2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Dean told a story about perfoming an abortion, wherein he discovered that the father of the underage girl getting the abortion was, in fact, the baby's father, as well. He used this as a stirring, emotional pre-text to say he would fight against parental notification.

He recieved a loud ovation, and his words were among the few highlights shown later in the news concerning the event. Among the pro-abortion lobby, Dean looks like the most fervent representative.

fishin', have you read anything to indicate that Dean and Edwards sense the public may want some new faces among the Democrats?

Mapleleaf
IMO that is exactly what the public is looking for new faces.

I haven't seen anything specifically addresing that but my own personal feeling is that most of the US would like to see new faces all the way around.

Things are still very early in the game here and I think some of the "elder statesmen" (i.e. Gephardt) will start letting some things out about Dean and Edwards (the new faces in teh crowd) that isn't general public knowledge in order to try and get back in the game yet if he starts slipping to far behind.

These people are all in a tough position. The Democratic Party is pretty well divided up into (at least) 8 or 9 camps right now. Dean could probably draw back some that defected to the Nader camp last cycle but he may tip the scale a bit to far and loose the "Conservative Democrats". Kerry and Gephardt have a stronger hold on those Conservative Democrats but I doubt Gephardt can draw back many of the Nader gang. Kerry is a toss up there. Edwards seems to be searching for an issue where he can stand out from the crowd but he may be looking to hard and to early. Bradley did that last time and got knee-capped for it... Edwards has no reason to stick his neck out early so IMO, he should hold off until he can get a better picture of how things stack up. He's in the top 3 or 4 in pretty much every poll right now. There isn't much point in wasting energy trying to out-do Gephardt if Gephardt isn't going to be around in 6 months anyway.

Within the party it seems like everyone is trying to distance themselves from Sharpton. Sen. Lautenburg (D-NJ) openly stated (on one of the political talk shows on NPR the other morning) that Sharpton is in the race to score a few minor concessions and that's it. He guessed Sharpton will pull nothing in the Iowa Primaries and less than 3% in New Hampshire. If he can't stay in the top 4 or 5 at that point any money he has coming in will dry up and he'll be gone.

"All this huffing and puffing about Bush being a strong leader is just ridiculous. He's fixated on cutting taxes and just hoping that we don't get attacked again, and that's not leadership."--Gary Hart

Hart Considers New Run

Spoken like a man who intends to speak as if he has nothing to lose...

Looking for basic info about Sharpton's candidacy, and this gem popped up. Its pretty rough, but is some of what is out there.

Interested in comments.


Sharpton could decide the 2004 presidential election, not for himself, but for President George W. Bush. He's made two unsuccessful runs for political office -- for mayor of New York City and for the Senate seat now occupied by Hillary Rodham Clinton. But winning the White House -- which might have to undergo a name change if not a paint job should Sharpton win -- isn't what his candidacy would be about. Like Jackson, Sharpton wants to pull the Democratic Party back to its leftist roots. He would use black votes he wins as bargaining chips for his issues and for himself. Republicans would run campaign commercials quoting Sharpton and demand that Democrats disassociate themselves from Sharpton and his remarks. Either way, Democrats would be politically damned.

Sharpton could be the next Willie Horton, symbolizing what many people dislike most about liberals. From the phony Taw-ana Brawley rape case in the 1980s to his constant race-baiting, Sharpton will make an inviting political target.

Democrats will have the same trouble with Sharpton they had with Jackson. Both men are proven vote-getters. They also have proven they can drive away swing voters, which both parties need. In last year's campaign, vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman had to tiptoe around Louis Farrakhan, giving the Nation of Islam leader credibility instead of denouncing him as an anti-Semite and black supremacist. Democratic candidates also trekked up to Harlem to meet with Sharpton.

Sharpton would not just bring baggage to a presidential campaign, he would bring an entire baggage car. He once called a white businessman an "interloper" for opening a clothing store in Harlem. One of Sharpton's supporters said of the owner, "We're going to see that this cracker suffers." Days later, when the man's store was set on fire, killing seven employees and a black man police said had set the blaze, Sharpton denied any responsibility for the act.

The rest of the article.
Be prepared for some slur-ish comments. And, no, I didn't like them, either.

I agree with fishin', Dean and Edwards could find Presidential Politics "Risky Business".

As for Hart, I think his boat is as sunk as Teddy Kennedy's Oldsmobile.


Sharpton will do more far good for The Republicans than for Democrats.




timber

Lash, I believe the article is by Cal Thomas (see bottom of article). Much of the article makes sense, but I would suggest the discerning reader review the entire story.

The key for a Democrat to beat Bush is to carry at least one big Southern state in the fall 2004 election. When evaluating the prospective nominees, you have to decide which of them is more likely to do that. Lieberman doesn't have a prayer (or a prayer shawl) of doing it. My theory is that his ethnicity hurt Gore in the South last time when, if you'll recall, Gore failed to win ONE SINGLE SOUTHERN STATE--and not because Nader was so strong down there either. Of the others, Edwards comes from N. Carolina which should help him, and Gephardt is lined up on the issues in a way that Southern Democrats tend to be. Kerry is too liberal for most of them, as is Dean. Remember, the last 3 Democratic Presidents were Johnson, Carter, and Clinton--all Southerners. I don't think the pattern is going to change in 2004. The Dems either have to nominate a Southerner or someone totally congenial to Southern Democrats.

I hear you, larry, but I think you're mistaken.

The South is moving GOP. Even those still hanging on to the Dem party are largely pro-strong defense, anti-perceived liberal. Those are the white Dems I know.

The black Dems are generally more liberal.

Leiberman's religion/ethnicity isn't a factor down here among white Dems, generally speaking. Can only say about blacks that they don't come out and vote in numbers enough to off-set white Dems in primaries, historically speaking. (No link. Election return analysis history.)

As a matter of fact, Leiberman would be the winner on the Dem ticket here, IMO, because he is more centrist ideologically than the more progressive pack. Kerry would have trouble here, because of the perception "Massachusetts liberal". Don't have a bead on the others.

I see Lieberman and Kerry as the strongest contenders of the bunch, though I don't see either really has a clear edge or a realistic chance to successfully oppose Bush. Not Yet anyway ... its way early in the game. We should not be surprised if there might be some "Surprise Plays". I fear The Democrats may do themselves great damage by negative, nasty "Infighting". There is great potential for them to tarnish their entire offering. A disreputable messenger rarely finds wide audience for his message.

Well, maybe except for Clinton




timber

Lash - Since Cal Thomas is one of the most conservative columnists, appearing regularly in such places as newsmax, among other pubs, it's rather hard to take him without a grain of salt. Also, I see the date of publication is 26 August 2001, and a lot has happened since then.

I am not, never have been, most likely never will be, a fan of Sharpton. I don't think he expects to go very far on this. But he does aspire to be a rainmaker, and I still say I think it's not smart to underrate him. He's very aware of the baggage he carries with him. What he does with it will be interesting. But I don't think he'll decide the 2004 election.

Right now my eye is on Gary Hart. I first got a feeling about this when I watched him and listened to him with Warren Rudman. There was such a mutual feeling of respect, and an air of knowledge and authority. And he's obviously an adult, which we may be ready for now. It's early times, but he does seem more his own man than some of the others. It's great to see all the candidates the democrats are beginning to show, while the poor republicans are stuck with Bush.

Lash, Lieberman can't be trusted. He changes his position depending on the polls. c.i.

mamaj-

I gave a heads up to the article. Knew it was slanted, but still mentioned facts.

Hart is not considered so much a grown up in most political circles, due to his disasterous run last time. "Monkey Business" and all. Of course, it shouldn't hurt him. Once Clinton had his romp, Hart's looked tame by comparison. Still, it'll come up.

c.i.--

I'm pretty sure I won't be voting Dem, but I am an independent voter, and LOVE POLITICAL SEASON.

I love to watch and prognosticate on how candidates will respond to this or that, how the machine runs...

I have no emotional stake in Leiberman. Just prognosticating and sharing info.

And his last disastrous run was when? Don't know, Lash, things change, as we know very well, and in politics the public is fickle.

About Sharpton, I know it's slanted, but it's also dated. Summer 2001 is 1 1/2 light years away. Look where Bush was then.

And Lieberman...I go along with CI, and that's what I hear up here.

And Bush's DUI was when?

Everything and the kitchen sink comes out in these cycles.

Still, it may make him more popular. Ya nevah know.

A thread which points out a potential major issue for The Democrats, not merely their candidates,
is at:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=77064#77064




timber

I read today at www.msnbc.com where Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the top choice of Democrats for the 2004. This is according to a poll conducted by NBC and The Wall Street Journal. I was surprised.

What is her base of supporters? Women? Minorities?