2004 Democratic Presidential Nominee

Scrat

I'm interested in your thinking process on this, especially since you reach a very different conclusion than I do about Lieberman.

Will you elaborate on why you think Lieberman will win?

Can you say what primaries and caucuses you think he'll win?

And, seeing that it's voters who in the end, 'Give the nod', what subsets* of democratic primary voters do you think he'll appeal to?



*Craven's comment that his right-wing friends like Lieberman reveals nothing IMO about L's appeal to democrats except suggesting that a lot of democrats (like me) see him as almost a republican in democrat clothing!

It may be Kerry. Speaking as a life-long Bostonian, John Kerry is a piece of ****.

One of the fattest cats around, unabashedly marries for money, so obvious in his blatant use of power and waste of taxpayers money he had a fire hydrant removed so that he could park directly in front of his door on the Hill and not 10 feet in either direction.

Kerry was an anti-war activist upon his return from Vietnam and during a speech in front of the Vietnam Memorial Wall, veterans there turned their backs on him and walked away. It doesn't make him a bad person, but his fellow soldiers do not consider him a war hero after he threw his medals over the fence at the White House saying "I'm not proud of these medals. I'm not proud of what I did to receive them." Later, he admitted the medals he threw weren't actually his medals and his REAL medals are hanging on his wall in his office. After all his speeches about how the war was a waste and, as for American soldiers, "we cannot consider ourselves America's best men when we are ashamed of and hated for what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia".

Knowing Boston politics as he does, he uses green and white signs, joined the parades and the speeches, speaking to the masses as if he came from Kerry County stock and then he lets us know he's not. This, after statements like "For those of us who are fortunate to share an Irish ancestry, we take great pride in the contributions that Irish-Americans …"


"

Thanks for that contribution Sugar, those here who would support Kerry don't have to believe it, but it is important to take perspective of the potential candidates.

It won't be Lieberman or Kerry.

Graham or Dean.

(I posted in the afore-mentioned bilious thread in an attempt to re-rail the topic.)

Here's a cute toon from Tom Tomorrow that illustrates the Dems' dilemma:

jj - PD's cartoon illustrates exactly why I think Lieberman will get the nod.

This morning I read an editorial by William Raspberry in the Washington Post about how gutless the Democrats have been. I have been sick at heart and queasy in my stomach everytime I think about how weak they've been, even with all the ammunition they've been handed.
Senator Byrd stood in Congress and asked what the hell is wrong with everyone, and why is there such silence about the decimation of our economy, and about the willful misrepresentation of our motives for going to war?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1316-2003Jun1.html

I'll probably be voting Democratic, but I sure wish the nominee could find some backbone between now and then.

What does he have in mind, dragging Clinton into the chamber and beating the crap out of him for screwing it up? It's a little late to try to hold him accountable now. The best you can do is sit back and watch the new administration fix it.

Welcome to cloud cuckoo land . . .

Setanta - Are you arguing that the economy did not begin its downturn under Clinton?

If you are suggesting that my optimism about the recovery is "cuckoo", well, you may be right, so I'll give you that one, but if you are suggesting that it is rational to hold Bush accountable for an economic downturn that began on Clinton's watch, well then I would suggest the cuckoo is in the mirror.

Aristophanes wrote a play, to which the remark refers--and i was addressing your unsupported assumption that Byrd would want to drag Clinton anywhere and blame him for anything . . . as for your contention about the economy, it is not only absurd to blame Clinton for the bursting of the tech stock bubble, it ignores that there was, nevertheless, a surplus left over from his watch, which the Shrub caused to immediately evaporate with this give away to his rich compaign contributors--excuse me, his "tax cut" . . .

Ah... I see.

Well, of course Byrd wouldn't want to blame Clinton, but my point was that if he wants to blame a president for the economic downturn, Clinton is the only one he can logically blame. (I would blame neither of them, by the way.)

As to the notion that Bush has squandered the surplus, that does not appear to be what Byrd was complaining of, and so was not--by extension--what I was addressing. (I disagree with you on that point, but am confident that there is nothing to be gained from our debating it.)

Your confidence is well placed . . .

The Democrat nominee for president in 2004 will have to have a clear vision of what s/he foresees as the future of America both at home and abroad.

John Kerry, I believe, carries the "liberal" label merely by being from Massachusetts. He is also a "ho-hum" politician who has been around for many years and has not developed a loyal, nationwide network of grassroots support.

Howard Dean, probably the brightest of the prospective candidates, could never win a national election because he comes across as being an ideologue, namely of the "liberal" variety. Americans, it would seem, usually prefer to elect more of a centrist.

Richard Gephardt has run for president before and did not create much excitement for his candidacy. Bob Graham is not a "household" word, nor does he have the chance of becoming one.

Al Sharpton and Carol Mosely-Braun do not carry broad enough umbrellas to win a national election. Both have somewhat unfavorable reputations.

Joe Lieberman does not create the excitement needed for a candidate to win even the nomination. He is a wise man who would best serve his country by remaining in the U.S. Senate.

John Edwards is perhaps the most attractive candidate. He has the charisma, I think, to overcome the other candidates. Whether or not he uses it is a matter that remains to be seen.

The Democrat nominee will have a tough battle with Dubya/Cheney. I do believe the GOP ticket of 2004 can be defeated. Although the popular vote doesn't elect a president, more people in the U.S. voted for Al Gore in Y2k than they did Dubya.

Despite his popularity now, Dubya will have heavy baggage: a questionable "war on terrorism" and a pathetic economy.

And that, Setanta, should be the definitive answer to your question of "Why do you think Lieberman will win?" The answer is - not to answer.

Haven't met a republican yet who will even admit they were left with a surplus. Don't you realize that Clinton inherited an up economy and, during his tenure, managed it so that it would go down in time to meet the next president? That Clinton so debased the social scene that no republican would dare be seen as having a social life, or even a gender? Republican pants are made with a side zipper.

I think the republicans are talking about Lieberman because they think he'd be easier to beat, and are trying a psychological approach. I also think the republicans might be a little afraid of Kerry as a candidate, and I wish Graham would shout up a little. If Edwards makes it past a couple primaries, I'll be surprised. Many people are beginning to look at his almost total lack of experience, and wonder what makes Johnny run.

And, after years of having the worst thoughts about Sharpton (in the NY area we got to know more about him than we wanted), I find I'm on an admirer's list. He knows he won't make it, but I suspect he and Mosley-Braun already know they can be rain-makers.

And I like Gephardt, and think he could be the dark horse. For the moment, though, my money's on Kerry - Graham.

mama - You find it necessary to discuss me so often I am beginning to suspect you have a crush on me. Let me assure you that while I am flattered, it would never work. :wink:

scrat - why do you always think the topic is you? Besides, you're not my type. I've always gone for the tall, nice looking brainy ones - preferably with a nice sense of humor. Like my husband.

mama - The question to which you referred was asked of me specifically, so--logically (look it up, if you don't know what it means)--when you referred to someone not answering that question, I inferred that you were referring to me. Granted, Setanta did not ask that question, but I assumed you were just in such a hurry to throw out a useless insult that you made a boo-boo. If I was wrong and I was not the target of your passive-aggressive sniping, please accept my humble apology.

You really expect to attract productive debate with this, scrat?

No. You're right; the best I can do is ignore her. Thanks for reminding me.