[BRussell]

He won Iowa, he's killing in NH, and in a recent poll, Kerry did best against Bush - the only one that beats him in hypothetical match-ups.



Why?

He's a war hero and he's tall. Those are the only good things I can think of about him.

He's a frickin' Massachusetts liberal ferchrissake. What are the Dems thinking? I'm not really sure what his overall message is. What does he stand for? He says he stands against special interests. Oh boy, who doesn't? He's got a lengthy liberal voting record in the senate that the Repubs would use to skewer him in this largely conservative country.

Any of the serious candidates would be better than him, IMO. Edwards is the best politician of the bunch. He's got easily the best stump speech, both in message and in Clinton-esque style. Lieberman's strength is that he really is a true moderate/independent. And what a great story as the first Jewish candidate for prez. And Clark, although not much of a campaigner, would be hard to beat with his military and southern background. Even Dean would be better, because although he would go down in flames, it would be fun as hell.

[Lerkfish]

Well, I never was even that thrilled about Kerry...I much preferred Gephardt, Clark, Dean....in that order.

but we have some time yet to see how things shake out.

oddly enough, taking that online test a few days ago, it said my view on the issues was more aligned with Kucinich, but I don't really recommend him, since he's one of our Ohio products, and there are other things about him I don't like, apart from his platform.

Now, if I could get Dean/Clark as a ticket, and get them to adopt Kucinich's platform....heh that would do it.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by BRussell:
... And Clark, although not much of a campaigner, would be hard to beat with his military and southern background...

I'd love to see Clark get the nomination. He's easily the worst of the lot.

... Even Dean would be better, because although he would go down in flames, it would be fun as hell.

Going down in flames means he'd drag a lot of others with him. Is that really what you want? Works for me, though.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Well, I never was even that thrilled about Kerry...I much preferred Gephardt, Clark, Dean....in that order.

These are your favorites?

1) Gephardt
2) Clark
3) Dean

Why do you like a liar, a loser, and a lune?
It's a shame the Democrats have nobody to stand up to George W. in the coming election, I really wanted to see a legitimate contendor to seek out my vote.

Convince me about each. (50 words ea.)

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
These are your favorites?

1) Gephardt
2) Clark
3) Dean

Why do you like a liar, a loser, and a lune?
It's a shame the Democrats have nobody to stand up to George W. in the coming election, I really wanted to see a legitimate contendor to seek out my vote.

Convince me about each. (50 words ea.)

*shrugs* go convince yourself.

[hyteckit]

Hmm... I'm not registered to vote... yet. I think I'll most like register as a Democrat since I despise the Republicans so much.

Anyway, initial I've only heard of Howard Dean after Al Gore backed him. Dean was on TV a lot, so naturally I thought he must be good since he has quite a few people backing him. After seeing him in the Democratic Primary elections, Dean kinda scares me. I think Kerry is the best candidate among the Democrats.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
I'd love to see Clark get the nomination. He's easily the worst of the lot.

The worst? In what way? On paper, he's about as good as you get. He's no Edwards when it comes to being politically appealing as a stump speaker and at these debates, but he's at least as appealing as, oh, say, Bush in those contexts.

Going down in flames means he'd drag a lot of others with him. Is that really what you want? Works for me, though.

Nah, I'd probably rather have Kerry than Dean, but there would be something... therapeutic for the Dems, and even the country to nominate Dean against Bush, if only because it would be a good debate between two very opposing viewpoints. That's all I meant.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
*shrugs* go convince yourself.

Can't defend your choices? *shrugs* w/ smirk.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
...I much preferred Gephardt, Clark, Dean....in that order.

Hmmm...
You being the anti-war person would rather have:

Debbie Gephardt who stood beside the President when he signed the resolution to go to war.

General Weasley Clark who stated:

General Weasley Clark on September 26, 2002: "There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. This is simply a long-standing right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self-defense. Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict, if necessary. In my experience, I was a commander of the European forces in NATO when we took action in Kosovo. We did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn't agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it."

After that he pulled a Bilbo Baggins and later suddenly re-appeared on CNN as a war coorespondent. Can you say contract with the democratic party?

Then you have the mad Dr. Dean who is too big of an idiot to hold down the considerable lead he had.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

oddly enough, taking that online test a few days ago, it said my view on the issues was more aligned with Kucinich, but I don't really recommend him, since he's one of our Ohio products, and there are other things about him I don't like, apart from his platform.

Thats sad when you cannot support a man for you share so many things in commen with. Reminds you too much of yourself, he?

Is Kucinich even still in the running? The little hobbit must of pulled a Bilbo also.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

Now, if I could get Dean/Clark as a ticket, and get them to adopt Kucinich's platform....heh that would do it.

Sounds like a Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde ticket to me. Good luck with getting anything done. Might as well have Smeagel and Gollum running the country.

[BRussell]

Heh, is this a Republican campaign operative here? General "Weasley" Clark, Bilbo, smeagol, gollum, idiot, Dr. Jekyll? What can Democrats do against so much reckless hate?

[ghost_flash]

Clark:

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Heh, is this a Republican campaign operative here? General "Weasley" Clark, Bilbo, smeagol, gollum, idiot, Dr. Jekyll? What can Democrats do against so much reckless hate?

No different than the typical dubya is an idiot and looks like a monkey type remarks made by many of the members here.

[Evan_11]

Kerry is the new Dukakis. He's not very likeable and is only showing a boost in the polls because Dean tanked so badly and when Gebbie jumped ship, his small union vote needed a canidate.

[zigzag]

I can't disagree with you - Kerry isn't exactly a fresh face. He has that "I should be the nominee because I've been around a long time and can act Presidential" quality about him. Those are positive attributes but if the Republicans are able to hang the Massachusetts liberal sign on him, it's hard to see him winning, even with the war record. I'm surprised he's allowed Ted Kennedy to appear with him as much as he has.

On the other hand, it's conceivable that the political winds could change and that people wouldn't be so bothered with the idea of a Massachusetts liberal, especially a war hero with a Southern VP. I wouldn't count on it, but one never knows.

I think what Kerry has going for him is that he appears competent, mature, and experienced. I can't say whether he actually is competent, but that seems to be his advantage over the other candidates. Edwards is more attractive but lacks experience, Dean is a renegade but lacks broad appeal, Clark is inconsistent and has a prickly personality, and Lieberman is too bland (and I don't think the country is ready for a Jewish nominee).

So we'll have another conventional Presidential race and Bush will probably win. This suggests that Dean would be more interesting and fun, even if he lost badly. But I'm not sure an embarrassing defeat would be worth it.

In '72, Nixon ran a rope-a-dope campaign. He basically kept his mouth shut and counted on the fact that McGovern was too far from the mainstream to get elected, and he was right - McGovern was basically a voice in the wilderness. I see Bush doing the same thing against Dean, so I'm not sure running Dean would accomplish what his supporters think it might.

[Evan_11]

Good analysis Zig.

Did anyone catch that cheesy Tonight Show skit with Kerry's stunt double breaking through the gates at NBC on his Harley. He tried to act all cool until he actually sat down to be interviewed (or softballed) by Leno. He immediately went into politician mode looking like a total poseur.

[mr. natural]

'Tis a sad state of affairs for anyone with a progressive POV.

I'm beginning to think, no matter who is nominated, after the election it's looking like I'll get to dust off my good old "Don't Blame Me, I'm From Massachusetts" bumper sticker.

Beam me up, Scotty!

[BRussell]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I can't disagree with you - Kerry isn't exactly a fresh face. He has that "I should be the nominee because I've been around a long time and can act Presidential" quality about him.

It's true that he's probably the safest or most obvious of the bunch. Kinda like Dole was in 96.

I just don't see him going anywhere after NH. Granted, winning both Iowa and NH is pretty good, but Bush didn't get those, and then went on to win the nomination with ease. Clinton also didn't do it. Probably most nominees haven't won those two. So I don't think it's even close to being over.

Clark is doing well in those post-NH states, but seems to be dropping like a dead weight in NH, which may affect him in those states too. Maybe Edwards will do well in NH, maybe even come in second again, and then get enough attention to win some states after that. And Dean still has a ton of money and dedicated supporters, so he won't go away easily, unless he comes in 4th or something in NH and then drops out.

I think it's going to be a long and grueling fight. That means more fun for us though!

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
'Tis a sad state of affairs for anyone with a progressive POV.

Could someone please define Progressive. Every canidate who is a supposed progressive comes off as doom and gloom and otherwise nutty. Example: AlGore's global warming spiel last week on one of the coldest recorded days in New York history...buy a clue Al.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Can't defend your choices? *shrugs* w/ smirk.

Some people couldn't be convinced that the sky is blue if GWB said it was green (and part of the "War on Terrorism")

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Some people couldn't be convinced that the sky is blue if GWB said it was green (and part of the "War on Terrorism")

And Canadians have suddenly found a voice even if it only stretches as far as their internet connection. You're still irrelevant.

[kindbud]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Some people couldn't be convinced that the sky is blue if GWB said it was green (and part of the "War on Terrorism")

Then don't vote for Dubya.

[itai195]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I see Bush doing the same thing against Dean, so I'm not sure running Dean would accomplish what his supporters think it might.

I really have yet to understand how Dean is so far from mainstream. It seems like he's just picked up an unfair label because he disagrees with the DNC establishment (eg he is fiscally conservative and has a track record of actually fulfilling his promises).

[zigzag]

Originally posted by itai195:
I really have yet to understand how Dean is so far from mainstream. It seems like he's just picked up an unfair label because he disagrees with the DNC establishment (eg he is fiscally conservative and has a track record of actually fulfilling his promises).

He's been the most vocal in opposing Bush's war-related program activities, among other things. Whatever the merits, that's his main claim to fame and it's not a mainstream position. He's also perceived as belonging to an elitist segment of the population - you know, the whole "latte-drinking, Volvo-driving" set. Very few people know anything about his actual record, or care. It might be unfair, but that's politics.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Why do you like a liar, a loser, and a lune?
It's a shame the Democrats have nobody to stand up to George W. in the coming election, I really wanted to see a legitimate contendor to seek out my vote.

Take it easy on Gephardt. He's a solid man.

Dean - I'm concerned about his temperament.

Clark - He's the Clinton's play in this whole thing. He's their only chance at still having their hand in the DNC money pot, either as the nominee or the VP candidate. Dean's already hinted that he would like McAuliffe out, and if he's the nominee, he would be able to see that through.

Kerry is definitely a liberal, but I don't see him claiming to be otherwise. Everyone knows what they're getting with Kerry, whereas they don't with Edwards. Edwards is way too inexperienced at anything other than trial law.

I wish Lieberman was getting more support, because I ultimately agree with his positions the most.

[BlackGriffen]

If Kerry becomes president, expect the national deficit to increase by a hundred million to pay for research grants into how to keep his hairdo up.

Also expect to see the WhiteHouse continue the poll obsession it's had since at least 1992.



BlackGriffen

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
If Kerry becomes president, expect the national deficit to increase by a hundred million to pay for research grants into how to keep his hairdo up.

Also expect to see the WhiteHouse continue the poll obsession it's had since at least 1992.



BlackGriffen

It appears to me that both Kerry and Edwards changed their hair recently - Kerry's is shorter and a little less coiffed, Edwards is shorter and less boyish. Maybe this marks a trend and by June they'll all look like Sgt. Carter from Gomer Pyle U.S.M.C..

[Lerkfish]

I grew up in Missouri, and have been familiar with Gephardt for more than twenty years. He's a solid public servant, and in my opinion has the personal leadership and stability to make a good president. I don't agree with everything about him, but I don't agree completely with any other candidate, either.
As far as voting for the war, how many of the other democratic candidates offered, who had the opportunity at the time, voted against it? If If I could vote for a candidate who had the balls to stand up to the neocon juggernaut, I"d do it, possibly.

As far as Kucinich: even though he apparently matches more of my policy concerns than the other candidates, I do not make my decision on platform alone...for one thing, just because I agree with someone on the issues does not automatically mean I agree they are the best person for the job.
For another thing, I am not naive enough to believe that what a candidate states as platform survives intact into their term. As two good examples: Bush campaigned as a fiscal conservative, one who wanted to shrink goverment and who was not into "nation building"...well, he's done a 180 on all those platform declarations once in office. And on the other side of the aisle: Clinton promised to support gays in the military and overhaul the health care system....neither issue of which he completely carried through on.
The way I view electing politicians is a game of percentages. I know that many have a binary black/white decision making process, but for me, and based on my experience, no politician is exactly what they're cracked up to be...none of them are heroes. So, I handicap them on various criteria and go with whom I think most closely matches my policy concerns, has the most reliable track record of what they say vs. what they do, has the best personality strengths for the position, etc.
Yes, I'd prefer all candidates had not decided to go into Iraq. But I don't have that option. Of the candidates I had to pick from at the beginning, for a variety of reasons, I preferred Gephardt. Now that he's out of the running, I'd really prefer a conglomerate of Clark and Dean, or failing that, probably Dean.
For many reasons, even though I'm non-militaristic, I am also realistic and I know that anyone who takes over the reins from Bush will have to be able to clean up some rather horrendous problems of a military nature in the middle east. I'd prefer a joint ticket of Dean and Clark for Clark to have the military experience to properly extricate us from the arduous and foolhardy military treacle wells Bush has gotten us into.

FWIW.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
experience to properly extricate us from the arduous and foolhardy military treacle wells Bush has gotten us into.

FWIW.

And Gephardt who voted for the war stood stood beside George W. Bush when signed the resolution to go to war.

He stood beside the President because he felt the Iraq war would bring him political clout come election time. He's a politician through and through. He's a weak man though. His inability to stand up for himself in the end lost him the only voters he could count on; the unions. The union vote is meant entirely to put more money in their pockets. They dropped Gebbie because big labor is essentially dead and they needed a whipping boy. Gebbie's 'worldwide minimum wage' was the final stake into his bleeding liberal heart. Can't say I'm too upset he finally called it quits. Probably the best decision he ever made.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Hmm... I'm not registered to vote... yet. I think I'll most like register as a Democrat since I despise the Republicans so much.

You know there are more than two parties. Perhaps there's even one that actually fits your politics and isn't the Republicans or the Democrats. You don't even need to register with any party affiliation at all, you can be an independent.

It doesn't really matter what party you register in, just what candidates you vote for (and they don't even all have to be from the same party!).