It's crunch time, place your bets, Dean or Kerry?

Not only could Clark have won or at least finished strong in Iowa but it would have reduced his competition in New Hampshire. Whereas before, his only competition was with Dean, now he has to compete with a weakened Dean but a much stronger Kerry, and Edwards.

Also if Clark had run in Iowa, Dean may very well have come in 4th which would have been an almost fatal blow.

Is it just me or does Kerry look like the abandoned love child of Ted Kennedy and Eunice Kennedy Shriver?

Kerry always looks depressed. I can't help but feel sorry for him. I'm glad he won in Iowa. Maybe he can crack a smile now.

i share your sentiments. i felt bad for him to until he started attacked dean over nonpolicy related statement. but I guess it's been working for me atleast.

i think he's the man most qualified to be president. but he doesn't strike me as an innovator, and that's the quality I most admire in leaders. Nor does he seem capable of invoking the type of passion needed to connect with voters. That's where Gore failed. Now Bush is more popular than ever. We need Dean or Edwards for that. Clark I think can also beat Bush simply because he'll swing a lot of moderates and stereotypical republicans over.

Can't really comment on that, cjh.

But is it just me or does George Dubya Bush look like one of the dumbest human beings ever to hold high office.

I think maybe this thread may need to be changed to "It's crunch time, place your best, Dean or Kerry?"

Kerry really hurt Clark and now it's between Dean and Kerry in NH.

I predict that Lieberman will drop out after he comes in 5th in NH.

Good suggestion yeman11.

I think the argument could be made that Edwards has a chance as well. The voters seem to be divided between picking a candidate with the military credential to defeat Bush (Kerry or Clark) and picking an insurgent candidate who is a good speaker and can connect with voters (Dean or Edwards).

Iowa gave Edwards a lot of momentum. His results are more suprising than Kerrys even. This could carry over to New Hampshipire. And Edwards is supposedly very strong in South Carolina.

I think we'll begin noticing a pattern. Whenever Kerry gets damaged, Clark rises in polls and whenever Dean gets damaged, Edwards rises in polls.

It's becoming one hell of a marathon.

.


I have been a Dean supporter for some time now, because of his position on key issues, and because of his honesty and integrity. But part of being electable is the ability to connect with an audience, and (despite what Centroles said above) Dean is not a good speaker.

He speaks as if he were sitting across the table from someone sharing a cup of coffee. Americans are not used to this. They need someone who plays to the camera, pauses in just the right places, tilts his head, and speaks in short, simple sound bites. Reagan was a master at all of that. So was Clinton.

And like it or not, looks matter. Kerry is a person of substance with impressive experience and excellent character, but he looks awful. Superficial comment you say ? Perhaps, but true nevertheless, and sadly, looks are a factor. He needs to smile much more, and he needs to use simpler language. He also needs to wrap himself in the flag ad nauseam. This resonates with middle America and clearly distinguishes him from Bush.


I just wish someone would win this thing, sooner rather than later. The Party needs to unify itself and start in on Bush big time.

Anyone who lives in New England long enough looks like they're sucking on a lemon, Mr and Mrs Dean don't look all that cuddly either. It's just the expected mode of behavior up here. nothing more.

angie, dean is a good speaker. it was his speech that one me over and convinced me almost instantanously that here was a brilliant man with a great understanding of politics who says what he means and means what he says. He comes off as real, not a politician. And this connects with voters far better than pausing at the right time.

Bush is dumb as a brick and it's very apparent that he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

But he is never the less is a great speaker in that he comes off as real. Now if he just manages to say things of substance and learn to prounounce properly, he would be a lot more convincing.

Gore knows how to pause at the right times, gesture and play up the camera. But he couldn't come off as geniune and that is why I don't think he was able to connect with voters. Kerry is very siilar in this manner.

Dean makes gaffes, those are teh faults of what he says. But his speaking style itself is very real and connects with voters.

Edwards is a better speaker in that he is intellegent and he can both come across as somewhat real and still play up the camera. But he still doesn't come off quite as genuine as Dean does.