2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

From William Saletan's commentary in Slate.com:

The Edwards-Gephardt populist war: In last month's South Carolina debate, Edwards accused Gephardt of "Reaganomics" and "taking almost a trillion dollars out of the pocket of working Americans" to give "to the biggest corporations." In the Emily's List forum two Saturdays ago, Gephardt reciprocated by stealing two of Edwards' best lines. "Every day that I've been in the House of Representatives, I've simply tried to represent people like my [working-class] parents," said Gephardt. "I'd try to represent the interests of the people that don't have a lobbyist."

Edwards continues to weave new issues into his own populist stump speech.

I've seen other candidates speak for workers and against capitalist predation, but Edwards is trying to do something more ambitious: to reclaim the virtues of capitalism. Note his emphasis on "values," "honor," and "creating" rather than restraining wealth.

Here, as in the AFSCME forum, Edwards floated the idea of a "workers' and shareholders' bill of rights." He also proposed to "democratize" corporate governance for shareholders. He framed Bush's policies on executive privilege and civil liberties not as unconstitutional, but?-for greater political effect?-as elitist:

Dean may be the heir to Clinton's fine grasp of policy, but it's starting to look as though Edwards is the heir to Clinton's genius for politics.

More on the other candidates by going here.

"Edwards the heir to Clinton's grasp of politics."

God,I hope not. Edwards is just a scum bag tort lawyer on the make for the ultimate verdict.

I do not have the details, but yesterday on TV, the Governor of Iowa said there were three leading candidates in his state. Does anyone have a link to that information?

I am genuinely curious to know how someone would differentiate Clinton's genius for politics from the simple willingness to do anything to get what one wants without the encumbrance of ethical or moral restraint.

Your genuine curiousity is based on an erroneous conclusion.

What you highlighted in bold, up there? And the words after it?

That's where you went wrong.

You are blinded by your hatred. I invite you to take off the blinders.

That doesn't mean you have to become open-minded, or vote Dem, or even try to like The Big Dog.

It just means you can stop hating. Any time you choose.

I'd just substitute "Bush" for "Clinton" in Scrat's comment and say, Bingo, you've nailed it, Scrat! Supposing we just scrolled Scrat? Let him hang himself rhetorically? Unchallenged? For a good laugh?

Tartarin

This is a first. I agree with you.

I was never a fan of president Reagan or the first president Bush. But I got over that. Some of my co-workers like to listen to talk radio. Some clown drones on and on everyday about the Clinton(s). I believe president Clinton's term in office (which lasted for how long) ended several years ago. Get over it.
My real point in posting is this: we've been talking about the various Democrats running for president. We've kind of assumed that the vice-presidential nominee would come from the pool of, um, (I don't want to say losers; let's call them), also-rans.
I'm wondering if y'all have any ideas re new faces that Messrs Dean, Edwards, Kerry, Lieberman etc should consider who would balance the ticket.
My feeling is that Sen Kerry is positioned well right now. I've mentioned the importance of the South, but how would people west of the Mississippi feel? Thanks. -rjb-

There very nearly must be a Southerner on the ticket in order to have it break right, rjb.

Besides Graham or Edwards, I'm thinking Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who won despite the Bush Machine push against her there. Any of these weakens the Dems in the Senate, though, so perhaps someone like Gen. Wesley Clark, if he can be convinced (he strikes me as too coy to be persuaded even to come out of the closet as a Dem, much less to run for Prez, much less VP).

PD - No hatred here. Shame you can't see that, but it changes nothing.

Anyone want to actually comment on my question?

Instead of reading through 93 pages of hoplessness about who will lose to Bush in 2004, I would like to point out that if the Democratic Party were to support someone like McCain, a moderate with good ideas, they might actually have a chance.

Welcome, McGentrix (she said graciously but unenthusiastically).

Hey, there's plenty of hop in them 93 pages, Mac.

Besides, it's early.

Dubya's gonna fall apart.

McCain wouldn't run as no Dem.

Stop bogartin'. Pass.

It's wet and chilly up there, PDiddie. These people suffer worse from delusions when May has ripened everywhere else and they're left staring at grey, inhospitable hills and videos of Bush saying, as he did today, Hey -- it's getting dangerous in Iraq! Now there's an intelligent candidate....

The Supreme Commander of the forces of the Coalition of the Whistiling in the Dark announced today that there is a war going on in Iraq . . . (I kid you not, i haven't the imagination to make up the stuff this bunch comes up with) . . . and here's a direct quote of Lt. Gen. McKeirnan:

"There's a war going on here, that's what i need you to understand."

Damn, i knew something was up . . .

It really must be "getting dangerous in Iraq . . ."

This is the kind of comment that drove many of us away from abuzz.
Name-calling adds nothing to a meaningful discussion.

I think georgeob1 is actually, mistakenly, paying the Big Dog a compliment there, Horhay.

Don't be too harsh on our compassionate conservatives. We don't have enough of them here.

Well PDiddie,

I DO get disgusted with name-calling whether its from the right or from my friends on the left... or, for that matter (it has happened) from myself.

I learned long ago that people resort to name-calling when:

1. they are just incapable of making a rational argument, or
2. their position cannot be rationally defended, or
3. they are governed by their emotions

True enough.

Also in Abuzz, as Mamajuana and I have pointed out in other forums, one could simply scroll past the offending post without responding. I'm returning to that practice: "Scroll."