Well, well, look who came out of the closet:
Clark Says He's a Democrat
All this time, and he's just now admitting it?
Quite a decisive guy.
Are there any Dems here who haven't decided for Dean? He seems to have the A2K contingent sewn up.
Has Dean effectively quashed Kerry?
(This is going to be interesting!)
I like Clark...but I think he would make a fantastic Veep or Cabinet member for Dean or Kerry if he doesn't fare well in the primaries. I joined the site online to promote his candidacy. However, I have sent money to Dean and Kerry also!
This is indeed an interesting year...and is getting more interesting everyday. People are taking notice.
VNN--Very good to see you! Hope you won't stay gone so long again.
I found this article, and think the prognostication is spot on.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/960906.asp?0dm=s21Jk
An excerpt-- Link contains hypothesis of Thursday's debate.
Y'know...he's awfully pro-active for an internist. Perhaps he harbours secret desires towards surgery?
The poor republican party has only one small candidate. God, the riches in the democratic party!
Main Entry: can·di·date
Pronunciation: 'kan-d&-"dAt, 'ka-n&-, -d&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin candidatus, from candidatus clothed in white, from candidus white; from the white toga worn by candidates for office in ancient Rome
Date: 1600
1 a : one that aspires to or is nominated or qualified for an office, membership, or award b : one likely or suited to undergo or be chosen for something specified <a candidate for surgery>
2 : a student in the process of meeting final requirements for a degree
I don't think candidate is a proper word, "loser" works for me - "The poor republican party has only one small "loser". God, the riches in the democratic party!
I still cant escape the feeling that Dean isnt half as Progressive as he's made out to be - or even as he makes himself out to be.
People write about him as if he's McGovern, but they seem to be referring mostly to the kind of supporters he's attracted, or at most the kind of tone he's been striking. But the bits & pieces you can pick up from those reports that are actually about his political views, his programme, his proposals, mostly kinda remind me of something like the Dutch Christian-Democrats. (Yes, the Dutch Christian-Democrats favour civil unions and abortion rights).
Like, the whole way he went about the civil unions thing - only acting after he was pretty much forced to by court ruling, taking a low public profile about it at the time, then later taking the credit for pioneering: its the kind of wishy-washy politics I associate with centrist parties like the Chr-Dems. <shrugs>.
Talk about wishy-washy though. That Clark is really not making a good impression on me. I mean, if you procrastinate so endlessly, seemingly waiting and waiting till you consider it "safe" enough to state your candidacy - it doesnt exactly strike an impression of political courage, a strong personality, someone you can trust to stick his neck out when he needs to, does it? The guy's even played hide-and-seek about what party he belongs to for months!
I'd be afraid that with him, you just get another opinion-poll-driven president. That, of course, is way preferable to the "courageous" Bush blightly ignoring public (or world) opinion, but its still hardly evoking of personal respect, is it?
What strikes me most is the tremendous emphasis on biography and on, say, political market theories. You read debates on candidates (witness the pro/contra debate on Clark in TNR), in which entire arguments seem to be spun solely on those twin issues of personal biography and potential voter outreach. Clark (or Kerry) is good because he's been top in the army and he was an excellent scholar and because he'll do good in South-Carolina and wont **** up on blue-collar Michigan - and so on. (And this usually written by commentators who wont have personally encountered any Michigan blue-collar workers in the past half a year).
In Holland, the week or month before the elections newspapers will publish this table of one or two full pages, with summaries of the POV of each party on a dozen issues. Well, OK, so its not like everybody jumps up to enthusiastically peer at them. But, different example, one in five voters uses these online voting tests, where they give you a recommendation on who to vote on the basis of your opinion about a number of issues. Sure personality plays a big role here too, but man! Even in the primaries, 90% of the argument seems to be that if you feel the guy is a good guy and a smart guy and you can trust him, then thats your president - his POV dont even necessarily come into play!
(Just more random observations from outside ...)
Dean isn't saying he's a progressive, Nimh, not really. He's being described, in a concerted effort by the opposition, as a "lefty." He is in fact a mixture: fiscal conservative and opposed to gun control (on his record in Vermont), willing to endorse gay civil unions (on his record in Vermont), opposed to the war in Iraq -- but not opposed to the use of military force, etc. etc. That's what pleases me about him -- it's not that he's label-free but that he's independent-minded and unafraid.
I agree with you about Clark.
Kucinich (the other candidate for whom I'd likely vote) is an old-fashioned progressive, also independent-minded. The rest are carrying baggage of one kind or another, even Al Sharpton who otherwise would seem viable.
Watched the "debate" tonight. Interesting format.
With all those candidates on stage and only 90 minutes, it was difficult for any one to really hit a homerun. Still, I thought certain characteristics began to emerge.
Kucinich is clearly the true left-winger in the group. Gephardt worked tirelessly, almost ad mauseam, to paint himself as the passionate and fiery Bush detracter. Lieberman, unfortunately, sounded too much like Bush. Mosely-Braun was refreshingly articulate and well-informed. Dean, who had the most to lose, was calm, rational and completely straightforward, and was able to present himself as the balanced, moderate candidate of the group.
I got nothing from Kerry, Gramm or Edwards.
Angie -- I missed it and am grateful for your good description!
just watched it here in the west, i (yes i am a raging liberal) give Kucinich at 10 Dean 8 1/2 the others 6 (Lieberman 4)
If substance were all that mattered, Dean would be a clear winner tonight. The truth is, he needs some help with style. Americans are conditioned to need at least some style and flair in their candidates. That's not a good thing, but it is reality.
Dean needs to speak a little more slowly; he also needs to learn to pause. And he absolutely must learn to give more emphasis to key phrases. He also needs to smile once in a while, too. (He has a great smile!)
Like it or not, Americans like their candidates to be compelling, inspiring and/or charming. Reagan did not get elected for his intellect. And yes, I know, Bush is neither compelling nor inspiring, but he did have that "regular guy" thing down, and besides, he didn't actually get elected.
The next debate is in NYC. The ante will certainly be up.
angie wrote:
Like it or not, Americans like their candidates to be compelling, inspiring and/or charming. Reagan did not get elected for his intellect. And yes, I know, Bush is neither compelling nor inspiring, but he did have that "regular guy" thing down, and besides, he didn't actually get elected.
.
Bush has that "Annoying Uncle who always shows up at family picnics and throws up in the pool" sort of thing going. I'm not so sure about regular guy.
I've only heard clips of Dean speaking -- on the radio. He doesn't have a compelling voice at all, nor interesting inflection. Not comparable to boomers from the Senate who are primping their voices day in and day out!
Aw c'mon, bob, Dubya isn't good at much, but he did manage to successfully portray himsef as the "guy next door". Of course, he was matched up against Gore, who, sweetheart though he was, gave new meaning to the expressions "stiff as a board", "stuffed shirt", "wooden Indian", etc.
Angie, I was driving from UMBC Campus home the night of the DNC convention, and heard Gore's acceptance speech. It took me a full minute before I relaized he wasn't trying to sound like Butthead (of Beavis and, fame), that's just how he sounds on radio. I pretty much realized the potted Frat boy was going to win then.
But I'll tell you something: I haven't been able to listen to a single presidential voice since Jimmy Carter. Yes, that includes Clinton. They are all imitative, full of bullshit and slick phrasing. Bush Jr. is the worst by far. His father was at least funny sometimes.
I hope so 
