Question For The "Old Fogies" Of DU

[THUNDER HANDS]

Poll question: Question For The "Old Fogies" Of DU

:)

I mean no disrespect to the term "old fogies" I just mean political veterans who've been around the block a few times and have seen years and years of Democratic primaries.


What makes this year different, JUST in terms of candidates?

That is to say, how do these candidates stack up against Democrats of 15, 20, 30 years ago?

I'm 25, and don't remember following any campaign earlier than Clinton.

So what's the deal, is this year's crop of candidates especially good, average, or poor?

[SheilaT]

1. I voted other.

It seems as though there's a nastiness among the supporters of the different candidates that I don't recall seeing before. Despite how phenomenally bad Bush has been for this country, the in-fighting among Democrats is amazing. You'd think we'd all be doing a better job of presenting a unified front against the cabal that's running this country.

In a very profound way we Democrats, especially the die-hards like those of us here on DU, have never gotten over the coup of 2000. But we're very divided on what we should do to overthrow the coup. Should be indulge in civil disobedience at all opportunities? Should we offer up a military man (Clark or Kerry) to counter Bush's warmongering? Should we go for a man whose social and political commitments are as different from Bush's as possible and still be within a mainstream political party (Kucinich)? How about a moderate, fiscally conservative governor of a small state in New England (Dean) who opposed the Iraq war from the beginning? No point in detailing those no longer in the race.

Choices, we have. But they seem to be in a way mutually exclusive, and that's what's causing the rancor currently out there.

[King of New Orleans]

3. The Candidates

save for the Gephart-Dean spat have been very civil to each other compared to years past.

The supporters? well, this is the first campaign that I have been on the internet for. It alot easier to be rude to others on the internet than face-to-face.

[markus]

4. OT: Since I can't send you a private msg yet

does your screen name mean you get to fly the Rex flag?

BTW: Please send Crawfish and Abita to:
Freezing Folse
Fargo, ND 00000.

[Drifter]

2. I'm insulted ... Old Fogies ...

That's "Old Fart" to you.

Cheers
Drifter

[OKNancy]

5. It's the internet, stupid

Never have so many been so connected. Any discussion that took place in the old days was just with family and friends. The internet has changed things so much. Even since 2000.

( you aren't really stupid, I just love that expression. :-) )

[ewagner]

6. I had to go with "Other"

We, as a party; we as an electorate, have changed more than the candidates themselves.

We're more cynical.
We're more cautious
We're more partisan

and finally, we are more desparate than I have ever seen.

We've been betrayed by people we believed in so many times before that we pounce upon any perceived chink in a candidates armor as proof that the candidate will betray us again.

We distrust the motives of supporters of other candidates because they, in turn distrust our motives.

We are so fearful that any candidate who is less than perfect will leave us with another four years of the worst presidency the nation (and, indeed the world) has ever seen.

The stakes are higher than ever.

The price of failure to remove Bush* is unbearable.

[MissMarple]

7. I'm seeing a shift and a clarification of the Democratic message

most specifically from Dean. The Dems were becoming moribund, almost too corporate in their world view. They were going for what is safe instead of listening to people. I think we still need a huge discussion on affirmative action. We need to treat people as individuals AND accommodate for prejudice. Herding people around in groups whether as women, blacks, hispanics, seniors, etc., is not working.

[Demoiselle]

8. Bless you for asking, grasshopper.

I voted for the best bunch in years. I'm old enough to remember lying in a hammock listening to Harry Truman on the radio,(I was a tiny tiny child) so I guess I qualify.
I think the top four on the list (Clark, Dean, Edwards and Kerry) are an extraordinary group. I have my worries about each of them, but what strikes me this year is that for the first time in ages, we have a really tough bunch of competitors and they all agree on the need to take it to the Republicans. The word I'm trying to avoid using here is balls. (Nobody was happier than I to see Joe Lieberman bow out!) In general terms, I fear that Clark and Dean are a bit naive in their campaigning, but I love them because they are so willing to talk straight and attack the Bushies. Kerry's oratorical style drives me nuts, but he looks like he's already been carved on Mt. Rushmore and has a capacity to cut to the chase (see his comment today on Tenet's speech) , and John Edwards is the most amazingly talented communicator I've ever seen. He's better than Clinton, and I love Clinton. I'm a Democratic Committeewoman in Philadelphia, so I'm sure that this will all be decided before I get a vote--but what I fervently hope is that our wonderful human, humane, herd-of-cats Democratic Party finds a way to use all four of these gentlemen in the campaign for the White House, regardless of the two who end up fronting the ticket. (And I will be furious if we don't take both our Pres. and Veep nominees from these four men, as well as naming the other 2 to cabinet positions and active campaigners! ) Thanks for reading this far!!!