Dean for President? [Archive]

IJ Reilly

Dec 12, 2003, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by K4NN4B15
No, i dont really like Dean. But like IJ said.... not really a choice.
I don't get a choice because I'm not a Democrat, but at this point I'm certainly feeling inclined to vote for whomever the party in its finite wisdom decides to nominate.

Interesting article about the Republican view of Dean from today's LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-bush12dec12,1,5014118.story

Bush Camp Cautiously Favors Dean

By Edwin Chen and Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON â€” Howard Dean's continuing momentum in the Democratic presidential race is forcing President Bush's political strategists into a tough balancing act: nourishing their hope of a Bush-Dean race while guarding against overconfidence.

"No matter who the Democratic nominee is, any competent Democrat starts out with 46% or 47% of the vote," Charles Black, a veteran Republican strategist, quoted Karl Rove, the president's chief political advisor, as telling him.

"That's the fundamental premise: Expect a close race," Black said.

But that cautionary mantra contrasts sharply with the public glee with which many on the political right view the prospects of Bush-Dean contest. "Please nominate this man," says the current cover of the conservative magazine National Review, under an unattractive picture of an angry Dean, fists clenched in mid-rant.

Rove himself earlier this year publicly rooted for Dean. At a neighborhood Fourth of July parade here, as a dozen Dean supporters marched by, Rove chuckled and said out loud: "That's the one we wantâ€¦. Go, Howard Dean!"

Many Republicans subscribe to the theory that Dean would be Bush's dream opponent. Their reasoning: Dean, largely untested in the national crucible, opposes the Iraq war, wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts and, as governor of Vermont, signed legislation allowing civil unions between gays. They believe he is so far to the left that he will leave the vast center of the American electorate ripe for Bush's plucking.

But as the president's job-approval ratings have sagged amid the messy occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and as an improving economy has failed to generate many new jobs, a Dean candidacy no longer evokes the unrestrained relish it once did at the Bush-Cheney '04 headquarters in Arlington, Va.

"Dean could still implode," said Scott Reed, a longtime GOP tactician. "But right now he has money, message and momentum. And he's handling himself pretty well."

In particular, Dean is already polishing his centrist credentials, pointing out on the stump that he was a budget-balancing governor and a supporter of the rights of gun owners. Although he remains an opponent of the war in Iraq, he says he supports a strong national defense.

Along with Rove, top Republican officials such as Ken Mehlman, the president's campaign manager, are telling their troops and supporters throughout the country to expect nothing short of a knock-down, drag-out cliffhanger next year.

"Their base is going to be fired up and rally around the nominee, and our base is going to be fired up. So it's going to be tight, no matter who it is," one GOP strategist said.

And the Republicans are getting ready for a fight.

Already flush with the biggest presidential campaign treasury in history â€” now exceeding $100 million â€” the Bush camp is embarked on an intricate, grass-roots organizing effort designed to mobilize voters. There are more than 6 million people on its e-mail list, and officials said the campaign was well on its way to its goal of registering at least 3 million new Republican voters.

"We have a very committed group of people, whether in Arlington, Va., or Arlington, Texas," said Terry Holt, a Bush campaign spokesman. As an example, he said, a Wednesday night session in Miamisburg, Ohio â€” part of a nationwide effort to train tens of thousands of activists â€” drew 300 people, twice the expected turnout.

"Between Mehlman and [Republican National Committee Chairman Ed] Gillespie, they're putting together an organization that will drag voters out from under rocks," said GOP strategist Mary Matalin, a former White House advisor who remains close to the Bush camp.

She rejected the notion that campaign workers or Bush supporters were overconfident about the president's political prospects. "No matter what the environment, you've got to say, 'Everybody has to work hard,' " she said.

Republicans eager for a Bush-Dean campaign point to polls showing the president faring better against Dean than against any other major Democratic candidate. For instance, in a recent Time/CNN poll, Bush beat Dean 52% to 40% among registered voters nationwide, while Bush's theoretical vote dropped to 49% to 42% against either Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts or retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark.

The president intends to cast himself, as he did in 2000, as a "reformer with results." As prime exhibits, he has been touting his education reform bill and the recently signed legislation adding prescription drug coverage to Medicare.

Still, some Republicans â€” perhaps in an effort to counter any overconfidence in the Bush camp â€” have begun to acknowledge in recent weeks that, like Dean, Bush has his own vulnerabilities. Perhaps the biggest is that he probably will be the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs.

Among the most vocal in sounding the alarm about complacency or overconfidence is William Kristol, a prominent Republican and editor of the influential Weekly Standard.

In an opinion piece this week in the Washington Post, Kristol pointed out that Democrats have won the popular election in each of the last three presidential contests and that demographic trends, especially the increasing number of Latino voters, favor Democrats.

Moreover, Kristol said, Dean â€” unlike former Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis, the last Northeastern Democrat nominated for president â€” is no "patsy." Dukakis was trounced by Bush's father in the 1988 presidential election.

"Underdogs do sometimes win," Kristol added. "Howard Dean could beat President Bush. Saying you're not overconfident is no substitute for really not being overconfident."

3rdpath

Dec 12, 2003, 12:40 PM

i found that article quite amusing....in a truman/dewey sort of way.

what rove and his flunkies fail to grasp is: if someone as unimpressive as bush can get (s)elected...then dean has a MAJOR chance of unseating dubya.

i'll certainly vote for dean...i'm more of a greenie than democrat but this next election isn't about high ideas...it's about unseating an inept simpleton and his string pullers.

btw, while in texas over the holidays i did a little informal polling and was quite surprised that many formerly staunch republican bush supporters were truly pissed over this bumbled war and were vowing to not vote bush again.

wwworry

Dec 12, 2003, 02:20 PM

I have noticed that too. Though it could be wishfull thinking on my part. Even my father-in-law, a republican, called Bush a Turkey the other day. I smiled inwardly.

I kind of like Gephart though. Someone has to make a stand on fair trade. Someone has to unionize walmart (though not gephart - how do you spell his name). At least unionize walmart.

If you want to know why I feel this way read the article in the Times about the Chinese etch-a-sketch factory. 12 hours a day 7 days a week, below even Chinese minimum wage (55 cents an hour) they are served meat only twice a month. How can anyone compeat with that?

Awimoway

Dec 12, 2003, 02:33 PM

I'm for Dean all the way. I think people are selling him far too short as a general election candidate. Bush cannot win on the war, but Dean can. Although my Dad (a Repub) and others have criticized Dean for being against the war but not being for any striking alternative. I think they have a point there. I guess Dean does have a different take--for one, he doesn't intend to pander to Saudi Arabia, which is the major source of al Qaeda terrorism. But the point needs to be better articulated than it currently is.

Also, I don't think people have yet grapsed just how much cachet there is to be had in a presidential candidate who is a medical doctor. That will instantly give him a lot more credibility.

g5man

Dec 17, 2003, 03:55 PM

The latest poll shows Dean losing about 60% to 30%. The poll is very new so I have not found the link. I saw it on CNN.

I found this very entertaining.
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/031216/siers.gif

The article was right on the money.

mactastic

Dec 17, 2003, 04:00 PM

Come on Clark....

Maclarny

Dec 17, 2003, 06:01 PM

Think about it, Karl Rove is afraid of Howard Dean. Just look at his credentials, he's the most centrist Dem in the field and he has the power to move people. He is an ardent budget balancer and has the numbers to back it up. The White House is painting Dean as a left winger for issues that Bush would already win with his Right wing on (gay marriage). Dean needs to paint his agenda in common sense terms, i.e. gays pay their taxes, but are denied the rights that other citizens get, isn't America an equal rights nation? With common sense an passion we can win in 2004 and turn the tide in American politics so it focuses on the people not on individual power.

g5man

Dec 17, 2003, 07:54 PM

But look at this.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/17/elec04.prez.poll/index.html

The president also had a lead of more than 20 percentage points over Democratic front-runner Howard Dean in a hypothetical matchup among registered voters, the poll found.

Trust me, what Carl Rove is afraid of is that everyone is so sure Bush will win they will stay home.

Frohickey

Dec 17, 2003, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by SPG
I'm down for Dean.
He seems to be firing up a lot of regular people and not just the political junkies. His funding comes mainly from lots of small contributions under$100, unlike Bush who gets mostly $2000 maxed donations by businessmen and rich people. Who do you think each guy is going to feel indebted to? I'd rather have someone representing the people not just the business people.

Do you have the source of that small individual contributions for Dean vs large contributions for Bush?

So far, I find the opposite.
Democrats have built a soft-money lifeboat (http://www.thehill.com/morris/120303.aspx)The Democrats discovered they weren’t as good as Republicans are at raising hard money. At $2,000 per person, they could only come up with $66.5 million through the end of September of this year. In the same period, the Republicans raised $158 million.

Top individual contributors 2000 (http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.asp?Cycle=2000)
Top individual contributors 2002 (http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.asp?Cycle=2002)

Here's the shocker...
2001-02 Donor Demographics (http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/donordemographics.asp?cycle=2002)
Donors giving $200-$999 = 394,642
Total given $157.7 million
Given to Democrats $47.1 million
Given to Republicans $75.0 million
Given to PACs $36.2 million
% given to Democrats 39%
% given to Republicans 61%

But look at the trends with the Donors giving $1000+, $10K+, $100K+, and $1M+, you see the percentage numbers going from more republican to more democrat.

Kinda deflates your arguments, eh? :p

More likely, that small contributions to Bush hasn't even started yet, since its still 11 months til the election. Dean, on the other hand, had already started asking since he's trying to cinch the DNC nomination by trying to see if he can get more contributors than the other Democrat rivals.

If Dean gets the nomination, and if he's spent the money in the primaries, he's going to have to dip into the well again for the general election, and that would bump his contributors to the higher bracket of giving, which would run counter to your argument as well. :eek:

mactastic

Dec 17, 2003, 08:54 PM

Lol, there were a lot of Democrats who were for campaign finance reform on principle who ended up being very sorry once they realized what an advantage they had given to the Republicans in small donations! Without their deep pocketed friends, Democrats now have to get busy developing the kind of giving network the GOP has had in place for years now. Not that either party is innocent of taking what amounts to bribes for their votes.

Durandal7

Dec 17, 2003, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
Come on Clark....

I wouldn't mind seeing a Libermann/Clark ticket.

Maclarny

Dec 17, 2003, 10:22 PM

Wouldn't it be nice if a political conversation didn't have to involve talking about money and contributions? If an election entailed equal money for every candidate and equal airtime? If issues were put above deceptive and misleading advertisements? If people like Karl Rove didn't exist to create push polls which led voters to believe that Mccain had fathered an illigitimate black child and other lies? Is this something that Republicans and Democrats can agree on? To let the issues speak for themselves. I hope so.

Code101

Dec 17, 2003, 11:29 PM

Bush will win!

I would not vote for any Democrat! Democrats = the downfall of America as we know it. Democrats should run in Europe or Canada. Their ideas would be well liked there.

I must say that Lieberman has some honor and basic understanding of the Military. That's more than I can say for the other Demos or Green/UN guys.

Frohickey

Dec 18, 2003, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by Maclarny
Wouldn't it be nice if a political conversation didn't have to involve talking about money and contributions? If an election entailed equal money for every candidate and equal airtime? If issues were put above deceptive and misleading advertisements? If people like Karl Rove didn't exist to create push polls which led voters to believe that Mccain had fathered an illigitimate black child and other lies? Is this something that Republicans and Democrats can agree on? To let the issues speak for themselves. I hope so.

Political campaigns have been held like this since the early days of John Adams vs Thomas Jefferson. Back then, it was just leaflets and newspapers, but you still had to pay to have the leaflets and newspapers written. Even if you mandated equal money and equal time for every candidate, in the free market society we have, you will have a candidate try and get more air time via the privately owned media if they can afford to pay for it. Money could be a corrupting influence, but, it could also be used to 'advertise' the candidate and make their issues known. Its really up to the candidate if it corrupts or not. And its up to the contributors if it corrupts or not.

Remember the whole Sally Hemmings, who was a slave that Thomas Jefferson owned? There was a recent revival of that controversy when DNA matching science got going. The issue came about during Thomas Jefferson's 2nd presidency, started by a newspaper publisher and furthered by Aaron Burr, his vice president. :eek:

So, I think that the solution IS NOT the limiting of money in campaigns. I think the solution should be full disclosure of who contributed what, and how much to who's campaign. Loans included.

Frohickey

Dec 18, 2003, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Durandal7
I wouldn't mind seeing a Libermann/Clark ticket.

About the only Democrat I would support would be Zell Miller, at least on the national level.

IJ Reilly

Dec 18, 2003, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Political campaigns have been held like this since the early days of John Adams vs Thomas Jefferson. Back then, it was just leaflets and newspapers, but you still had to pay to have the leaflets and newspapers written. Even if you mandated equal money and equal time for every candidate, in the free market society we have, you will have a candidate try and get more air time via the privately owned media if they can afford to pay for it. Money could be a corrupting influence, but, it could also be used to 'advertise' the candidate and make their issues known. Its really up to the candidate if it corrupts or not. And its up to the contributors if it corrupts or not.

Remember the whole Sally Hemmings, who was a slave that Thomas Jefferson owned? There was a recent revival of that controversy when DNA matching science got going. The issue came about during Thomas Jefferson's 2nd presidency, started by a newspaper publisher and furthered by Aaron Burr, his vice president. :eek:

So, I think that the solution IS NOT the limiting of money in campaigns. I think the solution should be full disclosure of who contributed what, and how much to who's campaign. Loans included.

It's very old news to suggest that politics has always had a dirty side. Nobody is going to quarrel with that assertion. But the role of money and monied contributors in election campaigns is a relatively recent phenomenon, and the influence they have over elections is increasing exponentially. Over the long haul, this is far more corrosive to the cause of democracy then any amount of mud-slinging.

Maclarny

Dec 18, 2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
It's very old news to suggest that politics has always had a dirty side. Nobody is going to quarrel with that assertion. But the role of money and monied contributors in election campaigns is a relatively recent phenomenon, and the influence they have over elections is increasing exponentially. Over the long haul, this is far more corrosive to the cause of democracy then any amount of mud-slinging.

Agreed. It is true that money has always been a factor but now it has become a deciding factor in elections. Now, it has arguably become a more important factor than issues with some voters who have no strong opinions and can be easily gotten with misleading and desceptive ads. If this has always been the way elections have been done in America then doesn't anyone see it as time for change?

eclipse525

Dec 18, 2003, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Code101
Bush will win!

I would not vote for any Democrat! Democrats = the downfall of America as we know it. Democrats should run in Europe or Canada. Their ideas would be well liked there.

I must say that Lieberman has some honor and basic understanding of the Military. That's more than I can say for the other Demos or Green/UN guys.

With you're attitude, the Human race will NEVER evolve. We truly are stuck in the "Eye for an Eye" mentality. The funny thing is that we think we are so advanced. <LOL!> Politics shouldn't just be about Tax cuts. Think of the Big Picture. Here's a concept. One Planet, One Government. OR at the very least get the wheels in motion towards that goal.

~e

mactastic

Dec 18, 2003, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Code101
I must say that Lieberman has some honor and basic understanding of the Military. That's more than I can say for the other Demos or Green/UN guys.

Hehe, I'd like to see you say that to Wes Clark's face! That's 4 star General, and former NATO SAC, Wes Clark. I think he has some honor and basic understanding of the military.

g5man

Dec 18, 2003, 05:24 PM

Well I am now starting to be shocked. After Dean stated that the US is not safer with Saddam gone, his poll numbers went up with the Democrats. Today he once again decided to be on the cutting age by stating we are not any safer today then we were before Sept. 11. He is speeding over a cliff and taking quite a number of people with him.

For a while I have felt he can not win the nomination. With each passing day I am getting closer to possibly being proven wrong. The problem is that I just can not see any other candidate coming out of the pack to take over the race in a more sane way.

wwworry

Dec 18, 2003, 05:43 PM

Before September 11th, on August the 6th while on vacation, Bush was briefed on the possiblity of terrorists hijacking a plane for use as a missile.

Maclarny

Dec 18, 2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by eclipse525
\Here's a concept. One Planet, One Government. OR at the very least get the wheels in motion towards that goal.

~e

I totally concur with that idea and I believe that in the future, assuming we don't blow up the world, this is inevitable.

Frohickey

Dec 18, 2003, 06:36 PM

IJ Reilly

Dec 18, 2003, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by Maclarny
Agreed. It is true that money has always been a factor but now it has become a deciding factor in elections. Now, it has arguably become a more important factor than issues with some voters who have no strong opinions and can be easily gotten with misleading and desceptive ads. If this has always been the way elections have been done in America then doesn't anyone see it as time for change?

Well I think a lot of people see the need for a change, and even in Congress lip service is paid to the concept if not the reality of reform. But unfortunately, to overwork an overworked saying -- the wolves are guarding the hen house. The entire electoral and legislative system is built on the principle of back-scratching.

Freakk123

Dec 18, 2003, 08:05 PM

First and formost: Everything I say here must be taken to be biased. I personally know Howard Dean, as he is a friend of my stepmother (They knew each other while she lived in Vermont) When I have met him, I have found him to be extremely amicable. Also, he seems to have an excellent memory.

I first met him September 2002, for about 2 minutes, then when I met him again in July 2003, he remembered me very well, even noticing that I had grown a lot, and remembering that I had met him in my driveway with a red backpack on. While I am only 15, I consider myself fairly knowledgeble about politics. And the fact that he remembered me after 10 months, most likely the most busy 10 months of his life up to that point, really impressed me, which is much more than I can say about nearly anything Bush has done. I hope that he gets the democratic and eventual presidential nomination, but only time (and the American voters) will tell.

One final thing: If Dean gets the nomination, I think it would be very important that he choose a good VP, such as... Wes Clark. I think they would make one hell of a team, and would be the most likely out of almost any Democratic combination to beat Bush.

Happy Holidays to everyone!

Durandal7

Dec 18, 2003, 08:26 PM

You've just got to love the broad range of opinions here. In one thread we have gotten everything from "Democrats will ruin society" to "Democrats are the last best hope for mankind."

Maclarny

Dec 18, 2003, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by Freakk123
One final thing: If Dean gets the nomination, I think it would be very important that he choose a good VP, such as... Wes Clark. I think they would make one hell of a team, and would be the most likely out of almost any Democratic combination to beat Bush.

A Dean/Clark Democratic ticket would be the dream combo for many Democrats, including me. Howard Dean is right there on domestic policy and has the electibility as a centrist. Wesley Clark is very experienced in foreign policy and defense matters. Also, both have the excellent leadership qualities this country needs.

Code101

Dec 18, 2003, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by eclipse525
With you're attitude, the Human race will NEVER evolve. We truly are stuck in the "Eye for an Eye" mentality. The funny thing is that we think we are so advanced. <LOL!> Politics shouldn't just be about Tax cuts. Think of the Big Picture. Here's a concept. One Planet, One Government. OR at the very least get the wheels in motion towards that goal.

~e

You can have a one world government all you want! Just make sure that the US government is that government. If the world wants to have one government, they can but there will still be the United States of America. Each nation can become a member state of the US and we can get capitalism going everywhere. It should be based on the US constitution by the founding fathers.

Do you like this way of doing it? :) Well if it does sound over the edge to you then fine. But I think your idea of a one world government under the UN or some other thug group is just as wacky sounding. The UN would get rid of everything that Americans hold close to their hearts. I'm sory but, no other government will do for the USA but the system we have now have in place. Americans will fight to the death to defend the constitution if need be.

Anything else will not do! I don't want to live under the iron fist of the UN.

People like you and your evolution stuff scare me. I'm a citizen of the United States of America, not the world. I love America! God bless it and President Bush.

Code101

Dec 18, 2003, 10:28 PM

Sorry for the long go off on the UN:D Getting back to the topic. If I was forced to vote for a Democrat, I would pick Lieberman or Clark. I kind of like the Rev Al. I don't agree with him at all but I do like him as a person. I feel sorry for him. The Democrats are just hoping he will get out of the race.

I will vote for President Bush. He will win!

Sayhey

Dec 18, 2003, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by Code101
You can have a one world government all you want! Just make sure that the US government is that government. If the world wants to have one government, they can but there will still be the United States of America. Each nation can become a member state of the US and we can get capitalism going everywhere. It should be based on the US constitution by the founding fathers.

Do you like this way of doing it? :) Well if it does sound over the edge to you then fine. But I think your idea of a one world government under the UN or some other thug group is just as wacky sounding. The UN would get rid of everything that Americans hold close to their hearts. I'm sory but, no other government will do for the USA but the system we have now have in place. Americans will fight to the death to defend the constitution if need be.

Anything else will not do! I don't want to live under the iron fist of the UN.

People like you and your evolution stuff scare me. I'm a citizen of the United States of America, not the world. I love America! God bless it and President Bush.

Where do you get this stuff? Do you pour jingoism over your cornflakes in the morning? If anyone disagrees with you or has a good thing to say about another country then that means that their patriotism is less than yours?

Like it or not you are a citizen of the world (something that radical Tom Paine recognized long ago.) National borders just aren't what they used to be. Things like the internet, the effects of pollution, dwindling natural resources, climate change, the globalization of nation/state economies, etc. are facts of life that mean that no matter how xenophobic one wants to be it is not possible to hide from the integration of the world.

That does not mean that it has to be a fearsome thing or at odds with democracy. Far from it. If we are really to meet the challenges of the future, then it will only work with democratic methods and respect for differences at the core of those efforts. You ought to actually read the UN Charter (a document heavily inspired by our own constitution), the EU basic documents and a few other attempts at international cooperation. It might help you get over your knee jerk reaction.

Lastly, to use the phrase "iron fist" and the UN in the same sentence should only be done in a dictionary definition of an oxymoron. Your rhetoric sounds straight out of a John Birch Society pamphlet.

edit: upon reading another thread it seems that IJ Reilly has also reach the same conclusion about the source of your rhetoric. Sorry, IJ, I didn't mean to be redundant.

zimv20

Dec 19, 2003, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by Code101
If the world wants to have one government, [...] It should be based on the US constitution by the founding fathers.

for the moment, i'd settle for the bush administration basing its policies on the Constitution.

eclipse525

Dec 19, 2003, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by Code101
You can have a one world government all you want! Just make sure that the US government is that government. If the world wants to have one government, they can but there will still be the United States of America. Each nation can become a member state of the US and we can get capitalism going everywhere. It should be based on the US constitution by the founding fathers.

Do you like this way of doing it? :) Well if it does sound over the edge to you then fine. But I think your idea of a one world government under the UN or some other thug group is just as wacky sounding. The UN would get rid of everything that Americans hold close to their hearts. I'm sory but, no other government will do for the USA but the system we have now have in place. Americans will fight to the death to defend the constitution if need be.

Anything else will not do! I don't want to live under the iron fist of the UN.

People like you and your evolution stuff scare me. I'm a citizen of the United States of America, not the world. I love America! God bless it and President Bush.

First off...I believe that the United States has the best model of government going at the present moment BUT even the US government needs to reevaluate it's policy's and way of doing business. Many of our Law's and Policy's are Totally out of date and need to be reworked. Our founding Fathers had the right idea but something got twisted along the way. There is WAY TOO MUCH self interest in governement and not enough "For The People" interest. Let's start with the basic Human rights. The right to LIVE. If the government is for the people then provide the simple basics. Food, Shelter and Healthcare for everyone, regardless of who you are. That's a start.....

..ANYWAY.....getting back to the Thread. Dean and Clark sound like a good team. Wouldn't mind seeing them in the running.

~e

Sayhey

Dec 19, 2003, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by eclipse525
..ANYWAY.....getting back to the Thread. Dean and Clark sound like a good team. Wouldn't mind seeing them in the running.

~e

Ah, yes the topic of the thread! I think the two would be a good ticket, but in order for them to win I think the order may have to be reversed. A Clark/Dean ticket would stand a better chance. I say that not from a decision that Clark would be a better President, but on the basis that this will be the most viscous jingoistic (there's that word again) campaign against the Democrats in memory. Clark at the top of the ticket may cut some of that off at the knees.

By the way - I still haven't decided which candidate I'm going to vote for. I'm waiting to see how they perform under the pressure of the primaries.

vniow

Dec 19, 2003, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by Sayhey
By the way - I still haven't decided which candidate I'm going to vote for. I'm waiting to see how they perform under the pressure of the primaries.

Yeah, me neither. Gay marriage is a huge issue for me and while Dean seems to support it fully, Clark seems a bit reluctant to go anything beyond "civil-unions". They seem similar on other social issues as well although I admit that I don't know how well either of them would handle governmental finances or foreign policy or whatnot, social issues are what I'm most concerned about so its really a toss-up inbetween now and 2004 if neither starts taking the lead...

Sayhey

Dec 19, 2003, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by vniow
Yeah, me neither. Gay marriage is a huge issue for me and while Dean seems to support it fully, Clark seems a bit reluctant to go anything beyond "civil-unions". They seem similar on other social issues as well although I admit that I don't know how well either of them would handle governmental finances or foreign policy or whatnot, social issues are what I'm most concerned about so its really a toss-up inbetween now and 2004 if neither starts taking the lead...

vniow, while I agree with you that this is a very important issue, I not sure I would describe Dean's position as "to support it fully." He signed into law a very important step in the process with the civil unions law in his state, but he stopped short of gay marriage. He has since stated he wants to leave this up to the states to decide. Not sure how, if he believes that this is a question of equality, it is ok to discriminate in one state and not in another. Anyway here is a Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3424359,00.html) article on the candidates position on the issue.

Wesley Clark: Opposes gay marriage, supports civil unions. ``As president, I would support giving gays and lesbians the legal rights that married couples get.''

Howard Dean: Opposes gay marriage, supports civil unions. ``As governor of Vermont, I was proud to sign the nation's first law establishing civil unions for same-sex couples.'' Opposes constitutional amendment.

There are three Democratic candidates that do support gay marriage: those are Kucinich, Sharpton, and Moseley Braun. Unfortunately, they are the three at the bottom of every poll.

vniow

Dec 19, 2003, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
vniow, while I agree with you that this is a very important issue, I not sure I would describe Dean's position as "to support it fully." He signed into law a very important step in the process with the civil unions law in his state, but he stopped short of gay marriage. He has since stated he wants to leave this up to the states to decide.

Aww poo, I could've sworn that I read somewhere that he supported it. Ah well. Damn.

Frohickey

Dec 19, 2003, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by zimv20
for the moment, i'd settle for the bush administration basing its policies on the Constitution.

I agree with you on this one.

We haven't had this since the 30s

Sayhey

Dec 20, 2003, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by Frohickey
I agree with you on this one.

We haven't had this since the 30s

Still yearning for the good old days of the Hoover administration (or is it the days of Benjamin Harrison that you long for?) It was wonderful in the days of laissez faire when unions were without rights, the old, young, and disabled starved, and the government know that what was "good for General Motors was good for America."

Coca-Cola

Dec 23, 2003, 12:38 AM

Deans got my vote and 15 dollars. I hope to reach 100.00 by election time.

Coca-Cola

Dec 23, 2003, 12:41 AM

I would bet the farm on Dean winning the primaries. It's looking pretty good.

IJ Reilly

Dec 23, 2003, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by Coca-Cola
I would bet the farm on Dean winning the primaries. It's looking pretty good.

I hope it's not your only farm. Sure, the nomination is Dean's to lose at this point, but it would be wise to not bet more then you can afford to lose until at least one of the primaries is done. Dean does have a way of tripping over his own tongue.

If I had a farm to bet, I'd bet it on this scenario: After New Hampshire and Iowa, Kerry and Gebhardt will be out as serious contenders. This will allow a consensus "not Dean" candidate to emerge who is more satisfactory to the centrist Clinton Democrats. That person is likely to be Wes Clark. Then it could get interesting.

Sayhey

Dec 23, 2003, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I hope it's not your only farm. Sure, the nomination is Dean's to lose at this point, but it would be wise to not bet more then you can afford to lose until at least one of the primaries is done. Dean does have a way of tripping over his own tongue.

If I had a farm to bet, I'd bet it on this scenario: After New Hampshire and Iowa, Kerry and Gebhardt will be out as serious contenders. This will allow a consensus "not Dean" candidate to emerge who is more satisfactory to the centrist Clinton Democrats. That person is likely to be Wes Clark. Then it could get interesting.

I agree IJ, this is going to quickly boil down two a two person race, most likely Dean and Clark. What Dean has going against him is the tremendous expectations everyone has going in to Iowa and New Hampshire. If he doesn't win both states convincingly he will open the field to a very serious challenge.

I must admit to having a soft spot for Kerry because he was one of those antiwar protesters that I marched with all those years ago. It looks like he is going nowhere fast and I don't like both his monied past (and present) and his indecisiveness on the resolution on Iraq.

Dean has galvanize much of the anti-Bush sentiment, but I don't see him as much of a coalition builder. It will take not only those of us who are angry with Bush, but also those who want a leader with a better vision of the Country than what Bush is offering. Dean hasn't yet proven to me he is that candidate.

Gephardt and Edwards both have some strong points in there ability to win southern voters, but Gephardt's position on Iraq was horrible and Edwards strikes me as too slick to be taken seriously.

Joe Lieberman will only get my vote in a general election. As far as I'm concerned he is "Bush-lite."

Clark is very intriguing. The more I read and hear what he says the more I like him. I admit to having reservations because I never envisioned voting for a General for anything. If he proves he can handle himself in the early primaries this is a definite possibility for me.

The others (Kuchinch, Moseley Braun, & Sharpton) are not going to win for a lot of reasons and in this case I'm not interested in working for people as a protest vote (I've done that in the past.)

It really looks to me as a choice between Dean, Kerry, and Clark. By the time it gets to California it will most likely be between Dean and Clark. The critical question will be who of those left will best be able to take on Bush in November.

eclipse525

Dec 23, 2003, 11:30 AM

Why is it that most of these politicians are constantly contridicting themselves and dismissing their decisions/positions on various topics from the past BUT NOW because it's convinent, they've seen the light. What kind of crap is is this and what kind of people are we to allow them to get away with this kind of verbal manipulation to justify their CURRENT position and THEIR own interest. Are their interest any more important than your own. Ofcourse not but yet we allow this to continue over and over again.

Politics = "The art of persuasion/lying to get what you want."

Forget Democrates, Republicans....it's all bullsh**t.......How about running for the political party of "SELF".

Just my humble opinion.

~e

Coca-Cola

Dec 23, 2003, 11:41 AM

I really think you are wrong that Clark stands any chance after IA and NH. Dean has a huge following that is growing everytime he speaks. Clark would be an excellent Secretary of State, however. If Madaline Albright doesn't want the post. Iowa is going to Dean. The caucus volunteers are set to win. 110,000 letters have been written to Caucus goers. The stage is set. Dean has Iowa. Dean has New Hampshire. Dean is working on North Carolina. The dominos are all falling into place. It is foolish to think that there is an alternative candidate at this point. Am I the only person here, who has figured this out. Dean has the numbers and the cash. Iowa and NH are allready won.
Clark is my second choice. His campaign just isn't good enough to win. He is good and I would love to see him debate Bush. I would love to see him as the VP, get some experience, debate Cheney, and run at a later time.

mactastic

Dec 23, 2003, 11:47 AM

zimv20

Dec 23, 2003, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Coca-Cola
It is foolish to think that there is an alternative candidate at this point.

i might say it is foolish to count anything in politics as certain.

Coca-Cola

Dec 23, 2003, 12:08 PM

Do you want a Clinton Democratic party? I think there is a lot of baggage there the Democrats will be glad to be rid of. I am one of those people. I won't be voting for Hillary, ever. She is far too power hungry. So hungry in fact she willing to blind herself of her husbands affairs. That is not leadership.

Don't get me wrong. I loved the Clinton era. It was awesome, and I believe Bill Clinton was the best President of my life time. It is time for change.

I don't want a Clinton/Clark party. We need change.

The Change is in Howard Dean. People really seem to forget that Clinton won in 1992 because of Ross Perot. Al Gore lost the electoral college because of Ralph Nader. Why is it that the Clinton Dems think that another Clinton can win?

What needs to happen in order to win. We need to unite the Ross Perot, financial conservatives. I remember Ross making a huge impact in my home state of Montana at the time. We really wanted him to win. Up until he decided to drop out and then get back in. Even the most die hard republican red neck wanted a balanced budget and financial responsibility.

Howard Dean has the ability to Balance budgets. That has a huge appeal. And lets not forget the power of grass roots. People love that stuff. Howard Dean has a huge grass roots movement. If 2 milliion people give Dean 100 dollars, we will have this thing won and Bush out of the white house.

Clinton ran in 1992 with universal health care. That got him a lot of votes. Howard Dean is a Doctor. He gave health coverage to all the children in Vermont.

He can win by appealing to Perots grass roots movement, balanced budgets, and healthcare.

Lets not forget those people who got Bush instead of Gore because they voted for Ralph Nader. The Howard Dean campaign needs the Green party as well. They need to vote for him.

We need a triad of support in order to win this election. We need Perot, Greens, and Dems to unite together. We don't need a democratic rift. Al Gore is right. We need to stop fighting and work together to support Howard Dean.

www.deanforamerica.com

IJ Reilly

Dec 23, 2003, 12:08 PM

Ironically, I think Clark would have the best chance of surviving the Bush campaign's supercharged efforts to define him, if only because he's never held political office, and hasn't got a record. And of course, there's the military record. It's an unfortunate double-standard, but personally attacking a war hero tends to appear mean-spirited to most Americans. Dean OTOH is going to have to defend every bill he's ever signed in New Hampshire, and that's fertile ground to create confusion, a la Willie Horton.

Coca-Cola

Dec 23, 2003, 12:20 PM

I think you are right about the attacks. Things are really going to get ugly, and they allready have. I find it funny that the Republicans paste Howard Dean as someone from the far left. I think they will find themselves surprised if they keep up will the old "Liberal bashing".

I would love to see Clark against Bush. I think that would really worry them.

They are certainly spooked enough as it is. I think Michael Moore said it best when he said that america doesn't look like himself, it looks like Oprah.

Lets get those angry white males away from the controls of public policy.

Sayhey

Dec 23, 2003, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Coca-Cola
I really think you are wrong that Clark stands any chance after IA and NH. Dean has a huge following that is growing everytime he speaks. Clark would be an excellent Secretary of State, however. If Madaline Albright doesn't want the post. Iowa is going to Dean. The caucus volunteers are set to win. 110,000 letters have been written to Caucus goers. The stage is set. Dean has Iowa. Dean has New Hampshire. Dean is working on North Carolina. The dominos are all falling into place. It is foolish to think that there is an alternative candidate at this point. Am I the only person here, who has figured this out. Dean has the numbers and the cash. Iowa and NH are allready won.
Clark is my second choice. His campaign just isn't good enough to win. He is good and I would love to see him debate Bush. I would love to see him as the VP, get some experience, debate Cheney, and run at a later time.

First, let me repeat, the only thing I have a concern about Dean is his ability to reach out and build a coalition beyond the many of us who have already decided that Bush must be removed from office.

If Dean does all the things you say then it is fine by me. Having said that, there is this tendency to magnify the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary as if they are the race. They are important because they often winnow the field by drying up funding for candidates who do not do well. However, they represent a very small amount of the delegates needed for nomination.

After New Hampshire the primary season moves south. In places like South Carolina candidates with an appeal to southern voters will have a better chance to catch fire. That means Clark, Edwards, Gephardt, and to a lesser degree, Lieberman. It is also where both of the Black candidates, Sharpton and Moseley Braun are counting on getting a lot of votes (ala Jesse Jackson in '84 and '88.) Somebody, very unlikely that it is Sharpton or Moseley Braun, is going to win some votes and maybe some primaries in these states other than Dean. At that point it makes a lot more sense to try and make a prediction of the outcome of the race than now.

The pundits on TV and the radio get paid to pretend like they know something that we don't. Most often that leads to spouting the current conventional wisdom of the week and pronouncing the race over. Well, here is my trite, conventional wisdom - it's not over 'til the fat lady sings or don't count your chickens before they hatch. Take your pick. It all means it's too damn early for serious predictions.

I would point out my analysis that the Dean expectations are so high that it can work against him in the Iowa and New Hampshire races. He will have to not only win but win big to stop the surge of a good second place showing turning into a challenge.

Sayhey

Dec 23, 2003, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Coca-Cola
Lets get those angry white males away from the controls of public policy.

I just want a candidate that gets the angry white males angry about some real problems not the insecurities cultivated by Bush and friends.

edit: here is an alternate site than Dean's just to add a little flavor:
ex-deaniacsforclark.com (http://www.ex-deaniacsforclark.com/)

It actually has a lot of good Clark media links if you're intersted. I'll gladly work for either candidate.

mactastic

Dec 23, 2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Coca-Cola
Do you want a Clinton Democratic party? I think there is a lot of baggage there the Democrats will be glad to be rid of. I am one of those people. I won't be voting for Hillary, ever. She is far too power hungry. So hungry in fact she willing to blind herself of her husbands affairs. That is not leadership.

Don't get me wrong. I loved the Clinton era. It was awesome, and I believe Bill Clinton was the best President of my life time. It is time for change.

I don't want a Clinton/Clark party. We need change.

Clark may be the candidate of choice for Bill Clinton but Clark has shown that he is willing to stand up to the most powerful people. If he was elected he would not hesitate to tell Clinton where to stick it.

The Change is in Howard Dean. People really seem to forget that Clinton won in 1992 because of Ross Perot. Al Gore lost the electoral college because of Ralph Nader. Why is it that the Clinton Dems think that another Clinton can win?

I don't know if the 'Clinton Dems' thing was specifically for me or just a sweeping generalization, but most of the people who are in the political discussions here are not mainstream party members. I am most certainly not a Clinton Democrat.

And Al Gore lost the election because he ran a shoddy campaign and DIDN'T use the benefit of Clinton's popularity among likely Democratic voters to his advantage. He lost his home state for peet's sake. Ralph Nader did not cause Al Gore to lose.

What needs to happen in order to win. We need to unite the Ross Perot, financial conservatives. I remember Ross making a huge impact in my home state of Montana at the time. We really wanted him to win. Up until he decided to drop out and then get back in. Even the most die hard republican red neck wanted a balanced budget and financial responsibility.

Howard Dean has the ability to Balance budgets. That has a huge appeal. And lets not forget the power of grass roots. People love that stuff. Howard Dean has a huge grass roots movement. If 2 milliion people give Dean 100 dollars, we will have this thing won and Bush out of the white house.

Clinton ran in 1992 with universal health care. That got him a lot of votes. Howard Dean is a Doctor. He gave health coverage to all the children in Vermont.

He can win by appealing to Perots grass roots movement, balanced budgets, and healthcare.

Lets not forget those people who got Bush instead of Gore because they voted for Ralph Nader. The Howard Dean campaign needs the Green party as well. They need to vote for him.

We need a triad of support in order to win this election. We need Perot, Greens, and Dems to unite together. We don't need a democratic rift. Al Gore is right. We need to stop fighting and work together to support Howard Dean.

www.deanforamerica.com

Howard Dean may get the support of fence-sitting fiscal conservatives, but he will not get the environmental vote from the Greens. His record of being pro-developement is well known. For all the republicans efforts to paint Dean as a left wign nut job just west of communist, he is a balanced budget, pro-business, centrist. He does have an excellent shot at beating Bush (g5man's opinion to the contrary notwithstanding) but so does a Wes Clark. Clark got in the race late, so he's playing catch up to some extent. In any event, there is still a ways to go before the nominee is decided. That won't happen till March 3rd.

g5man

Dec 23, 2003, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by mactastic

And Al Gore lost the election because he ran a shoddy campaign and DIDN'T use the benefit of Clinton's popularity among likely Democratic voters to his advantage. He lost his home state for peet's sake. Ralph Nader did not cause Al Gore to lose.

I tend to agree with you here, but in Florida Nader took some crucial votes Gore needed to put him over the top.

Originally posted by mactastic
He does have an excellent shot at beating Bush (g5man's opinion to the contrary notwithstanding) but so does a Wes Clark. Clark got in the race late, so he's playing catch up to some extent. In any event, there is still a ways to go before the nominee is decided. That won't happen till March 3rd.

Thank you for the mention, but Dean (out of all the democratic candidates) has an excellent chance of making my predictions a reality. He will be soundly defeated by Bush if he is nominated. And this is why I agree with the second part of you statement regarding the nomination. It will not be decided until most likely March.

The DNC knows none of the candidates can beat Bush, but they also don't want to be beaten too badly. Contrary to the excitment of the minority masses that love Dean, he can stumble during the primary process rather quickly. It has been done before and I pray he can hang in there through March. So for once I too liike Dean like the rest of you.

If he is not nominated, I still see Gephardt or Kerry taking the lead.

Sayhey

Dec 23, 2003, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Coca-Cola
Do you want a Clinton Democratic party? I think there is a lot of baggage there the Democrats will be glad to be rid of. I am one of those people. I won't be voting for Hillary, ever. She is far too power hungry. So hungry in fact she willing to blind herself of her husbands affairs. That is not leadership.

Don't get me wrong. I loved the Clinton era. It was awesome, and I believe Bill Clinton was the best President of my life time. It is time for change.

I don't want a Clinton/Clark party. We need change.

I'll take a Clark led party over a Bush led America any day.

Bill used to drive me crazy with some of his stands (or lack of stands), but he was an amazingly skilled politician with a few fatal flaws in the control of personal behavior department. What he had that other Democrats seem to lack is the ability to look at an issue and see the validity of arguments from the other side. It allowed him to "triangulate" on a issue and disarm his opponents. Those are legitimate skills that a Dean or Clark could learn from.

The Change is in Howard Dean. People really seem to forget that Clinton won in 1992 because of Ross Perot. Al Gore lost the electoral college because of Ralph Nader. Why is it that the Clinton Dems think that another Clinton can win?

I don't see Howard as much of a change, that is in changes from much of Clinton's policies. I don't buy the Republican message that he is a far out liberal. Much of what he is saying is centrist, like Clinton. I do think he is mistaken about the across the board repeal of the Bush tax cuts.

Indeed what is needed is to build a broad coalition. I haven't seen yet that Dean is doing that. He has tapped into the deep anti-Bush sentiment in a way that no other Democrat has done, but it will take more than that to beat Bush. Can he do it? I hope so. I don't buy the rhetoric of Rove or his epigones on this board that he can't do that, but I haven't seen it yet.

What needs to happen in order to win. We need to unite the Ross Perot, financial conservatives. I remember Ross making a huge impact in my home state of Montana at the time. We really wanted him to win. Up until he decided to drop out and then get back in. Even the most die hard republican red neck wanted a balanced budget and financial responsibility.

Howard Dean has the ability to Balance budgets. That has a huge appeal. And lets not forget the power of grass roots. People love that stuff. Howard Dean has a huge grass roots movement. If 2 milliion people give Dean 100 dollars, we will have this thing won and Bush out of the white house.

I agree that the budget deficit will be one of the most important issues. If a Democratic nominee can place this issue not only as one of fiscal responsibility, but speak convincingly about the ramifications for job formation and for future generations he, or unlikely - she, will have a winning stance. It will take a program that also shows how the budget will be balance without destruction of social programs.

Clinton ran in 1992 with universal health care. That got him a lot of votes. Howard Dean is a Doctor. He gave health coverage to all the children in Vermont.

Agreed. One of Dean's strongest suits.

He can win by appealing to Perots grass roots movement, balanced budgets, and healthcare.

Lets not forget those people who got Bush instead of Gore because they voted for Ralph Nader. The Howard Dean campaign needs the Green party as well. They need to vote for him.

We need a triad of support in order to win this election. We need Perot, Greens, and Dems to unite together. We don't need a democratic rift. Al Gore is right. We need to stop fighting and work together to support Howard Dean.

Whoever is the nominee will have to appeal to these constituencies. It does no good to paint them as outside the coalition or to short circuit the process to see who can best reach out during the primaries. If your point is that Democrats shouldn't use overblown rhetoric and low blows in their attempts to win the nomination, I agree. If you mean everyone else should get out of the way for Dean to be crowned the nominee after the presumed victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, I don't. These states don't represent the kind of breath needed to win a general election.

3rdpath

Dec 23, 2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by ovi/sanfelipe/g5man

The DNC knows none of the candidates can beat Bush, but they also don't want to be beaten too badly.

despite your historically flawed psychic powers you just can't help being entirely certain can you?:rolleyes:

dean does have the gravitas to beat bush.

you're ability to ignore bush's continued series of stumbles is laughable considering you anticipate a "possibility" of dean stumbling sometime between now and the election. so let's focus on reality and not fantasy:

(1)you're ignoring the fact that as we discuss this, the pentagon is deploying anti-aircraft weapons in washington...proving beyond any doubt that bush's folly in iraq has NOT made us any safer. you can bet your next username that if any attack happens that the voters will finally hold someone accountable...and i don't think there's any doubt that it will be bush. iraq is the new vietnam...count on it.

(2)our economy is in a world of trouble. despite a short ( fueled by overvaluation) uptick in the market, the long-term picture is gloomy. a huge deficit, millions of jobs shipped overseas, a falling dollar, an enormous trade deficit, uncontrolled health care costs, many many states in fiscal crisis, blatant energy trade manipulation...all of this masked by some short term " fixes".

face it ovi, your posterboy of great public service is an opportunistic liar, manipulator of false intelligence and shill for the oil/ weapons business. while osama runs amuck, bush poses on an aircraft carrier. while our troops are being killed, bush says " bring 'em on" from the safety of the whitehouse.
as the war drags hopelessly on, bush poses with a plastic thanksgiving turkey then high-tails it out of town. and i thought the gop could sink no lower than reagan....

bush is all hat and no cattle....much like someone who would delete their previous predictions under different usernames.

Sayhey

Dec 23, 2003, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by 3rdpath
despite your historically flawed psychic powers you just can't help being entirely certain can you?:rolleyes:

dean does have the gravitas to beat bush.

you're ability to ignore bush's continued series of stumbles is laughable considering you anticipate a "possibility" of dean stumbling sometime between now and the election. so let's focus on reality and not fantasy:

(1)you're ignoring the fact that as we discuss this, the pentagon is deploying anti-aircraft weapons in washington...proving beyond any doubt that bush's folly in iraq has NOT made us any safer. you can bet your next username that if any attack happens that the voters will finally hold someone accountable...and i don't think there's any doubt that it will be bush. iraq is the new vietnam...count on it.

(2)our economy is in a world of trouble. despite a short ( fueled by overvaluation) uptick in the market, the long-term picture is gloomy. a huge deficit, millions of jobs shipped overseas, a falling dollar, an enormous trade deficit, uncontrolled health care costs, many many states in fiscal crisis, blatant energy trade manipulation...all of this masked by some short term " fixes".

face it ovi, your posterboy of great public service is an opportunistic liar, manipulator of false intelligence and shill for the oil/ weapons business. while osama runs amuck, bush poses on an aircraft carrier. while our troops are being killed, bush says " bring 'em on" from the safety of the whitehouse.
as the war drags hopelessly on, bush poses with a plastic thanksgiving turkey then high-tails it out of town. and i thought the gop could sink no lower than reagan....

bush is all hat and no cattle....much like someone who would delete their previous predictions under different usernames.

Can a nonbeliever give you a hearty "AMEN"?