2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

I'd be happy to let the Bush twins snuffle mine! Wink

0 Replies

can anyone say - Partytime Exclamation

0 Replies

Quote:

blatham wrote:
(and like I said above...find me examples of equal yuck produced by Dems to that of McCain and Cleland).

Well berine, I already provided you with one. Al Gore's bring up Willie Horton certianly qualifies.

Call me berine again, and I'll slug you.

No, I don't think this is even close as a comparable ugly to what Atwater did (which was to make it a racial issue, which Gore had not done), and it sure as hell isn't comparable to what Rove did to McCain and Cleland. You're too bright to ignore these differences in magnitude. The Gore/Nadar incident is not known by me, and I couldn't find anything on it.

You and timber are quite correct to suggest both sides play dirty. I despise it in all instances, where there are falsehoods and half-truths knowlingly spewed out into the discourse. Pointing to voting records, to previous statements, to personal capabilities, and even to issues of character (though that's the main one where slime can get under the door via suggestion and innuendo, as with Coulter) are appropriate.

I'm afraid I do not like Carl Rove very much at all. I believe that he, like his mentor Atwater, is a negative force in our quest for an informed and reasonable electorate, and substantive political discourse. We ought to, I think, note and speak out against each instance of such black propaganda regardless of source.

How about if I start a thread, which we can utilize throughout this campaign, to note and document and discuss instances of purposeful misinformation... http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=560091#560091

0 Replies

Since you aren't famaliar with the Nader issue you can catch up with an overview here: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j103000.html

0 Replies

Well, we could continue to pick nits about Viet Nam service, or muck around in Kerry's pants a la Drudge, or attempt to divine the illustrious Count Nader's future intentions...

I have a suggestion! Let's speculate on vice-presidential nominees!

We've already done some; it's a tangent that will go on for weeks yet, with prospects surging and fading like a real horse race; and it's an opportunity to elevate the discussion slightly.

What say? I'll start.

(I'm interested in some of you lurkers' thoughts...)

I myself posited as recently as this month that Kerry-Edwards was the match, but I have been reading some about the lack of chemistry between the two -- they didn't make one of those goofy traditional Super Bowl food bets, Kerry doesn't think Edwards can win his own state, etc.

So until this week I would have not thought that my preferred Presidential candidate, General Clark, would have deigned to take the slot, what with his "junior officer" comment and all. But his ringing endorsement of Kerry -- "permission to come aboard"-- to me leaves no question that he covets it.

And Clark as VP solves a couple of dilemmas: one, that Kerry is perceived (quite wrongheadedly, IMO) as 'weak' on defense; and two, the NASCAR Dads need a reason to vote Democratic, even if they won't admit it to anyone.

The NYT online can fill in some of the backstory, including a few names mentioned and some not:

Quote:

The Boston Globe at the time....

Mr. Kerry has good reason to be cautious. Just a month ago, few in his party thought he would be the nominee, and General Clark, who had once suggested that Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, had "dangled" the vice-presidential slot in a meeting last summer, snapped at the mere possibility of being someone else's vice president, saying, "I'm not going to be Howard Dean's Dick Cheney."

The last time a vice-presidential nominee was seen as helping carry a vital state was in 1960, when Lyndon B. Johnson may have put John F. Kennedy over the top in Texas. In 1988, Senator Lloyd Bentsen, then the most popular politician in Texas, could not give Michael S. Dukakis similar comfort against the first George Bush.

Still, the debates over regional balance go on.

Could Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, who ended his own campaign after a fourth-place finish in Iowa, help carry his bellwether state?

Could Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana help Mr. Kerry carry neighboring Ohio? Could Senator Bob Graham, the popular former governor of Florida, or his fellow Senator Bill Nelson, help deliver the state that decided the election four years ago? Could newer, female governors, like Janet Napolitano of Arizona or Kathleen Sibelius of Kansas, bring support in Western states?

So Begins the V-P Mating Dance

0 Replies

fishin

That link is a colorful one

Quote:

Foam-flecked and ranting, dripping with venom, and real hatred, TNR brings up Nader's Lebanese heritage -

I gather the Gore statement(s) occured in a linked TNR article, but having no membership and having spent my last dollar on a lovely Valentines Day gift from SextoysRus, I have not been able to see what Al might have said, just the dripping, ranting, slavering, venomy flecks o' foam helpfully provided by this writer.

0 Replies

I don't have membership at TNR either. I think nimh may so maybe he'll post the complete article for us if he does.

SextoysRus eh? I haven't used them and unfortunately I spent my entire last paycheck at BuyMyDirtyPanties . com. Maybe at the end of the month. Wink

0 Replies

I loved "Permission to come aboard, Sir."

I've been musing about Kerry/ Clark since I first took notice of Kerry. Lots of positives. Not sure if I want to discount Edwards, though. What he lacks in a presidential bid might be to his benefit in a VP bid -- the whole earnest, scrubbed boy wonder thing.

0 Replies

I'm still not of the mind that it's going to happen, despite reading this (scroll to the bottom, but there's lots of good stuff on the way there):

Quote:

After 14 weeks of asking 50 Democratic insiders who they thought would win the party's nomination, the National Journal poll went in a different direction this week. In a nod to Kerry's Big Mo, the poll this week asked its jury to "predict whom John Kerry will select as his running mate, assuming he is the presidential nominee." A majority, (29) of the 50 first place votes went to John Edwards. One wrote: "Kerry-Edwards is the Democrats' dream team." Another says, "He has the greatest claim to making the point that he has earned his way on the ticket."

(BTW, "Washington Wrap" is one of the things I always read, and one of the best things CBSNews.com does.)

0 Replies

fbaezer wrote:

nimh wrote:
Did I post this one yet ? :wink:

a couple of things we must remember about polls.

1) They are a (somewhat blurry) photo of a moment, a still taken in the middle of a race. There are many months 'til november.

3) Same goes with party image... a good party image does not automatically mean a better voting percentage. People who like that party may be less willing or less able to vote (income and education level must be taken into account: people with higher income and education are more prone to vote).

For sure, all true ...

But

a) a great shift in the polls on the image of a party signals an underlying shift in attitudes that at some point of time is likely to translate in some kind of change in voting patterns, too ...

b) I posted the poll, of course, in direct response to Timber's assertion here re the election campaign thus far:

"Given that the two parties themselves each comprise approximately a third of The Electorate, it is the the other third, the Undecideds, the Independents, who are the key to victory. What I see the Democrats accomplishing is nothing less than alienating this remaining third"

What the poll does do is show that assertion to be based on even thinner air than what the polls derive from ! <smiles>

0 Replies

nimh, If you make it to the San Francisco Gathering in April, I'd buy you dinner. Wink

0 Replies

Hey, c.i., you are so fickle -- you promised me!

0 Replies

Fickle is my middle name. LOL

0 Replies

plan on me and the nun to be there

0 Replies

dys, Fantastic! Looking forward to seeing the both of you.

0 Replies

In honor of your sig line, dys ... here is one:

http://166.82.96.9/gifs/cars/buick/40buick6.jpg

Its a 1940 Buick 6 Cabriolet. More trivia ... those little chrome decorations that ran down the sides of Buick hoods for so many years are called "Cruiserline Ventiports". They were totally non-functional, apart from there were 3 on each side if the engine was a 6 cylinder, 4 on each side if the engine was an 8 cylinder. I never had one of them myself, but I helped a buddy restore one, and thereby picked up a lot of otherwise useless Buick lore.

0 Replies

timber

Isn't Cruiserline Ventiports a wonderful bit of language! Absolutely American, evoking the sci-fi magazine covers of the era, the bright and hopeful promise of science/technology/chrome plating, and even the vastness of the country with all that fresh and empty cruisable (cruising is relaxed, driving is defensive work) tarmac from the Grand Coulee dam through to the Florida Keys.

Re the first mention of the Kerry/intern affair...sorry, I didn't address your point earlier. I grant the first likely appearance (and source) as you have it. But there is a critical difference between the tempered proviso of this...

Quote:

At present, this is nothing more than a rumor; and after such sordid tactics as the "push polling" that took place in South Carolina in the 2000 elections, can such rumors be credible during campaign cycles?

and what Drudge did on his site.

0 Replies

c.i.,

Is the planning for the SF gathering happening? I haven't seen any activity on that thread. I'm hoping to be there.

0 Replies

Drudge is the champion of sludge, blatham, no argument there. What riles me however, is that this bit of sillyness is generally attributed as his scoop, when in fact it clearly was no such thing. I doubt the "Real Source" will be widely reported; folks will go on believing this particular smear came from "The Right Wing", something which is itself a baseless smear. We over here on this wing are perfectly capable of generating smears, but I see no reason we should get credit for one the other side brought on itself. Credit where its due, and all, you know. :wink:

0 Replies

That's right, Timber........Credit where it's due, when it can be attributed to one source or the other.........but who really knows who said what? In any case, it could be a Democratic ploy to make the Republicans seem ineffectual. If so, it's clever at least. But it could also be a Republican ploy to discredit Clark or make the Dems seem to be bumblers or to discredit Kerry because he seems to be lucky with the ladies (hardly a crime in my opinion)......or it could be another genuine case of Repub's desperate attempt to change the subject from the WMD issue, the lies about the reasons for going to war or the question of whether Bush tells the truth. well, who really knows anyway? And the question of who does Drudge work for, that's the real question isn't it? Laughing

0 Replies

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know