2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

I think P Diddie's comment is well-taken. Let's get back on track.

Opinions about the candidates?

Sure

Gephardt?

No man with invisible eyebrows will ever win the Democratic nomination.

A ridiculous comment?

Nixon's five O'clock shadow, Stevenson's baldness, Clinton's buff charisma, Gore's woodenness were all factors.


Kerry?

Perhaps. He can milk his wife for millions( She of the Heinz fortune) but will Americans really vote for a man who looks like a basset hound.

Sharpton?

forget it.

Braun?

The poor man's Oprah Winfrey!!

Not a chance

Edwards?

Would the public really elect an ambulance chaser?

Lieberman?

Veiwed as too pro-military and pro-Isreal to have a chance

Kucinich?


A joke


Clark?

The chickens are coming home to roost. He has lost all crediblity because of his prior boosting of the Iraqi invasion and his backing of the administration. Now, he has just lost his campaign manager. He's irrelevant

Dean?

He is the only one who has a good chance. I have said for the last month that he is the best candidate to run for the Democrats and that his candidacy will help America. I have sent him a contribution because he reminds me of McGovern.

Thank you, Italgato. Your sarcasm can actually be amusing once in awhile.

The comments about personal appearances are entertaining. (On another forum someone posted that they thought Clark's makeup didn't do enough to hide the bags under his eyes.)

Are you watching the debate? Would you care to add anything about what they are saying tonight?

Here's a few more of my observations:

The moderators of this debate--Woodruff, Greenfield, Crowley--came in with an agenda: force the nine prospects to contend each other and not attack Bush. At first that was irritating; she was interrupting, framing questions provacatively, and doing several other things well outside the description of 'mod'. This coat-off format, with the questions from the audience seems to be working better.

In one exchange before the break, Kucinich seemed to want to reach out and slug Dean; Dean handled his verbal assault masterfully.

Edwards, followed closely by Gephardt, seems to be doing the best tonight.

Odd, I've done so myself, and for precisely the same reason.

Note re the debate: Fox and MSNBC are more concerned with Kobe than with Kerry, et All. Gephardt just characterized his ill son as a " ... gift from God". Interesting. Dean just spoke, doing authoritative and forthright as well as he is able, but coming off with boyish assertiveness bordering on cockiness. Kerry mounted a fairly effective, and humor-tinged, rebuttal to Dean's Medical Plans.
Lieberman pandered to the Hispanics, and that's about it for my running commentary. No surprises so far, none expected, really. Mosely Braun could use a new dress, though.

--John Kerry

You gotta love it. :wink:

Wit is something that's missing from the current keeper of the white house.

Can you imagine poor Dubya onstage with any of these men (or woman)?

He is so over.

P Diddie- I don't watch the debates.

Why?

l. They are predictable. I can tell you before they speak what they will say.

2. They have little or no effect on who will be chosen in the primaries. You want those answers?

Go to the Unions- Teachers' Organizations- Trial Lawyers- Democratic Organizations, etc.

They will decide which candidate is the best for their objectives and which one will attract most votes.

It will be Dean.


As a side note, it is interesting that Edwards will not be running for Senator next year.
I would love to know ALL of the reasons why.
It is also interesting because most political pundits insist that the Democrats are dead in 2004 unless they can capture at least one Southern state.

Yeah, gotta agree with ya there, PDiddie; they're way beneath him :wink:

Well, if he would let some of the hot air out of his head, he could descend again, yes?

You know- P Diddie- I was in agreement with your evaluation in Sept. Oct. and Nov. 2000- Just before the Presidential election.

I read how some pundits said that Bush would never be able to withstand the attacks of the brilliant policy wonk- Al Gore.
Some said that Gore would murder Bush.
After the three debates were over, most people called it a draw.

If you listen to Bush very closely lately( and I have) you hear a man who has learned a great deal about speaking, poise and most of all, substance.

If you don't know that Bush will be ready for any debates and will be armed to the teeth, you don't know very much.

Italgato, You must admit, however, that GWBush has managed to slaughter the English language without much help.

We are talking about George W. bush, son of GHW Bush, the 43d presisdent, son of the 41st president, took office in January 200?
Good grief Italgato...ARE YOU STONED ????

ROTFLMFAO

Well, if I am stoned, I have been stoned since George W. Bush held the greatest orator and policy wonk since Thomas Jefferson to a draw in the three debates before the election of 2000.


Or were you stoned when those debates were on and did not listen to them.



Can you explain why the media declared a draw in those debates?

If you don't then you both are the ones that are stoned.

I do have some links to show that the media did indeed generally think the debates were a draw.

How did that happen?????

The ball is in your court.

I would not doubt that!



Again, entirely possible!




Did it, have you a source? Which members of the media, etc....


er...how many of me do you see?


Which of course explains why you told us about them rather than posting them.


Perhaps you were stoned?


Stop touching my balls!

Listen closely to these Bushisms. http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

Please don't post them here; this thread is about the 2004 Democratic candidates.

Winner(s): Gephardt, Edwards, Kerry.

Did not hurt themselves: Lieberman, Dean, CMB, Kucinich.

Loser(s): Clark, Sharpton.

OK, I'll buy Bush II as a man of learning and substance if you'll buy Gray Davis as a man of sparkling charisma.

I'd like to buy a vowel...