the moral of my story
the moral of my song
is that platfroms are
never where they belong!
as i think you can tell having a platform means nothing when it comes to electing presidents.
That is sad.
The platform is a major reason I vote. I actually care what the guy who wants to be Pres. plans to do.
It is worrisome that so many are thought to vote, not caring one whit about the plans of the one they will make POTUS.
dslexia - I couldn't agree more. As a matter of fact, I'll bet most people don't know what you mean by a platform. The elusive "presence" is important, and it is something you're born with. You have it or you don't. Ronald Reagan, for instance had it. As did Bill Clinton. It's very hard to define.
I think that is one of the things I think about Edwards - he lacks it. If Kerry starts looking knowledgeable and leaderly (well, what IS the word?), we may have the makings.
I think this last time around proved you don't have to show a platform - just wave the flag. So when it comes to patriotism, there's an area where Kerry also has it. And he knows about foreign policy, domestic issues - and he's tough. Learned how to develop a thick skin.
There's another factor, too. The republicans have been worried about a female vote. All polls show fewer women go for Bush. But in small polls recently taken locally, Kerry comes up a winner. Something sexy about him - another indefineable.
mamajuana wrote:in small polls recently taken locally, Kerry comes up a winner. Something sexy about him - another indefineable.
He's rich, powerful, not hideously deformed or suspected of heinous crime, and on TV a lot. That's enough for some folks.
timber
Yes - there's that. I guess my days of wishing for a candidate with magic haven't yet arrived - but Kerry is not a lightweight.
Who knows who else is out there?
I, for example, am out there.
Yes, blatham, it may be said safely that you are "Out There"
timber
elections
I've tried to read through this thread but find it very difficult. Attempts to determine and argue the reasons voters vote as they do are so subjective. I'd much rather deal with more objective questions like the thread on the nature of the afterlife.
Humor, JLN? You understand you just posted that in politics, don't you?
The race is about to begin and none of the skeletons are out of the closet as yet. I wouldn't even hazard a guess at this time. I will say however, that neither Sharpton nor as was referred to as the Jewish guy have a snowballs chance in hell of winning the presidency.
Anon.
As far as who can defeat Bush. I would say in the next 2 years Bush may defeat himself making it possible for anyone of the potential candidates to defeat him.
Sharpton has thrown his hat in but I think he fully realizes taht he has no chance. His being in there is more for political advantage than anything else. If he can pull 5%-10% of the primary voters he may end up in a position where he can bargin with the top 2 contenders for his endorsement and extract whatever concessions he may from them. The same was done by Jessie Jackson in years past.
People will try to paint Kerry as a "Mass. Liberal" but I don't think it will stick. It worked with Dukakis but he didn't have a national voting record. Kerry does have several terms in the Senate and his record is there for all to see. He is a centerist Liberal, not in the same mold as Ted Kennedy, Pelosi, etc..
I think the Democratic voters are going to be interested in some new faces - Gephardt and Kerry have had too many aborted presidential runs to really attract public enthusiasm.
Edwards looks and sounds like a winning candidate. Does he lack national experience? Yes, but so did Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, and GW Bush.
I agree with Fishin about Sharpton - he has moderated his policies stances and adopted the same political strategy that Jesse Jackson used for years - become a candidate, get the public exposure, and enhance your stature in the political community.
However, Sharpton may find himself dogged by Tawana Brawly and all the other skeletons in his closet. Hopefully he never had an illegitamate child like Jackson did.
Just what a number of us were thinking, au - maybe 2 more years of Bush is what's needed. Certainly hasn't been a shining 2 so far. Hung with his own petard would be nice.
fishin - I think Sharpton is quite different from Jackson. When Jackson ran, he still commanded respect. Sharpton doesn't. At this point I doubt he would garner enough votes to gather any significant percentage. I think he'll be knocked out of the box early.
Should Kerry go for it, I'd like to see him go with a midwesterner. I think the dems should stay away from the south.
(Disclaimer: the following is from NewsMax.com Take it for what it's worth...)
Leading Miami Conservative Warns of Bush 'Nightmare'
Florida Senator Bob Graham is to George W. Bush as Bill Clinton was to Daddy Bush: a Southern-strategy nightmare, warns Mike Thompson, a prominent Miami conservative activist and top expert on Florida's convoluted political scene.
Thompson heads South Florida's American Forum and is the author of the just-released and soon-to-be best seller "What's the Difference? Gray Liberal Mush or Vivid Conservative Facts."
...
If Graham becomes his party's nominee, argues Thompson, he almost certainly wins Florida as well as other parts of Dixie.
He expects Graham will probably copy the Clinton '92 playbook, i.e., just as Arkansas Willie selected next-door Al Gore as his v.p., Sunshine State Bob can be expected to tap almost-next-door Tarheel State U.S. Senator John Edwards as his running mate (Edwards is a younger version of "moderate" Graham, both politically and personally).
Rest
here.
PDiddie - - Oh, I do like your disclaimer. I think the item in newsmax (which is part of the townhall group, which works with the Zogby polls) is most likely part of a disinformation effort.
That is, I think the repubs would like to see Edwards as a candidate because they see themselves able to beat him. They also look upon Graham as a weak -not likely to run candidate. So they'll push him or them. Standing them up against Bush, it's hard to see a fightable difference.
But some of the northerners, or from some other areas, are unknowns, and it's hard to figure right now how they will be viewed by the public at large. Nobody knows Dean, or how he will come across. Gephardt, Lieberman...they are known quantities. I didn't start out this way, but I am leaning Kery. Physically, and mentally, he seems closer to the Lincolnesque qualities I'm reading more and more about. And he's far more knowledgeable about foreign affairs than Bush. If, during the next few years, he starts talking sense, and if more of the world's leaders start referring to him, calling attention to the respect they have for him - then Bush would face problems. So, better to put the face of the enemy upon someone you think would be easier to beat - like Iraq, perhaps. (Sorry, couldn't resisit.)
Former General Wesley Clark for Pres?
http://slate.msn.com/id/2076528/
Reading...trying to catch up.
