-West tensions immediately after a cease-fire agreement was reached with Yugoslavia. The episode involved a small contingent of Russian peacekeeping troops stationed in Bosnia outracing NATO forces in Macedonia to gain control over the main airport in Pristina.

Clark told aides at the time that he was worried the Russians would leverage their control to block NATO's deployment or demand a de facto partition of Kosovo. He also was concerned -- according to a transcript of his conversations during the crisis -- that the professed ignorance of Russian political officials about the move possibly meant that "we're dealing with a military takeover of the government in Russia."

He told NATO Secretary General Javier Solana that "Washington used the word 'coup' to me," but he made clear he could not confirm it.

Urged by senior U.S. officials to respond forcefully, Clark ordered British Gen. Mike Jackson, then under his command, to land British helicopters and station armored personnel carriers at the airport to block the Russians. The British general refused, saying he had no desire to start World War III.

Clark told the historian he was unperturbed by the unlikely prospect of a direct clash once the British forces pushed the Russian vehicles with their own. "Yes, they could shoot. When they shoot, we're gonna shoot. And guess what, there's a lot more of us than there are of them," Clark said, recounting his feelings at the time. "So my guess is, they're not gonna shoot!"

There was no coup, of course. And Jackson, with Clark's backing, defused the crisis by offering "to kill [the Russians] with niceness, welcome them aboard." The West forced Moscow to share the airport by prevailing on the Romanian and Bulgarian governments to block any air reinforcement or resupply of the Russian troops.

Clark's papers include a warm letter from William S. Cohen, the secretary of defense at the time, praising the general for his efforts during the crisis. But Cohen, who resented Clark's independent attitudes, forced him out of the job months before Clark intended to leave.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20226-2004Feb6?language=printer

Info on Democratic Primary Schedule and Won Delegates

Delegates Won as of 2/05/04
Kerry: 246
Dean: 118
Edwards: 100
Clark: 81

...these totals are of pleged delegates only, and they greatly change after a state has held a primary or a caucus.  

Primary/Caucus Schedule  

January: 
1/13/04:
D.C. Primary: 
1/19/04:
Iowa Caucuses:  Kerry 38%, Edwards 32%, Dean 18%, Gephardt: 11%, Kucinich 1%
1/27/04:
 New Hampshire Primaries: Kerry 39%, Dean 26%, Clark 12%, Edwards 12%, Lieberman 9%
February:
2/03/04:
Arizona Primaries:  Kerry 43%, Clark 27%, Dean 14%, Edwards 7%, Lieberman 7%

Delaware Primaries:  Kerry 50%, Lieberman 11%, Edwards 11%, Dean 10%

Missouri Primaries:  Kerry 51%, Edwards 25%, Dean 9%, Clark 4%, Lieberman 4%

New Mexico Caucuses:  Kerry 42%, Clark 21%, Dean 16%, Edwards 11%

North Dakota Caucuses:  Kerry 51%, Clark 24%, Dean 12%, Edwards 10%

Oklahoma Primaries: Clark 30%, Edwards 30%, Kerry 27%, Lieberman 4%

South Carolina Primaries:  Edwards 45%, Kerry 30%, Sharpton 10%

2/07/04:
Michigan Caucuses:
Washington Primaries:

2/08/04: Main Caucuses:

2/10/04:
D.C. Caucuses:
Tennessee Primaries:
Virginia Primaries:
2/17/04:
Wisconisn Primaries:

2/24/04:
Idaho Caucuses:
Utah Primaries:

  March:
3/02/04:  SUPER TUESDAY!
California Primaries:
Connecitcut Primaries:
Georgia Primaries:
Hawaii Caucuses:
Maryland Primaries:
Massachusetts Primaries:
Minnesota Caucuses:
New York Primaries:
Ohio Primaries:
Rhode Island Primaries:
Texas Primaries:
Vermont Primaries:

3/09/04:
Florida Primaries:
Lousianna Primaries:
Mississippi Primaries:

3/16/04:
Illinois Primaries:  

April:
4/27/04:
Pennsylvania Primaries:

  May:
  5/04/04:
Indiana Primaries:
North Carolina Primaries:
5/11/04:
West Virginia Primaries:
5/18/04:
Arkansas Primaries:
Kentucky Primaries:
Oregon Primaries:
5/25/04:
Idaho Primaries:

  June:
6/01/04:
Alabama Primaries:
Mississippi Primaries:
New Mexico Primaries:
South Dakota Primaries:
6/08/04:
Montana Primaries:
New Jersey: