2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

au1929 wrote:

ye110man
What you suggest has been disallowed by law.

what law? that would require a constitutional amendment.

0 Replies

The two articles following are in this week's issue of The New Republic:

http://www.tnr.com/thisweek.mhtml?i=20030728

Bitter Pill by Jonathan Chait
Dean's attacks on Beltway Democrats are unfair. And, if heeded, they'll bury the party for a generation.

Good Doctor by Jonathan Cohn
Dean isn't running as a hard lefty. He's running as an angry, honest New Democrat. Which is why he might just win.

These are interesting to read. One follows another, and they give opposing views. While I have been fence-sitting on this (Dean was my choice two years ago - then switched to Kerry - then back.......... ), I am beginning to lean Dean.

It's funny. Al Gore was the one who suggested that the use of the internet could prove to be a strong factor, and it's Dean who's making good use of it.

Something I'm beginning to wonder. We have generally recognized the predominance of right-wing radio commentators, but it seems to me that the internet may be more the home of the liberal progressives. If this is the case - it could turn out to be a strong, unnoticed factor.

0 Replies

BP - a little strong, but I agree. Just the thought of Nader makes me spit. There's an ego going there that is against the best interests of a lot of us. I thought for a fleeting moment that Perot had promise - but Nader's done nothing but divide. Maybe later, but right now this country's not ready for third party - particularly now.

0 Replies

I see Nader as self-destructive -- and awful tight-assed.

0 Replies

ye110man wrote:

au1929 wrote:
ye110man
What you suggest has been disallowed by law.

what law? that would require a constitutional amendment.

Here's the complete text of the pertinent amendment:

AMENDMENT XXII
Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.

Section 1.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

ye110man wrote:
au1929 wrote:
ye110man
What you suggest has been disallowed by law.

what law? that would require a constitutional amendment.

Here's the complete text of the pertinent amendment:

AMENDMENT XXII
Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.

Section 1.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

says nobody can be elected to the office of president more than twice. bill can run under hillary as vice-president.

0 Replies

ye11OWman: why the fuss? I don't think we're discussing the Clintons anymore - we've moved on to the present candidates.

0 Replies

mamajuana wrote:

ye11OWman: why the fuss? I don't think we're discussing the Clintons anymore - we've moved on to the present candidates.

hillary's just laying low for now. not that i particularly like her. but she would have the best chance against bush.

0 Replies

You know, I don't agree about Hillary's chances in the least. Too many Dems (I count myself among them) are in the position of saying, "I'd only vote for Hillary if there were no one else." And she'd close the door to the possibility of any crossover votes from the center and right, for sure.

Oddly enough Dean, who is portrayed as a lefty, a populist, is a more likely winner against the likes of Bush, I think. Here's why: He's much more complicated than than and, I think, he's being seen. He has at least two strong stands which are straight conservative: gun control, fiscal prudence. He's inclusionist rather than populist (which makes me believe he's pragmatic and wily). He's a pol. He is standing back from the Democratic party (and there are lots and lots of Dems who have been really angry at party leadership). I think as we go along, Dean is going to show some traits which not all of us are going to want to get cosy with, but which are the kinds of traits which give a guy a chance at the White House. Ego. Anger. Hunger. Tirelessness. Cold eyes, cold heart, sharp brain. His young, savvy campaigners have grabbed the imagination of many Dems by exploiting new technologies, JUSTIFYING new technologies many of us are infatuated with and are delighted to have a reason to use to oust a president who represents the dirtiest, oldest, most self-centered, nationalistic and retro politics we've seen in our lifetime.

0 Replies

Way back at the beginning of this thread, fishin' indicated that the discussion would be best served by declared candidates.

I teased him about it since my preferred, Wesley Clark, had not yet (and still hasn't) announced.

Why don't we table any discussion here of the Senator from New York until she announces her candidacy.

If you want to throw your doo-doo at Mrs. Clinton, ye110wman, there's plenty of other threads you can aim at.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Oddly enough Dean, who is portrayed as a lefty, a populist, is a more likely winner against the likes of Bush, I think. Here's why: He's much more complicated than than and, I think, he's being seen. He has at least two strong stands which are straight conservative: gun control, fiscal prudence. He's inclusionist rather than populist (which makes me believe he's pragmatic and wily).

I think this is a really key thing about Dean. He is attracting a lot of the single-issue voters instead of relying on the straight party-line voters because of his style. He's gathering all of the most passionate, active and vocal people in his camp.

I also just wanted to say that even though i haven't been posting in this thread much I do pop in and read it every day or two and I'm amazed that it is still going after all this time. I didn't really expect it to survive this long! Thanks all!

0 Replies

Wouldn't that be great, PDiddie. Much as I'm not a supporter of Hillary, I'm awful tired of reading these deadly, thoughtless comments about her.

0 Replies

what doo-doo was i throwing?

0 Replies

Not to put too fine a point on it, yell, but most of us have been here long enought to smell an attempted old red herring.

This thread is about declared candidates. Comments about any of those fall within the realm of this discussion.

Dean - that's why I referenced the two articles in The New Republic. He's going against the established procedures, which, for my money, makes him the cannier politician. And I think a lot of people forget he's actually been in working politics for quite a while, dealing with a variety of issues. He's paid atention to what works and what doesn't, and he's not afraid to venture out. I think that may be one of his attractions - he really doesn't seem scared of this administration, and he's recognized the fact that there really is anger out there. And there are other, subtle things. He has a working wife, and he doesn't seem afraid of that, either.

As more and more buck-passing and deliberate smearing comes out with the Bush people, it looks like some voters are beginning to tire of it. There is, at the present. no personal responsibility being assumed by our president, and that is losing him loyalists. So Dean, who appears the inheritor of the Truman "buck stops here" is beginning to take on more an air of integrity and honest talk. This, in turn, lends more credence to his stands on various policies. And his use of the internet is grand.

0 Replies

I want to clarify why I included the Green article here.

They mentioned Dean specifically, and I thought their decision on whether or not to put up a Presidential candidate, plus their axe with Dean made the article relevant. I did think about putting it elsewhere. No diversion or problem-causing was intentional.

The Green's decision just has a major impact on the Dem candidates. I was wondering if they would begin to tell voters not to dilute their chances by voting Green.

Since the Greens effectively lost them the 2000 election, it is a major Democrat issue. (But, if participants don't want this avenue discussed, I won't continue.)

0 Replies

sofia I agree with your last statement 100%. I despise Nader, not so much for screwing Gore by costing him the election but for screwing us by burdening us with Bush, and by being happy about it because he sees it as an opportunity for his own personal gain.

I love easy money, but I would not lay in a tub of **** for it, and would certainly not purposely lay my family and friends in there with me. Inexcusable.

0 Replies

So many Greens are Dean supporters (ironically, in some ways) -- and I've seen this at rallies -- that it would be interesting to see what might happen if Nader really did run. A split in the Greens!

I don't despise Nader (don't like him, though), certainly not because he ran. That should have made Gore a little smarter in his moves. We need -- we really NEED -- independent voices coming into the system, changing the system, asking the questions. The very last thing we should hope for is a return to the status quo ante with people like Terry McAuliffe losing our elections for us. To tell the truth, if I had to put the blame for 2000 anywhere outside of Bush/Right criminality (yes), I'd lay it at the DLC's door.

0 Replies

USA

Lieberman leads Democratic poll

Posted: Thursday, July 24, 8:22am EDT

Joe Lieberman had the most support from Democratic voters in a national poll released Thursday, followed closely by Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, and Howard Dean. But if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is added to the field, she dominates, taking 48 percent to 11 percent for Lieberman, with others in single digits.
Lieberman, a Connecticut senator, was at 21 percent and Gephardt, a Missouri representative, was at 16 percent - just within the error margin in the Quinnipiac University poll.

Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, was at 13 percent and Dean, a former governor of Vermont was at 10 percent. Other candidates in the nine-member field were at 6 percent or lower. More than a fifth, 21 percent, were undecided.

It would appear that Hillary is the first choice and would be a shoo in if she were to seek the nominations

0 Replies

I will fight the urge to discuss Hillary. Anyone participating in another thread which involves Senator Clinton?

0 Replies

Hey , maple. Why not start one?

0 Replies

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know