2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

I don't think Gephardt should run, I believe he and Daschle had their moments and they both dropped the ball.

I like Kerry and Edwards and would like to see them on the same ticket. Kerry has the experience and maturity and Edwards would get the southern states.

Dean doesn't really have the notoraity.

I have to comment that I resent being told what to and not to write. I understand the desire to want to keep on subject, but telling me what not to write is a bit bullying IMO. Asking is one thing, demanding is another.

actually i know just about nothing regarding Edwards which just might be the best thing going, no one ever heard of Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton either.

The intent here was to keep the thread on topic of those people who have announced their intent to run and avoid people coming in and blasting off about how they're all jerks or whatever.

You have the full freedom to write whatever your heart desires in any thread you create. If you want to discuss another aspect feel free to create another thread and you can place a link to it here if you'd like.

I don't see where expecting people to remain on topic is "bullying" when they have the complete ability to post anything they want anywhere else. If I've missed something here feel free to PM me.

All I know of Edwards thusfar was that he was a Trial Lawyer before he was elected to Congress in 1997 and he is married and has 2 young children (under 6 I'd say from the pictures I saw..). He seems personable in front of a camera but I think his limited political life thusfar (he never held political office prior to 4 years ago) will generate some resentment among the long-time politicos that will work against him.

Dean I know absolutely nothing of... VT is a pretty quite state all in all so name recognition may be his biggest problem. ??

Gephardt seems to personify the party circa 1988 or so. He's certianly paid his dues but he doesn't seem to generate much excitement nationally.

Kerry I know pretty well since he's my Senator. I think he has the public persona, very few real skeletons in his closet and he appeals to the general "populist" sentiment. From what I can see, his biggest drawback is that he's from MA and that carries some political baggage with it (deserved or not..). Right now I think he's probably the front runner of the 4.

I would put to the group that Dean has the edge.
The last two successful Nominees for the Dems have been Governors, (Carter, Clinton) and, all things being equal, this is a preferred prior position to POTUS than either Senator or Representative.

Here is a link...
http://www.deanforamerica.com/

This one is funnier though...
http://www.****.net/*******

max- you are making assumptions and trust me I know my rights. I was commenting on the fact that there was an outline of acceptable responses. As I stated I understand the desire to keep the subject on track but there are ways to help that other then demanding that responses be kept in the manner required by fishin. He has every right to ask it and I have the same right to question it. Ain't America great?

Just wondering how a satirical site on dean could be construed as discussing the subject seriously?

The reason I say this is because Lieberman who has NOT announced his candidacy will surely do so. So if you want a serious discussion about the candidates then you should include him since he is actually a front runner.

Max - That 2nd link is inappropriate and I mussed it. This is a serious discussion and that type of thing can only lead to problems. Please avoid future link postings that aren't relevant and factual.

RedHeat,

This is www.able2know.com and is certainly not America.

LOL ok

Howard Dean may not be widely known yet, but neither was Bill Clinton when he first announced.

I have visited the sites of several of the candidates, and this one impresses me most. Character and integrity are important to me - Dean has shown himself to be a man of courage and conviction.


The following is a brief excerpt (given at his web site) re: the Civil Union issue -

"You can always compromise when you are fighting over money, but there can never be a compromise when it comes to human rights. I never got to have the discussion with myself about whether or not this was a good idea for my political career. I knew I had to live with myself in or out of politics for the rest of my life, and that if I didn't support civil rights for every American, I'd just be another competent manager rotating through political office, who never stood up when confronted with a choice. I could have been politically expedient, or I could have done what was right."


I like this guy!

I want to see and hear actual plans for solutions. I think this popularity contest for President is hurting this country. I don't care who I would like to have a drink with I want someone to tell me what they are going to do. What are some real plans, ideas and visions for this country. I also want to see a Democrat who will stand up to Bush, who will speak out loudly and not try to pacify.

I don't know a lot about any of the candidates but I will be watching the next year. I think it's a bit to early to be making any kind of hard judgment. I want to see them in action a bit before I make my final decision. I like Kerry because he has stood up to Bush and seems to be a man of good character. Edwards is likable but don't know too much about him, though I am glad to see him offer up some plans.

Clinton was a charsmatic man and there won't be too many like him to come again, if any. Right now I just want to see a Democrat with backbone and vision and the hutspah to get the voice out there.

No charisma in any of these candidates -- it's going to take more time to see how they handle their campaigns and what issues they address with some better ideas of what solutions they can come up with.

LW

I saw some coverage of Edwards speaking yesterday. He was very good and I think he's definitely a fellow to watch.

They all have very good chins, a fundamental criterion in choosing leaders.

If the Dems plan to assail Bush for his 'protection' of the rich, Kerry and Edwards will have a rough time of it. Would love to see their tax returns.

Kerry is the wealthiest member of congress, and Edwards is a multi-millionaire, who has developed a reputation of ambulance chasing (some news reports, or should I say 'pundits' have said.) Lawyers are not a popular bunch.

Kerry also came home from Vietnam and burned his draft card or threw away a medal. I don't know what kind of voting bloc Vets have, but I wonder if this may affect Kerry's vote.

Edwards said he fought for the working man, but CNN and others focus on an Elvis copywrite he made bucks on. Also, as fishin said, Edwards has never been elected or served in any other capacity before his current term. A little ambitious.

Of course, plenty have had far worse records, personal and professional, and been elected.

If Dean has good ideas, and not too many skeletons, he may be the sleeper here.

I think the front runner is the Jewish guy I'm not allowed to discuss yet. This mystery man is the one, as a Repub., who I would worry about. Hell, I might even vote for him.

I was delighted to see Dean enter the race and sent a pittance to his campaign fund. Was astonished the other day to get a friendly, handwritten thank-you note from him.

Am also wary in general of censorship but appreciative of effort of keep discussions on topic.

Lash Goth - Do you know of any links to stories that cover any of the items you mentioned?

Tartarin - What else can you tell us of Dean?

And for all RE: the comments about others. If/When "others" throw their hat into the ring we can bring them into the discussion. The idea here is to discuss, focus on and compare those that HAVE thrown their hat in already. If you want to speculate on who else might throw their hat in or whatever feel free to create a thread for that purpose. The forum is capable of having thousands of threads!

Can't tell you much, Fishin'. I read about him in the Times, checked out his website, sent him a contribution to express my delight that he was willing to get into the race. He's my favorite among the candidates because of his courage and integrity (mentioned by others, above) and what I sense is an unusual degree of intellectual and political independence which I value enormously. Handwriting says he's energetic, decisive and discreet! Good vibes. Would probably make sense to check out, on line, some local newspapers in Vermont to see what they've been saying about him...

SENATOR EDWARDS HAS BEEN ONE OF THE TRIAL LAWYERS' CHIEF CONTRIBUTION TARGETS

More Than 4 Of Every 5 Dollars Raised By Edwards For His Hard Money PAC, New American Optimists, Have Come From Personal Injury Trial Lawyers. "Edwards' days in the courtroom are behind him, but he is relying heavily on colleagues from around the country as he preps for a 2004 presidential bid. More than $4 of every $5 raised by Edwards' political action committee, New American Optimists, has come from lawyers or their family members." (John Wagner, "Lawyers Fill Edwards' Pockets," The [Raleigh] News & Observer, May 1, 2002)

Edwards' Soft Money PAC Received More Than 90% Of Its Contributions In The First Quarter Of 2002 From Personal Injury Trial Lawyers. "Of the $461,000 raised in the April 24, 2002 statement, $426,000 of it, over 90% was contributions from trial lawyer friends of Edwards." (Internal Revenue Service Website, www.irs.gov)

Edwards' Soft Money PAC Received More Than Three-Quarters Of Its Contributions In The Second Quarter Of 2002 From Trial Lawyers. "Edwards has been on a fundraising frenzy over the last three months, raising nearly $2 million in 'soft money' -- the type of donation soon to be banned, with three-quarters of it coming from trial lawyers." (Jim VandeHei, "Trial Lawyers Fund Edwards," The Washington Post, September 3, 2002)

The Washington Post Reported That Nearly Every Penny Donated To Edwards' Soft Money PAC Since Early 2001 Has Come From Trial Lawyers. "Steve Bing, a Hollywood producer and top Democratic donor, sent Edwards a $250,000 check. But nearly every other dollar donated to Edwards' soft-money account since early 2001 came from trial lawyers -- $1,859,000 to be precise, according to the Public Citizen analysis." (Jim VandeHei, "Trial Lawyers Fund Edwards," The Washington Post, September 3, 2002)

Since The 1998 Election Cycle, Edwards' Senatorial Committee Has Raised At Least $3.9 Million From Lawyers And Lobbyists.

1998 Cycle: At least $ 900,280 (50% of all contributions)


2000 Cycle: At least $ 1.3 million (50% of all contributions)


2002 Cycle: At least $ 1.7 million (50% of all contributions)

(The Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed July 20, 2002)

Edwards' Advisers Were "Giddy" Over Personal Injury Trial Lawyer Money. "Edwards' advisers get almost giddy when talking about the potential for turning ATLA [American Trial Lawyers Association] contributors into presidential donors next year, when White House fund raising gets under way in earnest." (John Wagner, "Edwards Looks To Lawyers," The [Raleigh] News & Observer, June 28, 2002)


***This is from the RNC. Not a location for me to get 'evidentiary source' material, but works fine here to let you know what is being said.
Click on here for PLENTY more.