Sorry - time to face facts

[BigBigBear]

Lieberman is Republican Lite. Why bother when you got the real thing?
Rank and file doesn't trust him, he plays to a vaguely conservative wing of the party that isn't there. He may feel its time for a Jewish president, but 62% or better of the nation will disagree.

Kerry is Dukakis with medals - a dull New England liberal, he blew it on the war vote and knows it. Establishment choice, but behind in money. A good man who'll never be president. Great Sec'y Of State.

Edwards can't get his message out, if he has one. He'll be a contender in '08 if we lose; get used to that idea.

Gebhardt is done - out in 60 days, if that long. Pity - a good man as well.

Graham and Kucinich were never credible contenders. Sorry, partisans. Your principles are inspiring, but some of us want to win.

Howard Dean is a pro-gun left-centrist from New England. McGovern without the war record. Peaking too early. It'll be like bringing a philosophy professor to a WWF fight. He'd rather be right than win - we've heard this before. 1972 will seem close by comparison.

Hillary's not running. Gore's not running. Bill Richardson isn't being floated (he should be.)

Wesley Clark, with the right campaign advisors (Donna Brazille, please sit this one out), can stomp Bush. Unfortunately, if he doesn't throw his hat in the ring within 60 days, he can't raise enough money. He is demonstrating indecisiveness - that tells me he won't run.

If Clark doesn't run (smart money says he won't), they should run Ted Kennedy. I'm not kidding. I'd rather lose with a real, genuine, liberal voice with 4 decades of public service than a starched newbie centrist like Dean. Sorry, that's how I feel. I like Dean, but I don't think he has a prayer of winning.

I want these lying thugs gone - I dislike ANY Dem alternative that can't remove them.

Here's a scary prospect - a Bush administration and agenda without re-election to worry about.

I think it's that bleak.

[mourningdove92]

1. I was thinking about a Kennedy run this weekend, myself.

But, like Clark, he needs to throw his hat in the ring. Like you, the thought of a lame duck dubya scares the hell out of me.

[punpirate]

58. Anyone who has followed Kennedy...

... over the years knows that there are two reasons that make it not worth running--his two remaining brothers were killed for doing so, and the moment he filed for candidacy, the country would read just one thing in papers and hear it on the news--Chappaquiddick.

To the right wing, Kennedy is Clinton on steroids. Those of us who have been reading the news for a long time know that before there was a Clinton to hate, there were the Kennedys.

I think Ted is happy where he is.

Cheers.

[DarbyUSMC]

77. I agree.

Plus, he looks unhealthy. Bloated doesn't get it. Unfortunately, if he were faultless regarding his past, if he looks unhealthy or unattractive, he's toast. Every time I see him in a news story I wonder if his kidneys are failing. Surely he has good doctors and who am I to be concerned for his health? I see a lot of people with End Stage Renal Disease and he has the look; not to eliminate the damage done to his liver that may have caught up with him. I wonder if he feels healthy.

Aside from my insignificant observations, no, he can't escape the past. No way.

[KoKo]

85. Agree, Punpirate. Same group who took out brother would take him out......

Sad, but true.

[gristy]

2. hmmm. I find your analysis superficial,

to say the least. How is it that you are so unhappy with every damn democratic candidate? If there were 30 running could you find one you liked?

[GreatAuntK]

5. More voices is good

Except Lieberman really blew it Big Time.

[BigBigBear]

8. I like several of them

Edwards isn't ready. Dean's the right man at the wrong time. Kerry choked.

I just don't sense leadership or scrap in any of them, except maybe Kucinich...who's too fringe. Lots of positioning - but where's the stick???

Which one of the leading contenders is as MAD about these lying thugs as you are??? Think about it...

Like it or not, the Republicans will turn this into an election about national security. Clark can wipe the floor with these incompetants on that basis - I just don't think any of the rest of them can.

But, hey - what do I know? I thought Gore would get more votes and win.

[HFishbine]

75. 9,621

campaing contributors over the weekend disagree with you about Dean.

[Vitruvius]

60. Exactly! Even JFK didn't look that good before he was elected --

he looked like a callow kid whose younger brother and campaign manager (RFK) had played footsie with Joe McCarthy.

But look how well he turned out.

Similarly, Clinton didn't look like much when he started his run for president.

Let's give the current crop a chance. You could see JFK and Clinton grow during their campaigns, and JFK did an excellent job when he got in; Clinton did a very good job, despite the times and the VRWC attack machine.

Vitruvius

[lastliberalintexas]

3. What a constructive post

Do you actually like anyone with a D behind their name who's running? :eyes:

[aquart]

4. You finished with your ridiculous defeatist labeling?

Stop telling people what they are.

Start demanding what they'll do.

Or just go cower in your corner and hope someone will throw you scraps.

[BigBigBear]

17. Scraps

is what'll be left of this party unless people start realizing what they're up against.

I'll fight the fight my way, traveler. You do the same.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

71. This is what they're up against:

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:jOP77DiTPP4C:

[whoYaCallinAlib]

6. The rumors of democratic defeat are slightly premature.

I disagree about Kerry and Edwards. They both would be formidable opponents to Bush. But they better come up with some GREAT plans for eduction, healthcare, national security and jobs. They can't win by simply hoping that everybody hates Bush. That's a fool's bet. We have to win based on great plans that everyone understands and believes in. No more "pie in the sky" programs. Details, details. We all know Bush has no plans so it shouldn't be too hard to get America on board if our message is POSITIVE.

[Composed Thinker]

10. If

If the Democrats just go nuts and provide lots of details--through mailings, through television, through newspapers, and through the Internet--do you really think that will give us a big advantage? I hope so.

And why not a nifty little campaign program slogan? How about a "Back to Basics" education campaign for Dean and Clark?

[smoothyking]

19. both Kerry and Edwards are toast

A couple months ago Edwards was a guest on Chris Matthews. Sensing that John Edwards slipping a little, Matthews turned up the heat: "Do you think Bill Clinton was a good President?"...Edwards stuttered and tried to dance his way around the question. He wouldn't say "yes"!!! How can you be a Democrat and not be a fan of Bill Clinton???

Kerry dissappointed me with his vicious attack on Howard Dean during the Dem Pres. Candidate Forum earlier this year.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

21. Fair enough. I can't argue with your logic.

So I won't.

[jagguy]

45. hum... everyone around here was ready to hang Bill last week

after his sort of 'get over it' comments.

[bearfartinthewoods]

66. How can you be a Democrat and not be a fan of Bill Clinton???

it's easy.....he was a waste of a perfectly good presidency.

wjay you just told me about Edwards just raised him three notches in my book.

[BigBigBear]

20. My friend

you are absolutely right. It'll be won or lost in the details.

"They can't win by simply hoping that everybody hates Bush. That's a fool's bet. We have to win based on great plans that everyone understands and believes in."

10-4.

[bearfartinthewoods]

65. i keep waiting for Edwards

i don't know what in the hell he is waiting for. he was impressive in his NH townhall. but that's the last i've seen of him. i just don't get it.

[tjdee]

70. He doesn't want to ...er....shoot his load too early.

Sorry for the vulgarity...

Edwards wanted to concentrate on raising money in the first half of the year, so that he could run a good campaign in the second half. There's an article floating around here to that effect. I don't remember if I read it in that article, or another, but apparently Edwards lays it on thick toward the end of the campaign--when people are paying attention and after his competitors have spent their money.

This is a not a bad idea. He gets a good look at what the others are doing, and then goes around them. He is most recent in voters' minds. Also, I think he's said he's not even competing with Dean (or Kerry? One of them) in that they're going after different voters.

For this reason, I think he may have a challenge in Clark (as will they all), because Clark will be doing the same thing.

BTW, he has townhalls all summer in NH and 'main street tours' in Iowa, as well. In many ways, I view Edwards as more of the dark horse in the race (barring entry from Clark).

[bearfartinthewoods]

72. me too (Edwards as the dark horse)

months ago, i had a customer in here and while he was waiting, we were watching the tube. a report on the dem candidates was on and as thew run down went on he watched without comment until Edwards came on the screen. the customer pipes up with "i know that guy...he's their new clinton". all the others either didn't register or didn't merit his comment.

that incident has stuck with me. i think Dean will crash and burn or to put it more gently, i think he will peak too early. being the frontrunner is not always the best position.
i know ...i'm impatient, just like just about everyone else. thank you for filling me in on what Edwards is up to.

[Composed Thinker]

7. I don't

I don't think Dean's a centrist. Far from it, in fact. But on the same note, he's not one step below a hippie, either.

And yes, Wesley Clark can help us defeat Bush. I think he'll be on the ticket in some way. When do you think he'll enter, if ever?

[antineocon1]

9. What are you talking about?

Bush is out in '04. He's damaged goods. His poll numbers have dropped into the 40 percent range. I've seen polls which show that Kerry and Dean are close to Bush in re-elect numbers already. These lies, manipulations, and treachery are emerging they're ugly heads and you want to play this card. Well you ain't gotta hand.

And, as for Dean and Kerry not having alternatives to issues such as domestic and foreign issues, I don't buy it. I've listened to each speak about both issues. I've read they're websites. I've even listened to Edwards, and I think he'll be president one day. Maybe in '12.

[Composed Thinker]

11. I thought

I thought Bush was back to around 60-65%. Or so I saw a poll from Newsweek tonight on "Harball" that said something like that.

[antineocon1]

16. I don't think, so.

I haven't heard that. I heard that the number of those who think the war is going well is in the 60 percent range. But, not his numbers.

[Benevolent_Rabbit]

18. Zogby

Zogby America Poll. July 16-17, 2003. N=1,004 likely voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.2.


.
"Please tell me if your overall opinion of each of the following people is very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, very unfavorable, or you are not familiar enough to form an opinion. George W. Bush."



favorable unfav not sure
7/16-17/03 57 42 1
6/6-10/03 66 32 2
1/24-26/03 66 33 1
1/4-6/03 68 29 3
7/12-15/02 70 28 3
4/2-4/02 82 17 1
8/28-30/01 58 36 6
7/26-29/01 57 36 7
6/24-26/01 60 36 4
4/23-25/01 63 35 2
3/27-28/01 60 30 10
2/27-28/01 67 28 5
2/9-14/01 64 30 5

[antineocon1]

28. That's plus or minus 3 percent.

I was wrong about the 40 percent number, but it's a start. It's only going to get worse. What this administration fails to see is that the lies won't go away. They also fail to see that the Iraqis see that they have to enemies: Saddam and the US. Once the Saddam threat is taken away, they will fight the US next.


http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

[Maple]

12. You people

are hopeless.

[BigBigBear]

27. Wow

and I was critcized for posting something "unconstructive."

[poskonig]

13. Most of those are good candidates.

I feel very good if we have Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, or Clark at the top of the ticket. In addition, if Bush cannot turn the Iraq debacle and the economy around, we could run Al Sharpton against him and win.

Personally, I think Dean is the best to go head-to-head in a general election, given his record of economic stewardship, M.D., pro-gun record, charisma, willingness to take on Bush on national security, etc.

Dean-Clark sounds even better.

[Redleg]

14. You seem to be more critical of the Dems than of Bush...

Don't forget- people are starting to find out that Bush is a liar and a warmonger. The Dems, even with the warts you point out, can all beat Bush in 2004.

[poskonig]

15. Excellent point.

Junior isn't exactly a quality candidate himself.

[BigBigBear]

31. Yes, but

He beat Gore.

He has a solid Republican Congress. He'll have ungodly sums of money. He won't think twice about playing dirty.

He'll be trotting out Afghan and Iraq War heroes at the convention...in New York City, no less.

The Dems are too afraid to call this guy a liar in public - this is the same guy who spread rumors about McCain being mentally unbalanced in South Carolina.

McCain was being beaten in a North Vietnamese prison while Shrub was chasing skirt and blowing coke.

I don't want to hear how stupid this guy is. He and his machine play to win.

[poskonig]

34. Your conclusion?

Bush should be playing to win. This is news?

[BigBigBear]

37. My conclusion

is that the time for careful positioning is over.

Leadership is crafting the message. Right now, it's THEIR message everyone is dancing around. I want to see them on the defensive.

Cheney's company made $75 million doing business with Saddam. Fact.

When Cheney gets up there and extoles the virtues of his administration kicking out Saddam's plug - who plays the Haliburton/B&R card?

No one.

[poskonig]

52. Dude, it is the primary.

The idea is to differentiate yourself from other *Democrats*. If you tailor your campaign specifically against Bush, you may fall behind. Look at Edwards. "Ahm uh faghter fer reguler peepuh." Which Democrats (well, besides Lieberman) aren't? It isn't like Moseley-Braun is going to make a surge by "playing the Halliburton card" against Kerry and Dean.

[wuushew]

78. He beat Gore?????????!!!!!!!!1

What a lie, and you know that!

Article I. of Democratic Underground Manifesto
I. Albert Gore Jr. won the state of Florida by 500 + popular votes

[Heddi]

94. HE DID NOT BEAT GORE

Gore consistently came out with more votes. STOP SAYING HE BEAT GORE!!!!! </rant>
:)

[DemLikr]

22. Do you have a positive point to make? Or just spreading gloom?

What in this post adds to the discussion, other than a general sense of "what's the use?":shrug:

[BigBigBear]

24. Far from it

We MUST get rid of these criminals.

I see people here being rightly angry - MAD AS HELL - at this administration, but seem to support telegenic wafflers. Sorry, but that's what I have seen so far from these guys. Positioning, parsing.

How many of them have come right out and sais "This President lied to the American people, the American Congress, our allies and the UN. And that is unacceptable."

This administration is corrupt and incompetant. I hear this message from the fringe candidates like Kucinich or Graham, but not enough from the mainstream guys.

Once I hear THAT message coming from Dean or Kerry or Edwards, rather than careful positioning, I'll climb aboard - because I know they're as mad as I am.

Until then, I see timidity and good hair styles.

[Eloriel]

35. Good God, man! You haven't been listening to Dean!

I have a clue for anyone who actually cares about this election. Whether you end up supporting him or not, GO DIRECTLY TO DEAN'S CAMPAIGN AND DEAN HIMSELF FOR YOUR INFORMATION. It's supremely easy to do, and there's literally no other way right now to actually understand his campaign and this candidate.

The Conventional Wisdom has gotten it SO freakin' wrong all the pundits should be fired. Very, very, very few have even begun to get it about the Dean campaign. Mark Shields wrote a piece not too long ago. A few bloggers here and there seem to get it. Some pundits get close and then back away, afraid of their own perceptions.

http://www.deanforamerica.com

You also need to be watching the Dean Official Blog, which is linked from the official website.

I will say, I don't think he used the word "lie," but he sure as hell has put it to Bush again and again, and definitely on the untruthfulness issue. In fact, see if you can find thr 16 Questions piece from sometime last week, I think.

You need to do some serious research, man! Look at one of his speeches (DeanTV) -- he writes them himself. Read or watch his June 23 Announcement Speech and come back and tell me you're not impressed.
Look at his varius press statements and press releases.

But MOST OF ALL, watch one of his speeches (probably not CFR, which is less animated than his others, tho good IMO). The CA convention was great, the Harkin Forum was wonderful. Many choices.

But whatever you do, do NOT come here without having actually looked INTO this candidate and campaign and try to tell us you know a thing about it. I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm being realistic.

Oh, and do spend some time reading some of the comments posted to his blog, as well (hit the "comments" link under the official entries to the blog).

Eloriel

[BigBigBear]

40. I did say I like Dean

and I'll read more.

I am as yet unconvinced he has the granite to beat the machine. I'm glad people are excited by him - if he gets Clark on the ticket, I'll temper my skepticism.

And thanks, but I'll come here and say whatever I like. Hope that's okay.

[w4rma]

55. Massive information dump on Gov. Howard Dean

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=43435&mesg_id=43435&page=

[DemLikr]

73. My god, man! You call Kucinich's dye-job helmet a "good hairstyle?"

At long last, sir, have you no shame?
:7

[ibegurpard]

23. Don't you mean time to face opinions?

Yours, to be specific. Not that I necessarily have a problem with your opinions...they could very well end up to be valid while mine are debunked. But facts? I don't think so.

[BigBigBear]

25. Fair enough

point taken.

"Facts as I see them."

I don't mind taking some abuse over my opinion - maybe I expect more out of the Democrat contenders than the Common Wisdom around here.

[zoidberg]

26. Clinton was a no name governor from a back-woods state...

Bush 43 is drunken frat boy with no public speaking skills
Bush 41 was a plutocrat who couldn't relate to anybody
Reagan was a senile former movie star
Carter was a hillbilly Bible-thumping nuc-u-lar farmer...

You can dismiss anybody with a snide one liner. But the fact is that any of the serious Democratic candidates will have a decent chance to win in 2004.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

29. Ya know, you're right.

Your's just might be the most constructive analysis on the board tonight. Thank you. I feel better about our candidates now.

[Catherine Vincent]

30. Hear hear!

I'm willing to vote for John Doe Cockroach as long as he can kick Bush's sorry ass out of the WH.

[BigBigBear]

32. Clinton was the best

Democratic politician and campaigner since FDR.

[carpetbagger]

33. Your criticism of Kerry is "too liberal" and "not lib enough"!

A "Dukakis w/ medals" who went too far in supporting a war?

I think Kerry is where a majority of Americans are regarding Iraq. Most believe we did the world, and Iraq, a favor by taking out the Baathists. I would venture that it will be pretty easy, once people start listening (i.e. when and if Kerry becomes the nominee), for Kerry to explain his stance. The sound bite would be that Kerry supported Bush, but now we know that Bush was crying wolf, using the UN as a smoke screen. We got lucky in Iraq, but will we get lucky in the next war. And if the next war is necessary, will the nation, and the world, believe us when we say it is.

Here's the kicker sound bite: The world is too dangerous a place to be led by the boy who cried wolf. We need the world to know that we're the good guys, the honest guys. If this administration can't lead the free world, we will.

[chaska]

36. I agree with everything you said except...

that Clark is being indecisive. He will enter the race at the first good opportuinty after Labor Day. No one declares during the summer congressional recess (don't ask me why).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. Trends

There are powerful demographic trends in America that favor the Democrats in 04 and the future. There:

are more African Americans voting

are more Hispanics voting

are more Asians voting

and less caucasians voting

If Chimpy gets the same % of these groups as in 00 he loses by 3,000,000 votes

Chimpy can be had and I know how.

[Ein]

39. What are Leiberman's views on Zionism?

he ever say anything about it?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. If Zionism Means The Jewish People Should Have A Home In Palestine

I think all nine candidates would be Zionists. Where they would differ is how big that home should be.

[Ein]

44. Fair enough.

Zionism to me generally represents the process of gradual annexation to get thier state back to ... what are they aiming for? Biblical Israel borders? Never read up on it too much (though I have enough to see that Zionism has many different forms). You know how he feels about the expansionist stuff.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. All Nine Are For The Partition Or Two State Solution

how we get there God knows.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. Joe Doesn't

favor the restoration of the historical land of Israel which would stretch from the Jordan River to the Mediterrranean I belive.

He's not in favor of an EretzYisrael or Greater Israel.

[smallprint]

41. what about sharpton and moseley-brown?

at least you could be inclusive and dump on them too

i find it typical that few people on this board even TRY to mention them, much pay any attention to them

but african-american voters do, and they vote in NUMBERS -- enough to field a spoiler candidate at the least...

just something to think about.

[BigBigBear]

42. Thanks for the input

especially those who replied with substance and thoughtfulness.

I'm done here; but here's a hint.

How many Democrats from West of the Mississippi are running? And except Graham, how many from south of NC?

How bad do you wanna win?

[Trajan]

56. Wow ......

Who are you ? ....

Are you an angel ?

Are you a guru-like avatistic pseudo-quasi-liberal-moderate-centrist-proDLC-AntiDLC-notherern-southern-green-democratic-republican Glowing being from on high, alighting from your golden steed to radiate short bursts of electional wisdom upon the masses, only to again mount your steed to rise UP upon the mighty zephyrs as Thor, as you wing your way back to the Halls of Valhalla ? ...

Such perfection is rare on this earth .....

Your like a wispy cyber-Dick Morris ......... without the hookers and the whips .....

I feel so blessed .................

[librechik]

46. another "help me build my post count " thread!

bleeh. And it's a "bash all dems" thread too! What fun!

I wonder what he'll say in response to me... (not really)

yawn

[JustJoe]

49. A freeper

parody thread?

[Dont B bush N Me]

47. Clark is not electable as President

IMO. He would be a great V.P. But its going to take a Biden/Clark to kick the stupid out of Bush and Co.

[Composed Thinker]

51. Why?

Why isn't Clark electable?

[Dont B bush N Me]

53. I don't think he's charimatic enough IMHO

He's intelligent, articulate, informed, legitimate and would be a strong VP for a candidate like Biden. Together they would have all the credibility Bush/Chweeney thinks they have on any issue.

[w4rma]

54. Where are the facts? I only see opinion. (n/t)

[Trek234]

63. Unfortunately voters vote on opinions

Not just fact....

[Isome]

57. Can we just get this one fact straight...

Bush did not beat Gore. He had more votes from the people than Bush could ever have hoped to get.

Were it not for the 57,700 voters wrongly purged from Florida voting rolls, a compliant press and a supreme court (hell bent on enforcing their biblical worldview) he would have had the electoral votes to go along with those popular votes.

Let's just be clear about that!

[arwalden]

59. "a Bush administration and agenda without re-election to worry about"

If this is true then... Someone... please kill me now. Quickly. Painlessly. I can't stand any more of this.

[deutsey]

61. Kerry is not simply "Dukakis with medals"

nor is Dean a philosophy professor at a WWF match.

I share your concern about being able to defeat Bush, but I think you're way off base in these two examples alone.

I'd say Kerry fits your criterion of being a liberal voice with years of public service (I don't know how long he's been in the Senate, but I think he was in it back in the '80s, wasn't he?) You dismiss his war service, but the man has at least one Purple Heart (I think he has two) plus other medals of real honor. I don't believe the military sees these as trinkets that they just toss at anyone.

I support Dean and know more about his record than Kerry's. I would hardly call someone who has been elected five times as governor of Vermont a "newbie" (if so, what's Bush, for God's sake?, or Clinton, for that matter). And while I would like for him to be further left on some issues like me (I felt the same about Clinton), I also realize that this isn't about me getting my way. It's about electing someone whom I believe will bring the largest benefit to the most people in this country. And Dean is showing me that he can take his message directly to the people without kowtowing to corporate media.

And, while I admire Kennedy, I think Bush Inc. would have a field day running against him for president. If they had no problems smearing McCain (saying he was a traitor and was crazy from being a POW), what will they do with Chappaquidik (sp?) or portraying him as a "limo liberal", tax-and-spend socialist, or whatever?

[matcom]

62. just remember ONE thing

Bill Clinton was an unkown from AK who was NEVER supposed to do well let alone win.

he was to be the Dems sacraficial lamb remember?

he was supposed to fall on his sword for the good of the party remember?

i wouldn't count ANY of them out just yet

[loyalsister]

64. Have you ever won an election????

This long post might indicate that you actually know what it takes from experience, or do you?
I want to know who people are talking to beyond this board. If you want some hard facts and real information on this talk to some people who have won or lost actual elections. Talk to county, state, local elected officials. Ask them what their constituents complain about and what they want. Polls are useless. You have to go straight to the source if you want the facts. Find out what people want, and then consider the assets of the candidates. One possibility based on an analysis of a county official I know. She recently was elected president of the National Association of Counties. She did this by focusing a lot on rural voters.
Consider this:
I asked her if Dean's neutralizing the gun issue would bring them back. She said it would definitely help. She mentioned his fund raising as an indicator of electability. Obviously, you've got to have cash.
We spent some time at the County Fair passing out Dean lit. She said that she found it very impressive- reaching out to rural voters. When someone who has won elections says you're doing something right, it means that they think it might work.
Local officials are very often accessible if you want actual FACTS go to the source. Broad assumptions based on history very well could be the least valid basis for these analyses.
We have a freak accident of a president who has some of the most bizarre behaviors many of us could have imagined, and we have a foriegn policy that is unlike any we have seen in our lifetimes. We have actually been attacked. Two pieces of legislation (PAs) beyond anything we could possibly imagined have been passed- written.
We are living in a country that does not fit the context of any other time in history. The assumptions based on what has happened in the past belong to a different world. Let's leave them there and find out what people actually say.

[Stuckinthebush]

67. The standard thinking before all pres elections:

The Dems have no one, the Repubs have strong candidates.

We have more voters, we have a president that is a danger to the US and the world, we have a discontented public, we have strong candidates that are presenting and will present new ideas to the public.

Let's not let the Repubs define our candidates for us. Let's define them ourselves.

Kerry - Strong statesman and war hero. Strong on defense, economy, and diplomacy. Intelligent.

Dean - Strong alternative voice. Strong on states rights and mature economic policy. Strong on neo-mainstream values.

Graham - Strong on defense and sensible policy.

I could go on, but the point is to present the positives of these candidates to yourself and to the nation. Don't let the media or Repubs define them for us.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

68. There you go!

That's exactly what we need to do.

[Bandit]

69. Just how did your "Opinion" get to be "Fact"?????

I have to disagree with you because I believe any one of our candidates can and will beat Bush* once the race is officially on. One thing to remember we have "Right" on our side and Bush* has done nothing that can be considered "Good" by any thinking American. I think Dean will get the nomination and I think people will respond.

[BigBigBigBear]

76. Thanks

I did my "sorry, my opinion, it was arrogant to characterize it as fact" thing a few dozen dozen posts ago, but point taken. :)

Thanks for the response.

As for "One thing to remember we have "Right" on our side ", this attitude scares the hell out of me. I have NO DOUBT about the evil thuggery of this administration - the incompetance, the finger pointing, the deception and outright lying, the hidden agendas. I'm quite certain we agree on this.

Some posters here believe firmly that the public is waking up to this. I would like to believe it but frankly, at this time, I do not.

This is what I DO believe:

The enemy is masterful at manipulating the press and symbolism. As I posted before - count on uniformed Iraq and Afghan war heroes at the NYC Repuke convention.

The economy has a decent chance of making an anemic recovery in 12-15 months. There will still be high unemployment and a ridiculous deficit, but as long as the numbers start point up, we lose a lot of the power of the economy issue.

Count on either a Saddam capture or WMD "find" between now and then. Right now, they are guaging the damage they are suffering - they'll play this card only if they have to. (Here's a hint: they could capture Saddam anytime they want. This will be timed carefully.)

Count on some key appointments to fill Condi and Rummy's shoes - they'll probably both be gone in 12 months.

Count on a co-opting Medicare bill that even Kennedy will sign up for.

Look, as I have said, I admire several of the Dem cadidates. Dean is brilliant, articulate and right. Kerry is the Real Deal (although I'm unconvinced he's a great campaigner). Edwards is the future of the party in the South - smart, compassionate and absolutely a stand up guy.

But we have to start thinking like the enemy. This country will be in shambles after four more years of this incompetant fool - losing cannot be an option.

I sense a fair amount of smug complacency here - my intent was not to piss people off (nor hype my post count, as some of our shallower 1000+ post peanut gallerists contend), but express my deep fear that we're bringing schoolbooks to a firefight.

I'm old enough to remember Nixon - actually, I worked for McGovern in the only state he won, when I was a teenager. Nixon was a venal man - a liar, a manipulator, a warmonger. The Democrats got behind a man (McGovern) of character, eloquence and a solid moral imperative. McGovern was absolutely right...and got squashed. Had Nicon not succombd to his own weakness and paranoia, we'd have had Republicans in office solidly through 1984.

We cannot allow this to happen again. Being right doesn't matter if you lose.

[GumboYaYa]

74. You left Biden off your list.

I think Biden walks away with the election if he runs.

[wuushew]

79. what is so great about Biden?

Many of his votes have been piss piss poor

[EAMcClure]

81. Biden the plagiarist

Unfortunately, he would be a strong visible candidate, but the plagiarism beef still haunts him, especially in the wake of what happened to the New York Times recently.

Eric

[whoYaCallinAlib]

82. Wrong man, wrong time, wrong history.

He's a damn fine man but he can do more for us in the senate than in losing an election when "trust" is a defining issue.

[BigBigBigBear]

83. I agree,whoYaCallinAlib,

about Biden.

[wuushew]

84. Please elaborate on plagirism?

I was upset about this

When Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) introduced his RAVE Act legislation last year, it was a slam dunk waiting to happen. Teenagers, drugs, freaky-looking ravers -- bills aimed at these types of things don't stall in Congress. But a chorus of protest convinced the Senate to refresh its collective memory of the First Amendment, and upon closer reading many -- including two of the RAVE Act's co-sponsors -- dropped their support for the bill.

Faced with such pesky opposition, Biden employed one of the American legislative system's oldest methods for passing unpopular laws -- he changed the act's name and attached it to a popular bill.

http://www.metroweekly.com/gauge/?ak=438

ADA releases an annual voting record based on 20 issues we consider to be the most important each year. Each Member of Congress receives 5 points for each vote on which he/she voted with us, and does not receive 5 points if he/she voted against us or was absent for the vote. The total possible score is 100%, a perfect Liberal Quotient. The following are the year LQ scores and Lifetime for each Senator in this state.

State Senator Party Lifetime Average 2000 LQ 1999 LQ 1998 LQ 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 Pre-1990 Average
Delaware
Boggs R 45 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 45
Roth R 22 20 5 15 10 10 5 35 45 25 20 22 24
Biden D 72 80 95 85 70 80 95 80 80 100 90 83 63

[EAMcClure]

86. Here's a link to Biden and plagiarism

<http://www.nutsandboltsguide.com/plagiarism.html>

It's pretty cut and dry... it ruined his candidacy in 1987.

Eric

[GumboYaYa]

89. I personally abhor Biden.

I was only pointing out that he was left off the list, possibly because he does not fit the preconceived notions of why Dems could lose.

Anyone who can remember 1992, knows that conventional wisdom at this stage of the game is BS. If your opinion is based on conventional wisdom like the original post, it will prove to be wrong.

I'm actively campaigning for Dean, but I think there are several candidates who can beat Bush.

[MISSDem]

88. I think that Biden is the only

one who can give bush a run at all but Careful, I got thoroughly chastised for even mentioning his name in this contect with the statement "excuse me, but I'm from Delaware and Joe isn't running!".

[Adjoran]

91. good point

Biden or Gore would be exceptionally strong candidates. I think they didn't run because of the perception a few months ago (as the campaign got started) that Bush was unbeatable - just as the strongest candidates stayed out in '91 because of Bush I's supposed invulnerability. Clinton, as mentioned above, was thought to be a sacrificial lamb, and was polling in third place as late as May '92.

There are some difficult facts which must be faced:

1. If the primary issue is foreign policy or national security, the Repubs win. Not saying it's right, but it's the way things have been for the last 40 years.

2. The economy is showing signs of strong recovery, and is likely to be much better a year from now than it is today. This would negate the Clinton strategy of "It's the economy, Stupid!" and make it much harder to unseat a sitting Prez.

3. Democrats win the White House on domestic issues. A clear and specific program will have to outlined in order to bring these issues to the fore in the public's mind.

Probably only Gore or HRC has the name recognition and fundraising apparatus to enter the race at this late date. Clark is an attractive possibility, but he would have needed to start months ago to be viable. Too many primaries come in the first couple of months for a late entry without a strong existing constituency to compete.

But it is too early to say that any of the likely "first-tier" candidates couldn't win in '04. Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, Graham and Lieberman have the stature and experience to win, although the latter two haven't yet generated anything close to the kind of support they would need to get the nomination.

Edwards' lack of experience would hurt him. He hasn't even served a full term in the Senate yet, and his reelection in NC is in play - and current polls show Bush beating him in NC with 60%. You have to be able to at least carry your own state to win. Add to that the need to sell the public on a trial lawyer, and his task is doubly daunting.

Kucinich also lacks stature and experience. Has a sitting member of the House ever been elected President? Not that I can recall, certainly not since the 19th Century. (Gephardt's long service and leadership role could make him the exception, but Denis lacks both).

I don't mean to disparage Sharpton and Mosely-Braun, but their candidacies are symbolic efforts and they aren't going anywhere, either.

[BigBigBigBear]

93. I guess

we're saying largely the same thing here (although I catch hell for it). Excellent post.

Regarding item #1: This is precisely why I believe Clark is so important to this equation. Clark alone (my view) can make the argument that the Republicans have fumbled and covered up their failures on the military and national security front. Can he do so as a VP candidate? Maybe.

Thwre was a time not long ago when I though a Dean/Clark ticket would be unbeatable - Dean on domestic issues, Clark on National Security. (Who better to repair relations with Europe than the Nato Supreme Commander?)

I still like it, but Clark seems to be hanging back.

[EAMcClure]

80. This candidate BS sickens me

So many of us have gotten suckered by the media labelling this as "election season." Tisn't the season until the primaries begin. The candidates who plays strongest on Super Tuesday will be the Dem candidate for President, and I predict will also be the next President.

My prediction is based on even Andy or Forrest Gump being the Dem candidate. U.S. history shows a popular dissent against the triple crown-- when the government goes unicameral, which is what we have right now. There will be a favorable Dem shift, unless the chicanery is so thick... and in that case we're fucked. The totalitarians will come completely out of the closet and nothing will be sacred save for themselves.

Without significant thieving, lady history will favor the balance of power.

My money, and my heart, go to Dean. He isn't the frontrunner, but he is the one getting the most media attention, positive and negative. He is the candidate that gets the sweeping generalisations from the GOP talking heads, which means they've already fixed their think tanks on kill.

Dean will play strong in New Hampshire and Iowa. He is also the only candidate actively courting the gay vote, which is a big metropolitan boost. The reformist/populist/grassroots slant is historically adroit. Plus, he deliberately hearkens to Teddy Roosevelt with the bat. This is a smart, tech-savvy campaign which I think has the mustard.

I honestly don't find any of the negative comments about any of the candidates worthwhile... we should be talking them all up, IMO, except for Liebermann who is a toxic candidate.

My ideal ticket is Dean/Mosely-Braun... bring Clark on the campaign as the secDef or secState, and I will cream my jeans.

Eric

[jpak]

87. Blah blah blah

Blah blah blah blah blah Big Bad Bear

And Bonk Bonk on the GOP too

Yet another worthless pathetic flamebait GD thread.

Howard Dean will clean ChimpCo's lying AWOL war pig clock.

You can bet yo' bippy he will....

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

90. Gebhardt just got another union endorsement

Gephardt is far from over, and I'd bet he's the one that wins the primary. Good thing too, because he's the best chance of a win in the general election.

[opihimoimoi]

92. ABB and Please make it one of the Dems who has the hat in the ring.

To Hell with defeatist mumblings. We want and need answers...


not whining,,

Come. We go to the gym, the mental one, get our heads screwed on right.