2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Yowza - I bet Bon Jovi would make a great president and he is verra verra cute.

Actually after GBs speech last week I have been running a very informal poll, taking about it to every one I meet. And it seems that not many folks in Fort Worth think he is on target. Seems I might have to get back into active politics again. If Bush is this unpopular in Texas maybe there is some hope after all. Of course I have not been talking to millionaires or billionaires. But still if I can organize unions in Sourthern Virginia I can certainly campaign for Dems in Texas.

Go for it, Joanne! He's not so popular here, either, but then, we're the great northeast.

And cute never does it for me. Tall and craggy, that's the spirit.

Anon, anon - that was pretty good.

You folks have peaked my interest in Mr. Dean. I've checked the websites you'all listed. I'd be interested in any articles you come across.

A link to "The Note", ABC.com's political newsletter, which includes this from my (no longer) favorite:

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark has been mentioned as a possible candidate, but said again Thursday he's not a candidate for president and not a member of a political party.

"I'm a concerned American who believes the nation needs to be engaged in a dialogue and I'm just happy to be part of it," Clark said.

The Note

Interesting thread. I see little excitement or cohesion around any of the named likely candidates among the contributors here. I believe this is also a fairly accurate indicator of the general sentiment among likely Democrat voters.

Right now it doesn't appear that any of these candidates, Kerry and Edwards included, would present much of a threat to the Republicans and Bush. A great deal could change in the course of the next year, particularly in international politics and economic performance. However the odds appear to favor the Republicans in both areas.

Odd that no one has even mentioned Hillary Clinton. Do you all believe so much in her sacred pledge to the voters of New York? My bet is that if she ever concluded that Bush was truly vulnerable, her hairband would be in the ring in a heartbeat.

It's perhaps a little premature, if tempting, to assume this blandness will continue unchanged. Who would have thought, several years ago, that George Bush would appeal to anyone other than the oligarchy who pushed such an untalented man forward?

georgeob1 - No one has mentioned Hillary because she hasn't said she's running or formed an exploratory committee. I had specifically requested that we remain with those who have done so to keep the focus on those who are actually in the race not those who might be in the race someday if they maybe feel like it. If they don't decalre themselves in there isn't much point is dicussing "what could be" since there isn't any practical chance of them winning the primary if they aren't running.

Otherwise, I'd expect there to be a lot of blandness at this point. There will probably be 20 people or more that float the idea of running just to see what their possibilities are. We are still a year and a half out at this point. A lot will happen between now and the the Democratic Convention.

As an overall veiw, the Democratic party has a lot more diverse issues than the GOP and IMO, the Dem. Candidates have to spread themselves across 15 or 20 different groups each looking at "their" issue in order to pull together some sort of majority within the party. Each of the people that have indicated they plan on running has one or two issues that they are known for but that only garneers a small portion of the overall Democratic Party base. They'll need to spread their wings as things move forward to both make themselves "different" from the others running while at the same time they don't want of offend the other groups within the party.

fishin,

Like other posters on this threat, I didn't feel much like conforming to your "requirement" that we confine our discussion to declared candidates. Several as yet undeclared names had been already put forward on the thread and I expressed my surprise that Hillary Clinton was not one.

I believe you have, perhaps inadvertantly, put your finger on the core weakness of the Democrat party. It is indeed the captive of a collection of single issue zealots who demand absolute conformance to their often discordant views. While "diversity" may be a (or the only) virtue in the modern cult of political correctitude, it is not either a virtue or an advantage in thought or action. To understand or just get something done one must unite or synthesize discordant ideas and focus on priorities for action.


Blatham,

You are being a bit tough on President Bush. No problem that you disagree with him or don't like or approve of his actions, but do you really know he is untalented? I thought such ad hominem attacks were verboten on these threads.

If I'm reading your comment correctly (and I'm not sure if I am or not..) I think I'd disagree with that as a blanket statement. If there are 10 groups that each control 10% of the possible votes why would it be a negative for the candidate that meets the desires of 4 or 5 of those groups?

Within the greater context of the entire population I could see a possible problem but I don't think there are many significant areas within any one party where the groups are in direct opposition to each other.

george

I was a little sharp with the fellow there, I confess. But that's really not an ad hominem (example, to suggest that none of J Edgar Hoover's ideas are worth studying simply because he pranced about in pumps and ginham dresses). That is a value judgement about qualifications. And, no, I don't think he is qualified or even near to it. He was, in my opinion, pushed forward because he was considered possibly electable and because he was within the crowd who wield power and influence in the party. Thus, if elected, he wouldn't be likely to go flying off in some direction counter to the interests of that crowd - which is why they shafted McCain, a man far superior in many ways to Bush.

Blatham,

Perhaps I have misunderstood your reply. Are you then saying that your remark about J. Edgar Hoover's crossdressing on another thread here WAS an ad hominem attack?

"Untalented" - a rather broad and inclusive term. Even given your analysis of how Bush might have been "chosen", it may be a stretch. I would certainly concede that the man is inarticulate - we can observe that and know the truth of it. However effective talent, particularly in a leader, can take many forms. History shows many examples of attractive individuals who failed dismally in leadership roles, and, as well, of unattractive ones who succeeded. In my experience calm resolution, the willingness to employ (or even tolerate) aggressive, talented deputies, and the ability to communicate the values that underlie policy & action are vital and often unnoted requirements of an effective leader.

I have known John McCain for many years - a very good guy and very likeable as well - despite a hot temper. However, his moment has come and gone, and I don't think he would make a better President.

George...GWBush is known to have a hot temper also...I didn't think having a temper would be a disqualifier.

Blatham:

Agree on McCain.

George

I confess that I take potshots at J Edgar on the slimmest of opportunities. But for his deceitfulness and tyranny. I think him one of the least agreeable humans who has held an office during my lifetime. But there is a subtle difference between satire (and its uses) and an ad hominem argument.

Agreed there is no way to establish how McCain might have fared in this period were he President and that such suppositions ought to be seen perhaps as preferences.

Re 'untalented', it isn't the 'inarticulate' part that is of itself a concern to me. I think it likely he has a disability, and not one which in itself is of any consequence. But it is apparent also that he has read very little and has spent a life far too uncurious about the world outside of Texas/US and of history and of political theory. If the argument is that all we need in a leader of such an incredibly powerful nation at such an incredibly pivotal time in history is personal certainty or moral clarity (with no study in the subject of ethics) and even a questionable personal history as regards business acument...then why not my plumber for President?

McCain has had an ongoing medical problem with his skin cancer. I suspect, if he is elected to the presidency , he would not be able to complete the 4 years due to advanced skin cancer ( melanoma ).

Blatham,

Having observed both your recitations of the rules here and your observance of them, I'm willing to concede that perhaps I don't grasp the subtle distinctions - as you do.

I don't know whether or not G.W. Bush has ever studied ethics. Do you?

If history teaches us anything it is that contemporaneous judgements of the attractiveness of leaders as individuals are generally poor predictors of their effectiveness in office. This is particularly true of those who face the most serious challenges while in power. We have emerged from a rather quiet and unchallenging decade after the fall of the Soviet Empire and now face a host of serious new problems, new manifestations of old ones, and numerous contradictions and dilemmas in a very complex world.

The United States did not directly seek the central position we now occupy in the world - we were instead locked in the grip of worldwide struggles that began in Europe and found ourselves as the last man standing. Europe imagines it is ascending once again so this moment may not last long - the next round may begin soon by historical standards. It is natural that others should feel some sense of proprietorship over our policy and actions in such conditions. It is equally natural for us to pursue our own interests in these challenging times and to recognize that the friendly advice and counsel we get in such volume from our friends is itself based on self interest. I believe that Bush is (so far) doing fairly well by those standards.

Your plumber was likely born in Canada and wouldn't qualify.

Apologies to those who think I am splitting hairs, but Edwards was/is a personal injury attorney. To me that is a very different thing than just calling him a "trial lawyer".

george I haven't seen his college transcripts (possibly under lock and key) but I will, here in full public view, wager you $100 good American dollars that he didn't find any course descriptions for the available Ethics subjects to his liking.

Re the 'self interest' point. Actually, it is almost a moral relativism argument you advance - all countries are self-interested, therefore we can't make any moral judgements regarding how they procede. Three factors are relevant here, I think. First, how wide and profound are the consequences? Second, how forthright/deceitful are they in proceding? Third, how willing are they to forego principle to achieve interests? The US on the first has no peer in the world. On the second and third...well, that's what many of these threads are discussing, and as you have gathered, I am personally most aggravated by much (not all, but much too much) US behavior internationally.

Understand that I married an American lady, and that if suddenly all countries but ten were to disappear, I'd hope the US was one still around. But that doesn't mean that your country isn't engaged in policies and behaviors which are both very destructive and very dangerous, which I think it is.

george - I understand your enthusiasm for your president, but I don't understand why. He has really exhibited very little leadership; has had to backtrack on many policies; is not considered with respect or as a leader in many parts of the world (which is actually a more important thing than most say), and most of his policy speeches are almost laughable. And ethics surely comes into play when he keeps nominating the same people who are rejected by a majority. This is not about him, of course, except that it is a major factor in the cast of characters running on the democrat side. And I think it looks like the democrats are beginning to get t together.

Edwards was indeed a personal injuries lawyer, and achieved some fame as standing up for the underdog aginst the big companies.

PD - why are you cooling on Clark? And Sharpton's in.

mama: he's says he's not running; in fact he says he's not (necessarily) a Dem.

I would prefer my generals (and my candidates) to be a bit more decisive.

This sounds great if you assume--without offering evidence either way--that the suits he brought had merit and those "big companies" had through specific, measurable action or inaction caused the injuries for which they were sued.

I think most people in this country realize that this is very often not the case. Personal injury lawsuits against large companies are very often baseless "fishing expeditions" set in motion by unscrupulous attorneys who prey upon the understandable desire of those injured to make someone pay.

I have not researched Edward's history enough to know whether he was a champion of the "underdog" or an ambulance chaser. I suspect you have not either, though I might be wrong. (!!!) Absent any detailed knowledge of Edwards' specific history, I think it is baseless either to call him a champion or a shyster. All we know is what he did for a living; how ethically he acquitted himself in a profession that is known for its lack of ethics--deservedly, in my opinion--remains to be shown.