2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Sofia - I scroll past plenty of comments. I have never felt the need to announce that fact nor made an attempt to encourage others to scroll past a specific person's posts. That is petty, childish and amounts to a personal attack. I trust you can see that.

2 things:

1. I appreciate greatly the company with which you associate me.
2. You will, of course, give examples, right?

Well, blatham, once again you are flat, dead WRONG.

Thanks for being so consistent, it does a body good!

Why is it that some members seem forever to be telling others what the others think? Wouldn't it be more useful for us to spend our time telling each other what we think? (About the issues, not about other A2kers.)

Just a thought...

Well, this is a pretty vile pit of vituperation this afternoon--Max i'm well aware of your self-righteous indignation, it's absurd, and i've already explained why i feel that way. Don't refer to me as buddy-boy, i've used no name-calling against you, and i would point out that you're no buddy of mine, nor ever will be, and that i ceased to be a boy many decades ago.

Those who would wish to continue to discuss Democratic Presidential contenders for 2004, i would suggest you open a new one, this thread is hopelessly in the grip of those who want to vent spleen rather than discuss the topic at hand. I would name two parties in making that accusation: Maxsdadeo and Tartarin. Both have behaved badly here, and now we're likely to draw worse from these and others if we continue here.

Sofia - I have to disagree with you here. These people do as they do precisely because they (meaning their points of view) would fare disastrously were they ever to actually address the issues.

Anyone who ignores the obvious fact that the democratic party continues to be in the grips of Clinton, is just not paying attention.

Let's start a thread on that, not paying attention.

And then we can start a thread on people who suggest that others start a thread...

and so on....

and so forth....

Tartarin, it is too bad you swore me off, I was so anxiously awaiting your response to my question, or is that the real reason, that you didn't want to answer my question?

Why?

Was it too hard?

About the 2004 election.......................more later. Right now I'm going out to dinner and a tall glass of wine. A movie.........then, I'll get to the election in 2004.

Let's cut out the nastiness. It's enough already.

Lola, if you pull up that dress anymore, I'll forget everything. :wink:

Lola - I don't mean to pry, but what is your hand doing? And what is holding up those stockings? (See, I take a practical approach.)

I'm going to ask that everyone who is tempted to post in response to some insult posted by someone else, instead of posting something topical...

...please don't.

Here we go again:

I believe one of these two fellows will carry the flag for the Dems. Kerry's got the big bucks, and will be kingmaker of a sort, but these two have momentum generated in popularity and finances. There's also a bit of history associated with governors being the most successful nominees, compared to Senators and Congressmen.

Of course I could be wrong about the future nominee if the 'Draft Gore" movement gets legs (very unlikely) or if Hillary does an about-face (chances less than zero IMO) and someone could jump out of the bushes (bad pun) and to the top of the fray (General Clark, are you listening yet?):


The Governor Club

Interesting, PDiddie. Did you see the article in Friday's NYTimes on Hillary? Not encouraging for her -- her popularity among voters has waned considerably. (I don't like her, so I don't care much one way or the other, but I think many have seen her as a viable candidate.)

The FCC has done its thing, and I think it have possibly closed the door on an opposition party gaining power in 2004 or (as Hundt suggests, below) for a long time. In spite of having to close down his email and phone lines on Friday (half a million people opposed to the new FCC rules trying to register their opprobrium), Powell has shoved it through. He could have waited, and his haste appears (to me) to be related to Bush's declining poll numbers and the need to make sure fewer independent voices are heard as we approach 2004. There's no question in my mind but that the Republicans want/need control, even though their moral support is in decline. Reed Hundt (in Salon) is seriously nervous:

"Underlying that agenda, Clinton-era FCC chairman Reed Hundt sees something more primal unfolding: an extraordinary conservative power grab that could shape the political landscape for generations.

"For all the philosophical conflict over diversity in the media and the efficiency of the free market, Hundt told Salon this week, the vote is really about an alliance of interests between the political right and the corporate media. "Conservatives," he said, "hope … that the major media will be their friends."

"The FCC's two Democrats have strongly opposed the deregulation measure that's been pushed by current FCC chairman Michael Powell, a close ally of the Bush White House, and public response to the proposal has been heavily opposed. But Hundt's radical critique is all the more striking because he is an establishment lawyer thoroughly versed in the diplomatic niceties of high government office. He attended prep school with Al Gore and law school with Bill Clinton and served as FCC chairman under Clinton from 1993 to 1997. He is now a senior advisor at McKinsey and Co., the international consulting firm."

PS: We still have economic boycott as a tool -- it's our dollars that the media depend on, after all -- and if we don't use it, we aren't serious.

To digress only for the purpose of a brief answer to a couple of compelling personal questions, then on with the discussion of topic.............thank you Mapleleaf, I'll think seriously about what I would like to ask of you. ;-)

Mamajuana, the stockings are held up by wide, lacy bits of elastic which cling to the thigh. And the hand is hiking the dress for the purpose of attracting attention, but of course the excuse is that I'm checking to make sure all is well in there (the stockings and such, for instance I might have a little runner or something.) This establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that I am an exhibitionist of the highest order. Incorrigible, they call me. For further discussion on this and other pertenent matters, go to:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8144&start=0

Now with curiosity satisfied, I hope. I'll get back to the election.

PD, Tar, thanks for return of topic. I assume most of the candidates have a person like Karl Rove who makes things happen. Can anyone name the individuals WHO MAKE THINGS HAPPEN for the present Democratic candidates?

Campaign operatives are well below the radar at this stage, Mape.

Here's a couple of names on Kerry's staff in NY (that's all I could find):



NY Daily News

A riff on the FCC, on reading three days' worth of of the NYTimes in one evening, and on the news this morning:

I guess it was yesterday's front page which showed a stagey photo of Bush shaking hands with Chirac in front of an array of flags and assorted greenery. Chirac looks like any mature, exhausted statesman; Bush is tightly wired, posed, self-conscious, and gripping Chirac not only in a handshake but with a steady stare and the barest trace of what we used to call in a school a "snile" (sneer, smile, deeply insincere). His tense show of an underdog's aggressiveness suddenly reminded me strongly of semi-successful actors I once knew while working on the series "Rat Patrol" in the late sixties, and reminded me so strongly that it illuminated Bush for me, made me begin to "get" this guy.

If you saw Rat Patrol, you'll remember actors of the second or third tier. Unlike the serious character actors and top stars, these were young tyros who were drinking and drugging themselves into career-ending stupors but who, at this point in their careers, saw themselves as up-and-coming Steve McQueens or Kirk Douglases. They were athletic, body-obsessed, perfectly tanned, sometimes jovial and friendly, sometimes mean and scornful, utterly self-centered, competitive, hard-living. Chris George, who was the more-or-less lead in Rat Patrol, could have been George Bush. They're about the same height. Both are tight-bodied, with brain disengaged, trapped in self-absorption. Once I'd placed George Bush in this context, as someone who was very much a second or third tier professional, ambitious but superficial, unlikely and unable to rise above a certain mindset and bad habits, it all fell into place for me. Maybe if you saw Rat Patrol, you'll see what I mean... Bush as a Bad Actor? In every sense of the term? Come to that, what is it about the Republican Party and bad actors?

Has everyone read the James Traub piece in the NYTimes magazine on Americans-aren't-dumb-yahoos? Shall I post it?

There was a siege on the FCC at the end of last week -- as well as on members of Congress. The FCC had to close down its phone banks on Friday. But not before they had -- get this -- over 750,000 phone calls and emails protesting Monday's rule change. Common Cause also staged meetings in Congressional offices last week, and MoveOn, True Majority and other similar groups can take the credit for much of the protest -- including protests in front of Clear Channel's stations around the country. As a result, Congress will review the FCC's rule change and will likely change it back -- per radio reports this morning. So, friends, protest is working. Congratulations to MoveOn and its fellow organizations. Please, if you'd like to see more efforts of this kind, sign on with MoveOn and/or True Majority and/or Common Cause. They're not looking for perfect agreement; they're not just a haven of liberals; they are looking for a real coalition.

Possibly you're looking for Donna Brazille, Maple? (!)

A 'Rat Patrol' reference. Boy, that brings back some memories...

Of course, the fallacy, Tarty, is that the Rats were FIGHTING the Nazis.

Tartarin

You are, and in my mind there is no question, the most agreeably talented and imaginative writer here. Your posts are a true pleasure to come across.