Democrats ONLY in This Thread, Please

[bluenix]

WARNING: [blockquote]No Republicans are invited to post in this thread. If you are a Republican and wish to comment on something you read here, please start your own fucking thread rather than soil mine. If you don't, deej has given me his assurance that your post will be deleted and your skanky ass banned.*[/blockquote]

 

The question is, with the primaries coming up, what is your current thinking about the Democratic contenders?

 

Me: [blockquote]Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun: No fucking way. She's ethically challenged and an apparent idiot to boot. (How would you ever know I live in Illinois.)

 

General Wesley Clark (Ret.): I know nothing about him. In the one interview I saw, I did think he came across as wimpy.

 

Governor Howard Dean: the more I see the more I like.

 

Senator John Edwards: Nothing, not persuasion or bullying or torture, will make me vote for a personal injury lawyer.

 

Congressman Dick Gephardt: A good and well-qualified man who puts me (and the voters, I suspect) to sleep.

 

Senator John Kerry: Maybe it's just me, but he seems weird.

 

Congressman Dennis Kucinich: No. I'm biased against anyone from Ohio, save for JeffOH. A personal quirk.

 

Senator Joe Lieberman: No. His window of opportunity is now closed and draped.

 

Reverend Al Sharpton: No.

 

 

FYI, here's a link to a page that has links to each of the candidates Web sites.

 

http://www.democrats.org/whitehouse/candidates.html

 

 

 

* Deej, play along here, okay?

[phage]

>If you are a Republican and wish to comment on

>something you read here, please start your own fucking thread

>rather than soil mine.

 

You can always dream my friend…you can always dream. I do like your spunk though. “Skanky ass” He, he, he.

 

I’ll give you my opinions and predictions and time will tell how miserably inaccurate they are.

 

>The question is, with the primaries coming up, what is your

>current thinking about the Democratic contenders?

>

>Me: Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun: No fucking

>way. She's ethically challenged and an apparent idiot to boot.

>(How would you ever know I live in Illinois.)

 

Not being from Illinois. I think she’s got balls. Much bigger than most of her esteemed colleagues. Unfortunately, they are snowballs and she doesn’t have one’s chance in Hell of ever getting elected.

 

>General Wesley Clark (Ret.): I know nothing about him. In the

>one interview I saw, I did think he came across as wimpy.

 

I’m just not feeling him and I agree that he comes off kind of wimpy for a freaking general. I think he actually may be more electable than the others, but I don’t think I’ll be voting for him.

 

>Governor Howard Dean: the more I see the more I like.

 

I’ve said from the very beginning that he has a certain appeal for me. It seems he also has an appeal to the younger votes and many hardcore Democrats. Very likely to be the nominee. Also very unlikely to get elected. (Which would play into Hillary’s hands for her run in 2008 so I’m going to look on the bright side of either outcome.)

 

>Senator John Edwards: Nothing, not persuasion or bullying or

>torture, will make me vote for a personal injury lawyer.

 

Too conservative for my tastes, but I think he comes off very well in one-on-one situations. Not so well in the debates. I thought I read something about him taking some large class action suits that did a lot of good, but I can’t remember for sure. Could you forgive his ambulance chasing if that were the case?

 

>Congressman Dick Gephardt: A good and well-qualified man who

>puts me (and the voters, I suspect) to sleep.

 

My second choice, but only to throw to the wolves in preparation for Hilary’s run. I agree that he is probably the most qualified, but he reminds me of Gray Davis. A competent administrator, but not much of a leader.

 

>Senator John Kerry: Maybe it's just me, but he seems weird.

 

My early favorite, but the patrician Yankee thing will never fly.

 

>Congressman Dennis Kucinich: No. I'm biased against anyone

>from Ohio, save for JeffOH. A personal quirk.

 

I have absolutely no opinion of him good or bad. I suppose that in itself says something.

 

>Senator Joe Lieberman: No. His window of opportunity is now

>closed and draped.

 

Agree.

 

>Reverend Al Sharpton: No.

 

He cracks me up, but I’m not exactly looking for an amusing president. I read a great article about him actually running for the President of Black America and making a run a Jessie Jackson’s position as the black power broker. Made sense and I wish him luck.

[Rick Munroe]

>>Governor Howard Dean: Very likely to be the nominee.

>Also very unlikely to get elected.

 

People always say this but nobody ever offers up an explanation of why they think he is supposedly unelectable. No offense to you, phage, but could it be that everyone just repeats what they've heard, in the same way the media keeps insisting that Dean is "angry" & "pessimistic" because that's what his opponents keep chanting? IMNSHO, I think that someone like Dean, who has gotten thousands of previously disinterested people involved so early in the process (e.g., me!), could continue bringing people into the fold and get the 50% of voters who never vote to get to the polls this time. He's done everything, so far, that everyone thought was impossible for him (raising all that money from small donations, becoming the front-runner), so maybe it's good for people to keep saying he's unelectable.

 

From The Dean blog, here are excerpts of a good salon.com story on how the media has completely bought into the "Dean is angry" meme:

 

The Media vs. Howard Dean

Eric Boehlert for Salon examines how the media has bought in to "Republican talking-points memos" and "anonymous Democrats" when they describe Dean-- and how they're repeating their mistakes from 2000:

 

"The former Vermont governor remains the front-runner among Democratic voters, but he's gotten increasingly caustic treatment from the media, which has dwelled on three big themes -- that Dean's angry, gaffe-prone and probably not electable -- while giving comparatively far less ink to the doctor's policy and political prescriptions that have catapulted him ahead of the Democratic field...

 

"Suddenly, as with Gore in 2000, it seems Dean is battling not only his Democratic opponents and Republican Party officials, he's also wrestling members of the media's chattering class who view him with growing unease and even contempt....

 

"Watching the striking similarities between the way the D.C. press is covering Dean and how it treated Gore, and contrasting it with the way it has treated President Bush, it's becoming harder to avoid the obvious conclusion: that Democratic presidential front-runners and nominees are held to a higher, tougher standard by the Washington press corps....

 

"Today, the parallels between the Dean and Gore press coverage are impossible to miss. There's the charge Dean is constantly trying to "reinvent" himself, which Gore was accused of in 2000. That Dean is "angry"; Gore was tagged a "savage campaigner" during the primaries. There's the often nit-picking obsession with the "gaffes" that supposedly bedevil Dean; for Gore the problem was "exaggerations."

 

Boehlert notes that Dean's caustic treatment by the media began with his June 21st Meet the Press appearance. He contrasts the sharp rebukes delivered by Tim Russert to the softballs Russert threw a certain Governor from Texas back in '99. The Washington pundits "clucked" at Dean's appearance, and it was soon thereafter that the press corps discovered the power of adjectives:

 

"In just two summertime features the Washington Post managed to use the following words to describe Dean: "abrasive," "flinty," "cranky," "arrogant," "disrespectful," "yelling," "hollering," "fiery," "red-faced," "hothead," "testy," "short-fused," "angry," "worked up," and "fired up." And none of those adjectives were used in a complimentary way. In fact the Post, in an Aug. 4 Is-Dean-mean story, took pains to distinguish him from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, whom the paper termed "brilliantly cranky."

 

But the adjectives didn't quite do the trick:

 

"The anger issue may be fading, perhaps because reporters and pundits haven't actually been able to uncover Dean's temper. As the Times conceded in its obligatory Dean-is-angry article, nobody has seen him explode during this entire campaign.

 

"More bad news for that beloved press story line: Seventy-six percent of Democrats consider Dean "likable," according to the latest CNN/Time poll. And among the larger pool of respondents, including Republicans and Independents, by a margin of nearly 2-to-1 they consider Dean to be an "optimist," not a "pessimist." (In addition, 40 percent opt for either "moderate" or "conservative" to describe Dean; just 24 percent pick "liberal.") It's the press, egged on by Republican spin and eager to play the role of hardheaded analyst, that has latched onto this notion that Dean is too passionate to be president."

 

Boehlert examines how the media has moved on from anger to "gaffe-prone" in their attempts to pigeonhole Governor Dean, and now on to the so-called worries that a Governor who never lost an election might not be able to defeat Bush (the grassroots campaign we've built almost never even enters the story):

 

"It's worth noting that such stories almost never name these Democrats -- except the other candidates for the nomination -- who are allegedly wringing their hands over Dean. For its 2,800-word cover story last week, Newsweek found just one for an on-the-record quote: former Clinton aide James Carville. Syndicated columnist Novak filled an entire Dec. 22 dispatch about the "Dean dilemma" by referring vaguely to "thoughtful Democrats," "a sage Democratic practitioner," "a party loyalist" and "Democratic savants," all anonymous, who were all sick about Dean's surge. Novak never bothered to tell readers if any of those unnamed Democrats had ties to Dean's campaign competitors....

 

"Last week's Time story on Dean seemed to bury its lead, waiting until the 23rd paragraph in a 27-graph story to inform readers that, according to the magazine's own new polling data, Dean trails Bush by just six percentage points in a head-to-head matchup.... The most recent Newsweek survey conducted Jan 8-9 found Dean trailing Bush by eight percentage points. That's hardly the making of an automatic rout, considering exactly four years ago Gore trailed Bush by 17 points.... In the end, of course, Gore earned more votes than Bush...."

[Doug69]

>>Governor Howard Dean: the more I see the more I like.

>

>I’ve said from the very beginning that he has a certain appeal

>for me. It seems he also has an appeal to the younger votes

>and many hardcore Democrats. Very likely to be the nominee.

>Also very unlikely to get elected.

 

I'm sure Bluenix thinks that I'm barred from participating in this thread, but since I really like Howard Dean, and have made clear that I would vote for him over Bush if the election were held today, I feel entitled to grant myself an exemption from the Bluenix prohibition strictly to add to what Rick said about Dean.

 

Most polls show Dean running just as well against Bush as all of the other Democrats. A recent CNN poll showed him a mere 5 points behind Bush. And this is while there is still a primary and Democrats are at each other's throats. It's also in the aftermath of that melodramatic Saddam Hussein capture, which will be long forgotten come election time.

 

Also, Dean is most assuredly NOT the Northeastern Dukakis/Mondale liberal which the stupid media has been led into depicting him as being. People will see this when they start paying attention. There is NOTHING effete or wimpy about Dean. He is tough, pugnacious, and has a rural doctor's feel to him which will appeal to lots of people.

 

He also has a history of positions and achievements - a balanced budget, vigorous support for states' rights, opposition to gun control, slashing bloated social programs - that will give the lie to the claim that he's some 1980s liberal. The only reason that this lie has prospered is because of his opposition to the war in Iraq, but he didn't oppose the war on pacifist grounds, but rather, on hawkish grounds (that the military should be directed to other goals in the war on terrorism - a view held by many in the armed forces).

 

Dean has generated intense and rather unusual excitement and passion among widely disparate groups, and not just among liberals. Once the media-created smoke clears, people will be able to see Dean directly, and will quickly see that he is far, far from the McGovernite caricature which the media has caused so many otherwise well-informed people to see him as being.

[phage]

>I'm sure Bluenix thinks that I'm barred from participating in

>this thread, but since I really like Howard Dean, and have

>made clear that I would vote for him over Bush if the election

>were held today, I feel entitled to grant myself an exemption

>from the Bluenix prohibition strictly to add to what Rick said

>about Dean.

 

I actually hope you are both correct. On this one, I would LOVE to be proven wrong.

 

I have two main concerns. The first being the South. This is hardly an original thought but one I do agree with. I don’t think he is going to play well in the South and other parts of the country where religion influences voting. He needs to bring some of those people on board without alienating the people who are giving him his current momentum, and I’m afraid he is starting from the wrong point.

 

Just my opinion, but I think it is possible to start from a place where you are acceptable to the religious people and then get the non-religious on board. I’m not sure it is possible to do the reverse. The non-religious can be convinced that your convictions will not harm them, but he is going to have a rough time convincing religious people that he is one of them.

 

The second thing is his stance on the war. If conditions in Iraq improve, he isn’t going to get much mileage out it. People who disagreed with the war from the very beginning will give him credit for his position, but anyone who supported the war or sat on the fence probably won’t.

 

It’s a bit of a conundrum because in order for me to hope he benefits, I have to hope the situation in Iraq deteriorates. I have no idea how things are going to go with Iraq, but I can’t start hoping that it goes poorly just so my preferred candidate will benefit.

[VaHawk]

>I have two main concerns. The first being the South. This is

>hardly an original thought but one I do agree with. I don’t

>think he is going to play well in the South and other parts of

>the country where religion influences voting.

 

As a southerner, I really resent this categorization! Like we're all dumb down here and base our voting on religion? What a stereotype! Do you think all Southerners are bible toting/quoting born again Christians?

 

But we definitely don't LIKE YANKEE bullshitting carpet baggers. No vote for Dean here, and he can kiss off the Southern vote, imo. For the umpteenth time, imo, the Republican party will carry the Southern vote.

[Rick Munroe]

>But we definitely don't LIKE YANKEE bullshitting carpet

>baggers.

 

What does this mean?

[VaHawk]

It means that most Southerners don't vote for Yankees, pure and simple! Gee, now that wouldn't have anything to do with their dictatorial attitudes and policies toward Southerners, from the Civil War, Reconstruction and hypocritical civil rights policies would it?

 

Not my personal viewpoint as I voted for Dukakis, but I sincerely feel that this is just a fact of life in the South. I believe the last Yankee candidate that won the Southern vote was Kennedy and that was only because LBJ's political cronies in Texas stuffed the ballot box with votes from dead people.

 

Sorry, if anyone finds this offensive, but as a Southerner, I feel that no Northern Yankee, will ever win the vote in the South, whether the candidate is Republican or Democrat. Anyone who believes that a Yankee will carry the Southern vote, really needs a dose of reality. IMO, it is just a fact of life that southerners don't LIKE YANKEES.

[Rick Munroe]

>IMO, it is just a fact

>of life that southerners don't LIKE YANKEES.

 

Interesting comment from someone who just said that he resents being stereotyped. :7

[VaHawk]

I suppose that I'm guilty as charged for stereotyping, but I stand by my opinion. The facts back up my opinion, so if the facts make me guilty of stereotyping then I guess I will just have to admit/and live with that!

 

I personally would vote for Dean over Bush, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong on my observations about the South and it's voting pattern.

 

IMHO, I really don't believe that I'm wrong about how the South will vote in the upcoming Presidential election. As a Southerner and life-long registered Democratic voter, I'm only trying to emphasize the truth, at least as I see it, that Southerners HATE YANKEES and it will be a "small miracle" for a Nothern Yankee to carry the South.

[Guest bedstuy]

I see what you're saying in some respects but in others I'm not sure it's a complete lost cause. I was born and raised in the South, and from my experience I will agree that your observations might hold in rural areas, but I think in the more urban areas (even moreso in this day and age as so many "outsiders" have moved into these same Southern urban areas from other parts of the country, including the Northeast) that this was NOT my experience. Sure, there were some who may have voiced anti-Yankee sentiments, but by and large I don't recall and overwelming pattern in such areas. I think income and education levels has a lot to do with in urban areas as well.

 

By and large I think the main reason for Republican votes in the South is the well known migration of votes from the Democrats to the Republicans after the Civil Rights Act, followed by Republican pandering to the Christian Right in the 80's (and there's a bit of overlap there).

[Guest pressyourluck]

>I personally would vote for Dean over Bush, but that doesn't

>mean I'm wrong on my observations about the South and it's

>voting pattern.

>

>IMHO, I really don't believe that I'm wrong about how the

>South will vote in the upcoming Presidential election. As a

>Southerner and life-long registered Democratic voter, I'm only

>trying to emphasize the truth, at least as I see it, that

>Southerners HATE YANKEES and it will be a "small miracle" for

>a Nothern Yankee to carry the South.

 

I do agree with you in your assessment. Do you think it was a coincidence that the last three (post civil right movement) Democrat Presidents have been from the South?

I don't know if it would be enough even if Dean were to pick a VP candidate from the south (i.e Dukakis/Bentsen). If Dean does go with geographic politics, he might pick either of Louisiana’s Senators because that state, Florida and maybe Arkansas are potentially "in play." Or, he could pick Clark or Edwards who are Southerns. By the way, Dean scored a perfect A+ record from the NRA and has balanced more budgets than the president ever has as President. Please kill and bury the notion that Republicans are fiscally conservative.

 

However, there is in my opinion too much talk about Democrats trying to win/compete in the South. They need to win Florida or one or two states like Louisiana and make the math work to get to 271 Electoral votes. It is not going to be a 50 state + 1 election. Barring a complete meltdown by either candidate, there are only a few key states that are competitive. Besides the ones mentioned, the other states are mostly in the Midwest/Rust Belt i.e. Minn, Wiscon, Penn, Ohio, etc.

 

I think that Clark has the best chance though. After a shaky start, I think he has become a better candidate and would make a good president. He is actually running as a progressive with a 4-star general background. A Clark/Edwards, Clark/Breaux or a Clark/Ford Jr. would be awesome and would be competitive in the south.

 

I am biased though, I would vote for any of the top Democratic nominees. Heck, I would vote for Jimmy (susage dude) Dean or John (I see dead people) Edward before I vote for Bush Jr.

[Guest Merlin]

Will it help Dean in the South if his running mate is from the South? I think it is extremely likely that the Democrat VP nominee will be Edwards. Dean also has the problem that he clearly has not been a religious person and now has made it clear that he intends to sound religious as a strategy in the sourth.

[AdamSmith]

>However, there is in my opinion too much talk about Democrats

>trying to win/compete in the South. They need to win Florida

>or one or two states like Louisiana and make the math work to

>get to 271 Electoral votes. It is not going to be a 50 state +

>1 election. Barring a complete meltdown by either candidate,

>there are only a few key states that are competitive. Besides

>the ones mentioned, the other states are mostly in the

>Midwest/Rust Belt i.e. Minn, Wiscon, Penn, Ohio, etc.

 

Capturing these few states in play will depend on organization on the ground. The Dean campaign's use of Internet tactics, etc. looks like the Democrats' best hope of getting ahead of the Republican party's organization and discipline, somewhat as the Carville/Stephanopolous war room invented ways to wrong-foot the Bush/Baker campaign in '92.

[+ Lucky]

Merlin, I thought you were a Republican. now you are a Democrat?

[Guest Merlin]

I don't accept the limitation of this thread. If the Democrats had their way, they wouldn't allow Republicans in this forum at all.

[+ Lucky]

Well carry that thought further, merlin, cuz if I had my way...

 

You could show us the courtesy of letting one single thread be a discussion between like-minded posters. Is that so hard to do?

[trilingual]

One thing I find interesting: at least two posters here who describe themselves as conservative (to gently understate things) or from parts of the country where Northerners don't ordinarily run well, or whatever, have said they personally would vote for Dean over Bush! That suggests to me that there are other similar voters in their states and party who feel the same way. The last election was decided very narrowly in many states; it would only take a few extra Republican voters in each precinct to decide that they really can't stomach the Mediocrity-from-Midland and he'd find himself retired back to his flat scrubby ranch before he could even click his heels together three times! Lets hope there are many more Doug69s and VaHawks out there and that they plan to vote against Bush in November!

[+ Lucky]

"Lets hope there are many more Doug69s and VaHawks out there"

 

Seriously? hehehe, okay! If that's what it takes to get Bush out.

[bluenix]

>I'm sure Bluenix thinks that I'm barred from participating in

>this thread, but since I really like Howard Dean, and have

>made clear that I would vote for him over Bush if the election

>were held today, I feel entitled to grant myself an exemption

>from the Bluenix prohibition strictly to add to what Rick said

>about Dean.

 

I never thought for a second that anybody would actually observe the rule, so not to worry. Besides, your rationale is impeccable.

 

I'm curious. Do you live in a state where you can vote in any primary you wish, and, if so, do you intend to vote in the Democratic Primary?

[Guest bedstuy]

HA HA

please!

 

>>>Please kill and bury the notion that Republicans are fiscally conservative.

 

They do a fine job burying that notion on their own

[AdamSmith]

Lets hope there are many more Doug69s

>and VaHawks out there and that they plan to vote against Bush

>in November!

 

I'm seeing the same thing. A startling number of Republicans I know, people who would cut off their hand before voting Democratic, have gotten disgusted with Bush. Their feeling seems to be that with his wastrel ways, and his eagerness to pitch the country into a war whose cost looks out of all proportion to the threat Saddam posed to the national interest, he is barely better than a damn fool Democrat.

 

These particular people would never vote for Dean, but some of them may not vote for anyone. When things are this close, a little apathy among centrist voters could tip the electoral scales.

[Guest bedstuy]

Maybe Pat Buchanan will run as an Independent

[AdamSmith]

A Buchanan spoiler run would be divine retribution for what Nader did last time around. Has he made any noise about doing it?