I stuck this in Voters Support Kerry, but it is better suited here.
Things are finally heating up within the Dem ranks.
?'If Senator Kerry is suggesting that he would continue to pursue the Bush doctrine, ... then John Kerry is running for the nomination of the wrong party.'
?- JOE TRIPPI
Howard Dean campaign manager
DEAN, THE FORMER Vermont governor who was tied with Kerry in one recent poll of New Hampshire Democrats, has been criticizing the Massachusetts senator for months for voting for last October's congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq.
BARBED CRITIQUES
Dean's opposition to Bush's Iraq policy and his barbed critiques of those Democrats who backed Bush have made him stand out from the crowd of Democratic contenders.
In article on the Time magazine Web site, Dean was quoted Monday as saying, "We have to take a different approach (to diplomacy). We won't always have the strongest military."
Kerry spokesman Lehane sounded an alarmed note in a statement to reporters: "No serious candidate for the presidency has ever before suggested that he would compromise or tolerate an erosion of America's military supremacy. A President Kerry, who will bring the perspective of having served on the front lines to the job of commander in chief, will guarantee that America has the strongest, best-trained, most well-equipped military in history."
Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi called Lehane's comments "absurd."
Trippi said that if Dean were elected president, he would "never tolerate an erosion of American military power, nor has he ever said such a thing. The war on terrorism will not be won by relying solely on military supremacy. We need a long-term approach to our national security that includes diplomatic initiatives and multilateral agreements. Our standing in the world is not determined solely by our military supremacy.... Even the most sophisticated military in the world acting alone cannot eliminate all sleeper terrorist cells, nor should it be called upon to take on every dictator for the purpose of regime change."
RUN FOR GOP NOMINATION?
Trippi also suggested Kerry would be better off running for the Republican presidential nomination, rather than the Democratic.
________________________
Waddaya think? I think Kerry is giving Dean more credibility. Ususally, when you're a no-name, your best shot is taking shots at the big boys, forcing them to respond to you--widening your name recognition.
Who do you guys think comes off better here?
Ran across this, as well.
Edwards looks shadier and shadier, though
the article does say they are investigating the
contributions, not wrongdoing by the campaign.
Still...
Donations to Edwards probed
Justice Department investigates contributions by
law firm employees to Democrat's presidential race
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON, April 24 ?- The Justice Department is investigating donations made by employees of a Little Rock, Ark., law firm to John Edwards' presidential campaign, according to law enforcement sources. An employee of the firm, law clerk Michelle D. Abu-Halmeh, told The Washington Post last week that her boss, prominent trial attorney C. Tab Turner, asked people to support Edwards and assured them they would be reimbursed.
...assured them they'd be reimbursed...
You see anything positive you can say about the dem candidates, Sofia?
Sure, do you see anything negative?
Anyhoo-- I'm just bringing in articles from MSNBC. I didn't write them...
Do you have a comment on the articles?
HEY! The first article wasn't negative. It is give and take between two candidates. Sheesh!
the most obvious negative is that ANYONE running for president is nuts.
inclined to agree with that one, Dys...
dys!!
Who came off better to you in the Kerry/Dean skirmish? (With the understanding that all politics suck on a few levels....)
Do you think either of them pocketed any political capital? Lost any? (This is not a trick question.)
OH BOY!! OH BOY!! Here we go! Dem candidates square off this weekend. Culled this from MSNBC.
___________________________________
NO FRONTRUNNER
Each of the Big Five can make the claim, which means that there is no real leader of the pack. Joe Lieberman still leads in the general polls, based largely on the name recognition he earned as Al Gore's running mate in 2000. Dick Gephardt has a strong base in Iowa, where voting begins next January. Kerry was anointed by the media/political insiders, but is only narrowly ahead in make-or-break New Hampshire. John Edwards won the first-quarter fund-raising race. Howard Dean broke into the upper tier as an antiwar candidate, and though he's lost some media buzz lately, he's neck and neck with Kerry in New Hampshire.
Complete MSNBC politics coverage
So what, you might ask? Well, I think it means that things are going to get very nasty very quickly as candidates compete for attention and donations. Dean and Kerry are at each other's throats, since only one of them will survive New Hampshire. Other fields of fire will develop. Which leads to the next point ...
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE BITE
Few voters will see the debate this weekend. ABC, which is hosting it, had trouble convincing its affiliates to carry it. Junkies can watch on the Internet, and read about it on ABC's fine political Web site. But what really matters is the one exchange ?- the one piece of combat ?- that makes for the best TV. That sound bite will echo through Campaignland for days. I would guess it'll involve Dean, much of whose campaign is based on attacking his competitors as "establishment" wafflers because they are members of Congress. It'll be Dean versus someone, perhaps the whole bunch.
HERE COME THE YOUNG
There's nothing like a war (and the attack on the homeland that preceded it) to grab the attention of young people. They have to live though the war on terrorism, deal with its consequences ?- and perhaps even fight. On top of that, the anemic economy has them worried about jobs and paying off their loans. As a result, the 18- to 25-year-old crowd, famous for its lack of participation in elections, could have a real impact this time around, perhaps more so than at any time since 1972, when 18-year-olds were first eligible to vote in presidential contests.
That's my conclusion after visiting Durham, N.H., on a bright, sunny spring Friday last week, just before exam period. I was astonished to see more than 600 students turn out at the University of New Hampshire to hear Kerry. With all due respect to the speaker ?- a frontrunner in the state at this stage ?- the students weren't there because of the electricity he's generated. I think the students wanted to hear serious talk ?- straight talk ?- about serious issues. Most don't want to hear antiwar harangues, by the way. They want to hear that someone understand their hopes and fears, and has clear answers to their many questions.
SURVIVING THE EDSALL PRIMARY
Edsall isn't a car. He's a reporter: Tom Edsall of the Washington Post. He's one of the most important people in the business. One reason is his authoritative knowledge of campaign finance, and passion for uncovering misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance by candidates as they race around the country in the increasingly obscene and absurd effort to raise cash. Edsall pulled Edwards over recently, noting that more than a score of low-level staffers at major law firms had "maxed out" with $2,000 contributions. One donor was quoted as saying she expected to be reimbursed by her boss ?- a criminal matter if true.
It was front page news, and sent the Edwards campaign into lockdown mode for days while they combed through their records. The Justice Department has started an investigation, which Edwards aides privately grouse could turn into a political fishing expedition, with White House political guru Karl Rove casting the net. But, at least for now, there is no evidence that the campaign knew about the alleged reimbursement promise. Indeed, it regularly warned donors and organizers that such action is illegal. More importantly, the Edsall story didn't create a feeding frenzy ?- and may serve to focus attention on the fund-raising practices of the other campaigns. "I think we're going to be OK," said one Edwards ally.
INSIDERS EVERYWHERE
Winning campaigns usually, though not always, are led by candidates and managers who haven't been around Washington and the upper echelons of electioneering. Recent examples include the Reaganites, who came out of California circles, and the Clinton campaign, which was led by a cadre of younger hands who hadn't managed a presidential campaign before.
That's not true this time. Each of the Big Five campaigns is being run by a member of the Washington Democratic management elite. That includes the "outsider" Dean, whose main man is Joe Trippi, a savvy veteran who began his career working on Walter Mondale's campaign in 1984. At least Trippi has moved to Vermont, where Dean was governor for a decade. The rest of the Trippi family is about to follow him north. "I love it up here," he says. He sounded like he meant it. But the rest of his consulting firm is still in Washington.
___________________________
Hey...
Is Graham officially in? If so, why the pass on this debate? Anybody know?
Think yew, Mapleleaf.
I'm starting to think I'm the only one excited about the impending race...
Some of us are quite interested, Sophia, we just are quietly waiting to see what happens in the next few months. I get campaign updates from both Kerry and Dean, the two I like the most.
Here is an article by Roy Texeira who wrote a book with John Judis called "The Emerging Democratic Majority." Things may not be as gloomy for the Dems if they can get angry and enthused. I am both.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0305.teixeira.html
"They're meaningless unless Democrats can find the right combination of politics and ideas to fire up their base while appealing to independents and other swing voters.."
Great article, Vnn! BUT, the above sentence says it all. My sense is that Dean is doing the right thing and that efforts will be made (if he gets successful) to rein him in. Probably the best thing we could do is aim a bazooka at Bush, point fingers, get mad, get real.
Yeah, Tartarin, agreed. A lot hinges on whether Democrats can respond at the local level with vehemence! I signed up with several grassroots organizations locally, and one in Minnesota with the Wellstone Foundation run by Mark and David Wellstone. I am ready to work and fight.
Who is the Century Foundation as mentioned at the base of the article?
Yup, I signed into the Wellstone Foundation too -- I think that's a very good plan.
The Century Foundation is the old 20th Century Fund -- name change.
http://www.tcf.org/
I blow hot and cold on this, but right now I'm getting warmer. It's beginning to look like a little sea change. The successful blocking of Owen, the filibuster on Estrada that's lasted longer than I thought, the dems hanging together on the tax thing - and various domestic issues coming to the fore. And the Iraqi war apparently not quite as successful as Bush-Rumsfeld say. Heard today a report from a Newsweek person named Michael (can't remember last name) from Iraq, in which he said that things on the ground in Iraq were not so good as Bush would be saying tonight. Now, lets see what our candidates do with all of this. The Century Foundation is a good source to check into from time to time. And part of the Judis-Texeira book appeared last year as a long article in the New Republic. That was when I first began to think that things might change, after all.
It looks pretty bleak, gang.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85826,00.html
from the link:
Quote:Consider this bottom line number. In South Carolina, the political parties pay for the presidential primaries, and the statewide primaries last year cost more than $2 million, according to the state's election commission.
As of April 10, the state Democratic Party had $288.93 cash on hand, with about nine months before the Feb. 3 primary.
