2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

While the squeeky wheel often gets the oil, sometimes its bearing siezes and it just breaks the axle.

Dare I list all the other things which two thirds of the American public cannot manage?

Yes, I do too, Hobit. A lot. I was about to go independent (and still may) but Dean pulled me back in. Mind you, he may wind up an independent himself!

well, I hope we decide soon which one to put our energy behind. My sweet, young, energetic daughter is waiting to decide who to work for. The young have so much energy. I think she'll go with Dean. I like him too. But what about Wes Clark? We've yet to see what he can or can't do. Whoever I support will have to convince me he has the best chance to defeat Bush. I'm still waiting to see what Clark does.

Just coolly, no matter who one leans towards, it's important to take a realistic look at the machine+people which Dean has put together and wonder, if he sinks in the polls, where they will turn: fragment? move as a group? would Dean endorse another candidate? etc. etc. But that substantial group of energized people can't be overlooked.

I sat at the CU Campus Dems table today handing out Dean buttons and flyers,and there was a great deal of interest, as well as the requisite heckling from the young repubs (also known as Hitler youth!), all over the standard things:
You folks don't understand security/defence, etc...
If you don't like America, you should leave it....
You communists just don't understand democracy...
He's the best president since Reagan (ironic, since they were infants when Reagan was president)....
And my favourite: If you were a real man you'd fight for your country.
Hmmm..don't see them dressing like trees. The pink ID card also shuts them up once they realise what it is.

I musgt agree with professor Hobitbob. As I believe that I have mentioned, I think a Dean candidacy would be the best thing that could happen to this country. I have sent his campaign a donation.

I know that the South and the West will rally to Dean. They are especially interested in his ideas about the war and Iraq.

I am sorry, however, to hear that the great Senator Earnest Hollings will not be running from South Carolina in 2004. The South appears to be leaning more and more to the Republican Party.

Senator Edwards has also indicated that he will not campaign for his Senate seat.

Wherever will the Democrats win in the South?

Political pundits know that the Democrats have to win somewhere in the South or they are dead in 2004.

Dean as Independendent? An entertaining concept, a development that would be sure to spread joy throughout Republicanland. Doubtful in the extreme, but an amusing conjecture. Then again, who knows? That's the neat thing about serendipity; its so delightfully unexpected.

Dean as independent says Timber.

Even Perot got 19% in 1992.

Dean as an indepedent would completely wreck the Democrats. And who knows, Dean seems to be bull headed enough to pull such a trick.

Credit where its due, Italgato; Tartarin broached the Independent Dean Idea here ... I merely commented on it. Now all we gotta do is convince Dean

EDIT: 'ed to correct blatant cock-up. For explanation see here. Explanation also covers why this post is all about the Iraq/911 link - when neither Sofia nor MJ had actually been talking about that.



I did, hence my post. I dont know whether I would have used the phrasing "well-established fact", but I do think the quotes above show the "facts" as we know them thus far to be the following:

- No other hijacker apart from Atta has been linked by anyone to Saddam's Iraq.

(This is the one I'm not sure on. I can't remember any other link ever being mentioned. You say you think there were some. Hence my request for a link, cause my memory may be faulty).

- Atta has been linked to Saddam's Iraq by government claims that come down to him having met an Iraqi operative in Prague. Concerning this claim, we know the following:

- According to the FBI Atta was apparently in Florida at the time of the alleged meeting, while other American records indicate he was in Virginia Beach, Va.

- The source of the alleged meeting, the Czech authorities, have since rescinded its claim about it

- The CIA was sent out to substantiate the link but could not come up with any evidence, and "has always doubted it took place"

- The Iraqi intelligence officer Atta was supposed to have met in Prague is now in US custody but has refuted the story

- "Multiple intelligence officials" of the anonymous kind that always crop up in government claims about Iraqi involvement, dismiss this case with statements like, "There isn't any new intelligence that would precipitate anything like [Cheney's claim]".

Did I overlook anything?

We may all "reserve judgement" about everything - who knows who could all be said to be involved in 9/11 in the realm of sheer speculation - but I think that MJ could make a pretty feasible case with the above information that the negation of every link thus far made between Saddam's Iraq and 9/11 has been pretty "well established". You passionately question that judgement, and I'd be curious to see on the basis of what actual information.

Oh concerning Timber's ire about this digression, we could continue this conversation on the specific thread about this topic, perhaps. Not that the digression here would be of an in any way exceptional scope for a thread like this - nor can it said to be wholly irrelevant, considering it is in response to Cheney's speech and this thread is about the election campaign - but I don't really care either way.

I get the feeling that Dean has been set up to lose, that he is the main one who can't oust Bush of the 10. The whole deal being positioned and groomed along the way by the Clinton's so Bush stays in, or til he does himself in, then things will be set up for Hillary in '08 with no strong Dem in the way. Sounds like a conspiracy I know, but this is high stakes politics and anything goes, and Hillary isn't waiting around for nothing.

Still a lot of people think she will enter this time because there is no clear winner, and if that's the case why not run now? They afraid she couldn't win this time around?

To this long-time Democrat Hillary now appears to be a long-shot. I feel about Hillary the way many here feel about Dean. They may have the same constituency, and if Dean were overlooked now in favor of Hillary, they might desert her. Just speculating.

Exactly. So, anyone making a definitive statement should have a verifiable link.

Curiosity. Since there is so much speculation, and no one has provided a definitive answer, yet MJ states it is a well-established fact that no al-Quaida flew on 911--she should back up her claim.

If she could, why didn't she? And, no. Shooting down a few theories doesn't mean al-Quaida was not linked. Not to me. And, not to most other people, who don't have an agenda.

I would like MJ to back up her assertion.

EDIT: 'ed to correct blatant cock-up. For explanation see here. Explanation also covers why this post is all about the Iraq/911 link - when neither Sofia nor MJ had actually been talking about that.



Shooting down all theories thus far proposed, is the general idea here about the Atta link.

In science, if a new theory is proposed, but all hypotheses about it can be disproven, its considered invalid, I believe. (I'm going on thin ice here, cause I'm no science-philosopher by a long shot). I.e. - if I propose the hypothesis that water in a pond starts moving differently as soon as a human near it thinks negative thoughts, and I suggest research A, info B and source C as evidence for my case - and other scientists disprove research A and info B and uncover source C as a fraud, then it is considered "well-established" that my theory is flawed and invalid.

It is impossible to "prove" Saddam's Iraq was not involved in any way, just like it is impossible to prove that water does not ever start moving differently when you think bad thoughts about it. All you can do is test out all the variables people have suggested that might prove that it was, or that it does. And according to the same standards, as long as those can all be "shot down" (or disproven), it can be considered "well-established" that the theory is invalid. Until new proof (evidence) does come up, of course.

(And yes, I consider it slightly more likely that Saddam's Iraq was involved in 9/11, after all, than that water starts to move differently if you think negative thoughts near it.)


Probably because, with the above logic in mind, she considers it too Italgato a demand. Would be my guess. So you'll have to do with the liberal at hand ;-).

We'll see how this plays out, but I confess I was particularly optimistic regarding the high level of activism among the young behind Dean. That youth activism hasn't been stimulated for too long a time.

Good point, blatham ... the young voter hasn't shown this much excitement since McGovern.

According to my daughter, many of the young voters she is in contact with in the university setting are still waiting to see. She just asked me the other day if I'd heard of Dean. As the election draws closer, more and more people will pay attention and get involved. But she was very clear with me that she wants to work for a candidate that can actually win. The young, that is, many of those in touch with my daughter (and she gets around, as you might guess) seem to understand this time. We have to rid the world of GW.

As I've said, I'm sending my money to the DNC as James Carville has so very politely suggested. Only if everyone of a liberal bent gets organized behind a common cause and one candidate will we stand a chance of defeating an incumbent with a war on. And Rove will make it all the tougher. We'll need to be organized and have all our money in one pot. As Timber points out, marketing is the name of the game. And liberals are up against a well functioning, well greased machine with considerable momentum. We should see which Democratic candidate is most likely to win (as we will soon) and everyone get behind that man and push. Bush has enough vulnerabilities to make this quite possible, but only if we are united.

Democrats still campaigning for name-recognition
Democratic candidates still are struggling for name-recognition, the latest USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll shows.
Thirty-two percent of the Democrats and Democratic leaners polled have never heard of Sen. John Kerry; 17 percent have never heard of Sen. Joe Lieberman; 42 percent haven't heard of Sen. John Edwards; and the same percentage "never heard of" former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, despite recent publicity about his fund-raising prowess and rise in the polls.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2003-09-01-dems.htm

Upon seing the statistics noted in the piece it would seem that a large percentage, of the American public is either living in a vacuum or has one between their ears.

nimh said--

For those interested in any semblance of fairness, there is quite a damn good reason for Italgato-like demands. After you recieve a hundred of them, you begin to feel like issuing some. So I will. I take her silence to mean she can't back up her statement. And, I take your attempt to argue her position for her as evidence you don't think she could back it up either.
We all have had to put up or shut up before. Many of us have been vindicated, and shown to be wrong, on occasion. Nobody's perfect.

If I had staked out one position in this discussion, I could understand you, or someone else, coming in to argue against my position. I did not. That being, I'm not interested in anything other than MJ proving her assertion.

-----------------

Watched part of Clark's announcement. You better believe the Dem establishment knew Dean can't win. Clark's 'associate' mentioned National Security three times in the short spot. When his record comes out, the National Security folks won't vote for him.

Hint to Demmos-- It not enough to know what National Security is...