D.E.M.S.K.G.L.G.K..... A non-con discussion!

Oh, I don't doubt that Dean is leading the Democrats. Just, I don't like him that much -- strikes me as opportunistic, for one (look at his entire voting record) -- and I think it is more a testament to how weak the Dems are than how strong Dean is.

That said, I'll vote for him if he's the nominee.

Meanwhile, I just read the New Yorker that came in the mail a few days ago, and we're not the only ones buzzing about Gore. Seems he's officially out of it, but that can still change... right?

It's too early, Frank, to be overwhelmed by any candidate. It's like the June weather in Southern California. It's summer but it's always cold and overcast and every year everyone forgets and starts complaining. I know I forget that it's the last six months of the campaign where I am even coming close to making up my mind. Dean has a solid presence and seems to have direction with his politics. It's the neither fish nor fowl smell, like both Gore and Bush in the last election that begins frustrating me.

In order for Gore to be a worthwhile candidate he would have to be issue oriented and not afraid to call a spade a spade. He would have to be almost totally a different candidate than the Gore of the last campaign. I believe he would be a very competent president; it's the getting elected part that worries me.

jjorge

Thanks for that info. My sister has been touting Dean to me also. I'm still luke warm on everyone right now, but I was luke warm to all the candidates when Bill Clinton locked up the nomination the first time -- and I warmed up to him big time.

I'll keep my eye on him, and like So, I will vote for him if he runs no matter how luke warm I might still be. But, if history is any indicator, I may also warm to him considerably.

Gotta hear more of what he says.

Gore would make a terrific president -- but I just think he will be considered a re-tread -- and lose in the general election if he wins the nomination. Don't think that is going to happen in any case.

(I'da liked him much more if he had kept the beard!)

Frank,

I voted for Gore. I think he would be a good president, but I agree he is a p*ss poor campaigner.

I also like Kerry, Edwards, and Graham. Gephart's ok but IMO, he's not a very good campaigner.

I consider Lieberman to be a 'republicrat'. He has been one for a long time. (he got into the senate by campaigning to the RIGHT of republican-turned independent Lowell Weiker, as I recall).

I would not vote for Leiberman under ordinary circumstances, but to oust Bush, I would.

Clark will never get the nomination and may be angling for the vice presidential slot. The same applies to the former Illinois senator (I'm blocking on her name --I hope I don't get in trouble for that!)
As for Al Sharpton, IMO he's running to re-place Jesse Jackson as the pre-eminent power-broker in the African-american community.

P.S.
take a look at this U.P.I. article:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10563&highlight=



regards, --jjorge

Jjorge, It is good that Dean is working up so much enthusiasm among us Democrats, but unless he can take hold among the independents he can't be elected.

Tell us how he's doing in that catagory. What in his message will appeal to them?

Hazlitt,

I'll be back tomorrow and will try to answer your question.

For now, I thought I'd post this link. It might give someone a few chuckles.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=319320#319320

I know whatcha mean!

Hazlitt

It is not clear to me yet how Dean is doing with independents.

Most of what I hear is encouraging but anecdotal. I have also heard it said (and it makes sense to me) that independents start to pay serious attention LATER than party affiliated individuals. On the other hand Dean has a BIG lead over the other Dems in recruiting student volunteers --many who have never been involved with politics before.

So, you have got me paying more attention to independents.

One thing I did do was to go to the website of a group called Dean Independents or Independents for Dean in 2004. I have copied a little from that site. The link is at the bottom.

--jjorge


Here are a few lines from Independents For Dean in 2004:



"...Like political Independents, Howard Dean, M.D, former

6-term Governor of Vermont, is difficult to label. The

media and Democratic Party establishment have tried to

portray him as way off to the left, i.e. "liberal". But

anyone who takes a long look at him quickly realizes that,

like many Independents, he is not ideologically motivated.

He is a pragmatist with principles, and he speaks bluntly

and in plain English. He believes social responsibility

follows from fiscal responsibility. Explore the links below

and come to your own conclusion. If you want to nail him

down with a sound bite though, it would be this: he has the

ability to attract a wide variety of people because they

find they strongly support him despite disagreeing with him

on one or more issues. Dean supporters are not one-issue

voters......"


"....Why should Independents support Howard Dean? First of

all, you need to be at least a little bit uncomfortable

with the Bush administration ("uncomfortable" is quite an

understatement for some of us!) If so, then Doonesbury

gives one answer in a nutshell. Another answer is that Dean

displays the qualities of a true leader as opposed to a

politician. He's smart, outspoken, fearless, and principled

but pragmatic. He likes to get things done, if only in

increments when big steps are politically infeasible. He

can energize a large number of Americans... which has led

to the buzzphrase "People Powered Howard..."


http://deanindependents.org/

Larry King had an interview with Ann Richards tonight - the one Bush beat in a somewhat nasty campaign in Texas for the governorship. She had some interesting comments - Gore will not run, because the defeat was a bitter pill for him, and he's making a new life. She stated flat out that he had won, and it was the Supreme Court who handed Bush the office. And that, said Richards, is one of the keys. She thinks Bush is very beatable, and one of the biggest jobs the dems have is to get out the vote. Too late for Wesley Clark to come in now. She brought up something that was interesting to me. The democrats have to have one (or two) solid messages. Too many will not help. Many Americans are beginning to be scared, and are becoming increasingly aware of the domestic issues. But Iraq! That's a very weak point. We're not only not winning anything over there, but the question about why we're there is growing. And rather than Bush's vaunted "bringing peace, stability and democracy" to the region, the region seems to be gathering strength in its opposition to the American occupation.

Which brings the attention to Dean and to Lieberman. Lieberman has now slipped down. Dean, Kerry, and Gephardt are up there. Dean is beginning to pick up real strength, and, since the Party has done nothing for him, it's been on the merits of his own grass-roots campaign. He's not afraid to take on George Bush and criticize what needs to be criticized; his message on health care, education, the economy is getting clearer, and he doesn't deliver a stump speech per se. One of his primary topics has been a health care system, and the fact that there are now 8,000 listed (and the list is growing) doctors calling for some kind of national health service, this strengthens his message.

It's working, because Kerry has begun to imitate, now, going in for small meetings, appealing more to smaller, more individualized groups.

I've been watching Dean for more than two years now. I started out liking Kerry, but I think Dean is stronger. And Graham and Gephardt are next for me. Each has some kind of ethical look to him, and would make a balanced slate.

For me, Kerry and Gebhart have been there for quite a few years and never could spark the public's imagination. By process of elimination, it would seem Dean is getting to be the one.

Sozobe: "... strikes me as opportunistic.." You're right. But it shouldn't give you pause.

I keep trotting out this old personal revelation, but it was important for me. I was lucky, in 1959, just out of college, to meet both Kennedy and Stevenson during the primaries, the former briefly (Bobby in more depth) and the latter over a period of a couple of days. I was a kid and had been a fervent, take-no-prisoners Stevenson supporter as a teenager. During the period that I met them both, I was struck with (didn't much care for) Kennedy's cold ambition, his sharp intelligence, his narrow focus, his opportunism. Stevenson, on the other hand, was considerably wiser, had a sense of humor, had an intellectual range and ability to question which Kennedy seemed to avoid, and none of that seemingly egotistical ambition.

And then I realized something: you don't get to be president unless you have that "opportunistic" streak, that ability to set aside "well, maybe" and to avoid getting caught up in the complexity of the issues. Just pound ahead, march on, leave complexity behind: get into office and THEN deal with the complexities. Fire in the belly, an almost priapic drive, a relentlessness -- not very attractive personally but qualities which get the job done.

So I glom onto Dean. He's got the fire and the drive; he is independent and feisty; he wants a more responsible foreign policy and a balanced budget and good health care; he is disgusted by the disregard for the law and civil liberties; he has a decent, even clever, environmental record. And a glint in his eye.

Mamajuana, Tartarin,

Well said. Dean's not perfect but he's decent, AND driven.

He's also becoming a darn good stump speaker who can really energize a crowd.


PS
I like either Gen. Clark or Graham as a running mate for Dean.

I could go with Clark (need to know more about him) and have often thought of Graham as a VP.

One thing that needs to be said over and over again about Dean (and you can count on me to say it!!): whatever happens, we can credit Dean with mobilizing voters and serving as a very effective gadfly in the Democratic Party. Without Dean, all of them, Kerry included, would still be cringing around, mincing words, mouthing platitudes. Pissed off as they are at him, I hope they respect the work he's done to get them running at (pretty much) full bore.

More signs of change indicating life in the democrats. In Georgia, an old pro, Andrew Young, is considering running for retiring Democratic Senator Zell Miller's seat. Miller regularly cast his lot with the republicans, while Young is democrat.

In South Carolina, a long-time republican bulwark, some old-line republicans have cautioned that it is no longer the solid south. South Carolina now has 7% unemployment, and bases most of its job loss back to the time Bush took office. They hold Nafta to account for much of this. One of the things that interested me was the fact that a mill president quoted was an old client of ours, and you couldn't mention the word democrat in his presence. Says he's changed his mind - that there is no economic policy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/18/national/18SOUT.html


These are winds beginning to blow, and it will be a wise candidate who ties all this together with a failing policy in Iraq. The message should really be the failures of the Bush regime. For my part, when I ask for accomplishments, what I usually get back are the tax statements.

Iraq is turning into a nightmare, and that, to me, is the major message. If Bush can blame economic woes on Iraq, so can we, but from a different angle. And there is no compassionate cnservatism anywhere - Iraqis are suffering, rather than being better off. We could bring in Afghanistan, too, since that seems to be something the Bush people wish would go away.

And did you know there is a toy manufacturer (in China) who is bringing a George Bush doll to market this fall? 12" high, in the Top Gun uniform, to price at forty dollars. The toy market has been falling for a number of years, and dolls in particular have been slow sellers, while boy dolls have never caught on. This manufacturer is betting on the come.

Clark was on CNN's "Late Edition" yesterday.

Here's a snippet (he's commenting on Delay's remark about CNN's 'blow-dried' generals):



Let's schedule those debates, please...

Tart, there are three "draft" websites:

www.draftwesleyclark.com/

www.draftclark.com/

www.draftclark2004.com/

And this from the WaPo about the TV ads some will start seeing today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6994-2003Aug17.html

Used to have a kind of crush on Andy Young -- he's probably old and grey now. Very glad he's running.

Thanks for the tip, PDiddie. I do need to know more about the guy.

Heard Lieberman last night. I think he's arrogant. He thinks he's the only one on the true path, and the others are wrong. Doesn't leave a lot of middle ground.

And, I had thought in the beginning that Al Gore would be there to help him. But he's not.

Maybe Lieberman's on to something, but it seems to me that when democrats all over the country are being energized by people who speak up positively about their party, when people come out and acknowldege that they are angry about 2000, about being ignored on so much - maybe some of the others may be listening more to the people.

To me, Lieberman's message is not centrist, which is a word that has lost meaning, anyway. It's like he's running scared. And this helps all the Tucker Carlson's and others who tak about the democrats being in disarray, dispirited, down, without a platform to call their own. This isn't our message at all.

And Jeananne Garafalo. My hero. We should get more like her. No way can Tucker yell her down. She doesn't yell, and she's knowledgeable. And try as he might, he can't put her down with that little woman crap. She's worth watching.

Still like Gore and right now believe he is the only one who could "save" America. I think he believes that he has only one more chance and doesn't want to use it up right now.

Right now, I lean in the direction of Dean. I love the idea that the Repubs think he is the right one because he is so beatable. In my opinion, he is a uniter, not Bushites falsification on the word - a Dem uniter. Liberman is a divider.

I hope I'm not putting you off with too-frequent posts about Howard Dean, but this one is worth reading.
It gives a look at the UNPRECEDENTED role of BLOGS in campaign 2004.

I don't think politics will ever be the same again.


http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=321480#321480