I haven't worked for him yet. It's probably too late, but stay tuned anyway. As if you could do any different. You still with Clark?
I don't know anymore. I'm not impressed with his political skills at all. It's kind of late to still be on a learning curve, but he still is. I'm really open to someone else if they can convince me. Clark attracted me because he looked like a sure thing to beat Bush if he got the chance. But Bush has gotten in such deep water with the general public that I really think beating him is getting easier, which has surprised me. That makes Clark's political skills more important and his national security resume a bit less of a factor. Bush is no longer seen as quite the "strong leader keeping us safe" like he used to be. More and more, people are seeing him as blundering in Iraq and elsewhere and are examining their options, in my opinion. They are more interested in what else a candidate brings to the table, and here Clark has a seeming inability to get that across. I hope that made sense. I better think about crashing. Didn't get much sleep last night.
Yep, that made sense. Bush's woes haven't maxed out yet either, but Osama's still on the loose and whenever he isn't Bush gets a major boost. I would be amazed if he wasn't caught or killed by election time. But if Clark still feels wishy washy then, he won't be a help. On that particular issue, I'd generally go Kerry or Clark over Edwards, but this race isn't about any one issue and I'm considerably more impressed by Edwards' ability to think on his feet than any of the other viable candidates still standing. You know, it's a shame about Clark. I was just reading (in a not particularly flattering WP article about Clark's lobbying and how he got his biggest contract through a connection with Cheney) how he'd felt out a Senate run in Arkansas. If he'd worked his way up a little that way, I think he might have made a great presidential candidate. It's looking more and more like the Clinton folk may have pushed him into something he wasn't quite ready for. Anyway, sweet dreams.
Some needed humor... (Saw this yesterday... What do you get when you take the "J' out of "It's Jo-ver?") ____________ Never Say Die Candidates who aren't conceding anything. By Michael Kinsley Posted Thursday, Jan. 29, 2004, at 8:06 AM PT (Note: On CNN the night of the New Hampshire primary, a spokeswoman for Joe Lieberman said the candidate was encouraged by his third-place showing in greater Manchester.) Q: Governor, in light of your seventh-place showing in five successive primaries, some people are saying it's time for you to withdraw from the race. What is your reaction to that? A: Larry, the American people have spoken, and I have heard them loud and clear. They want change, they want leadership, and they demand accountability from all of us who have the privilege of asking for their votes for the highest office in this great country. To withdraw now, simply because the going is tough, would betray everything I stand for. I cannot let down my supporters in that way and still call myself "that krazy kick-ass comeback kid." Q: Many people have been hoping you would stop calling yourself that anyway. A: Well, they hope in vain. I am that krazy kick-ass comeback kid. I always have been and always will be. You have to be true to yourself, Larry, to who you really are. Because the American people can spot a faker. You know, Larry, unlike some of my rivals who went to fancy prep schools, my family didn't have a lot when I was growing up … Q: Yes, we know, we know. A: … we didn't have a lot of money for things like tracking polls and negative advertising. But my poppa used to say, "We don't need focus groups to tell us what's right." My parents raised me not to give up. I'm a fighter. And I'll keep on fighting for my message of hope and for the American people. Q: But nobody's voting for you, Governor. At what point do you say, "They've heard my message and they just don't like it"? A: How can they not like it? I mean, let's get real here. It's a message of hope and a message of change. It's a message with every cliché that's worked for every winning candidate of both parties. How can it not be working for me? I mean, let me ask you that. Why isn't it working? Why, why? Q: You tell me, Governor. Why isn't it working? A: Who says it's not working? It is working. It's working all over this country. It's working hard, just like the American people. And working people are responding to a message that works as hard as they do. Q: They are? What's your evidence for that? A: Larry, in the Nebraska primary, I came in third among Hispanic homeowners living in metropolitan Lincoln. That's an amazing showing for a white guy like me who rents a studio apartment. Q: Your wife got the house, I believe. A: That's right, Larry. Thanks for reminding me. But as I was saying, only a month ago I was coming in fourth among Hispanic homeowners in Lincoln, Neb. Yet I ended up a strong third in that crucial demographic. This says to me, "Kid, you've got the momentum. Don't give up now!" Not that Hispanics or any other Americans can be reduced to the status of a demographic. They are people—never forget that. And people are what this election is all about, no matter what my opponents may say. Q: How many Hispanic homeowners from Lincoln voted in the Nebraska Democratic primary? A: Seven, although we're still waiting for Mrs. Menendez's absentee ballot. Q: And weren't there only two other candidates on the ballot in Nebraska? A: Yes, and they own two homes each, because they're rich. What's your point? Q: Well, leaving Hispanic homeowners aside, how did you manage to finish fifth among three candidates? A: There's a strong write-in tradition in Nebraska. In fact, we felt we were putting ourselves at a disadvantage by registering to appear on the ballot. But we did it because it was the right thing to do. Can we move on now? Q: Don't you have to actually win some primary somewhere if you're going to claim your party's nomination? A: I agree with you, that's the conventional wisdom. But we couldn't afford a lot of conventional wisdom when I was growing up. My mama used to say, "We don't need conventional wisdom. Homespun bromides will do just fine." And that's why I believe it's not over 'til it's over. Would it be better to win a primary than to lose all of them? Would it be better to come in second or third than fourth or fifth? And Larry, I truly believe we will come in a solid fourth in at least one of the 14 primaries happening tomorrow. Sure, a lower number like one or two is better than a higher number like four or five under the cockamamie and corrupt electoral system we operate under. That's one of the things that has to change in this country, if we're going to move into the 21st century. We face competition from other nations with much more sophisticated approaches to elections, such as not having them at all. In 2000, our own country tried the experiment of holding an election and ignoring the result. Many Democrats found that solution unsatisfactory. We must do better. For ourselves, for the world, and most importantly for our children. When I am president, I will appoint a high-level commission to meet in secret and refuse subpoenas for documents. It will address this issue, along with all other issues that might arise during my presidency, so that I can concentrate on continuing to tell the American people how wonderful they are. Which they are, by the way. Some of my opponents in this primary season—and everyone in the other party—appear to believe that the American people are only wonderful during election years. When I am president, the American people will be wonderful all the time. Q: Thank you, Governor. And America Votes 2004 continues. Coming up next: Our distinguished panel of journalists will discuss, Is there any way to stop this thing from becoming a foregone conclusion and giving us nothing to write about between now and the conventions? Don't go away. Please, please, don't go away. Wait! Come back. Come back …
An Unexpected Powerhouse By Harold Meyerson Thursday, January 29, 2004; Page A29 NASHUA, N.H. -- If Karl Rove thinks he can take down John Kerry the way his mentor, Lee Atwater, took down Michael Dukakis, he's got another thing coming. The Kerry who delivered that victory speech in Manchester on Tuesday night was the most effective Democratic politico since the fall of Bill Clinton. Within his first two minutes at the microphone, Kerry had delivered a stinging populist attack on the president and managed to identify himself with his Vietnam vet comrades who surrounded him onstage. "I depended on the same band of brothers I depended on some 30 years ago," said Kerry, thanking Max Cleland and a bunch of guys wearing the insignias of their old units for delivering in New Hampshire as they had in Iowa. "We're a little older, a little grayer, but we still know how to fight for our country!" Almost instantaneously, Kerry deployed both his offense and defense. On the stump, he is seldom so succinct: Digressions abound, adverbs pop up to take the punch from his punch lines. But Kerry has a sense of occasion; he is at his best -- as he was Tuesday night, and during his debates against Bill Weld in their 1996 Senate contest -- when the whole world is watching. What should most concern Republicans, though, is Kerry's adeptness in attacking the administration's nearly 90-degree tilt toward the rich -- toward the insurance, drug and oil companies, against which Kerry, like all the Democratic candidates except Joe Lieberman, inveighs. The response of the GOP bloggers, talk show hosts and columnists is to accuse Kerry of a culturally inauthentic populism. Teresa Heinz Kerry and her husband, they note, bear scant resemblance to Ma and Pa Kettle. Historically, though, the Democrats have done pretty well under the leadership of patricians who've attacked Republican plutocrats. Those patricians have needed some way to establish their normality, to be sure. In that sense, Kerry's time in Vietnam humanizes him much as the battle with polio did Franklin Roosevelt. Like FDR, Kerry doesn't claim the populist mantle, nor does he have to. "What I'm talking about is fundamental fairness," he told me while bouncing down a New Hampshire highway the day before the primary, addressing people's outrage "that powerful lobbyists could achieve their ends on the Medicare bill to the detriment of the larger interest of the country. I don't call that populism; I call that Teddy Roosevelt-style 'Let's make the market fair.' Republicans misjudge the sense of institutionalized unfairness that Americans are confronted with every day." But the Republicans' vulnerability runs even deeper than that. For the very real economic anxieties of the American people -- diminishing health coverage, the inflation of college tuition and the disinclination of American corporations to do their hiring in America -- the Bush administration has nothing whatsoever to offer. The abject failure of Bush's State of the Union address last week -- his popularity actually sank in its aftermath -- hasn't drawn much attention, sandwiched as it was between Iowa and New Hampshire. But I suspect a large segment of the American public views the president's interest in Mars exploration and in steroids in baseball as a kind of admission of his cluelessness or indifference (or both) to the nation's genuine needs. The proclivity of U.S.-based corporations to create their new jobs abroad, for instance, has altered not at all the administration's patently absurd commitment to throwing money at those corporations as a way to generate jobs here at home. For his part, Kerry believes that the globalization of the job market imposes new obligations on the federal government. He's not calling for a new WPA, but he does believe that through tax policy and appropriations, the government can expand energy conservation, alternative energy, health care and schools in ways that will create large numbers of blue- and white-collar jobs. The fact that Kerry, and the Democrats generally, have a relevant economic program and Bush does not is one of those things that the American electorate has already begun to detect. Kerry in particular has shown a consistent ability to win portions of that electorate that Rove is counting on to keep George Bush in the White House. The Massachusetts senator ran particularly well among New Hampshire's working-class Catholics this week, and why not? Kerry had the faith, the populism, the Vietnam vets and the support of the firefighters union -- not normally a political powerhouse when stacked up against the giant unions supporting Howard Dean, but one hell of a cultural signifier to voters Bush will need in November. Real men support John Kerry. How would Lee Atwater get out of that one?
Josh Marshall on Dean... _______________ During the time I was in New Hampshire, and especially in the last couple days, there was lots of chatter to the effect that the Dean campaign was all but out of money. There was (and is) really no other way to explain their decision to pull their ads down from all the post-New Hampshire contests unless they were facing an acute funding crisis. (After all, assuming a good showing in New Hampshire, they would pretty quickly need to start advertising in at least a few of those states anyway.) And this article in Thursday's Post pretty much confirms it. Dean raised more than $40 million. And it's apparently almost completely gone. According to the Post article, the Dean camp believes he can essentially hang back through the February 3rd contests "remain[ing] credible by picking up enough votes to win some delegates ... even without renewed advertising or a first-place finish." He'll then make a push in Michigan and Washington, which come later in the week, banking on the fact that these caucus states give more advantage to organizational strength. Frankly, I think we all know that these are the sorts of things campaigns say just a bit before they give up the ghost, focusing on 'winning delegates' rather than actually winning any contests -- sort of like the hapless dry goods salesman who loses money on every sale but thinks he's going to make it up in volume. There are other problems with this approach too. The most recent poll of Michigan -- out earlier this week -- shows Kerry holding a 37% to 14% lead over Dean. -- Josh Marshall
Nothing really new here... just proves that the GOP is morally bankrupt and devoid of new ideas. _____________ Bush campaign shifts gears for Kerry - - - - - - - - - - - - By Scott Lindlaw Jan. 29, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- Facing a new Democratic front-runner in John Kerry, President Bush's re-election campaign is quietly shifting gears, preparing for the possibility it will confront a war hero and current senator. But the line of attack is the same: Whether Howard Dean or Kerry, the Democrats' nominee would be a left-leaning New Englander who wants to "raise taxes" and reverse course on Iraq, campaign officials and Bush advisers say. "This week's front-runner is very much like the front-runner of two weeks ago: a Northeast liberal who motivates his support based on anger and negativity," said Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt. At the same time, there is debate within Bush's administration and inside his re-election headquarters about how hard to strike at Kerry, of Massachusetts, who won the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. Some of Bush's political advisers take credit for successfully tarring Dean as an angry liberal, and are now suffering a kind of buyer's remorse. They wonder whether their criticism fueled the rise of Kerry -- a more formidable candidate, in the estimation of some campaign officials. He is a decorated Vietnam War veteran, knowledgeable about domestic and foreign affairs, and has a certain gravitas and strength as a debater. Knocking down Kerry now, they say, could help ignite the candidacy of a Democrat some Bush campaign officials fear even more: Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who finished a strong second in Iowa but slumped to fourth place in New Hampshire, just behind retired Gen. Wesley Clark, his other Southern rival. A recent poll showed Edwards with a slight lead in South Carolina's critical primary next Tuesday, and he holds a strong appeal elsewhere in the South, which was Bush Country in 2000. Some Bush campaign advisers worry that Edwards' promise to end what the candidate charges are the "two Americas" -- one for the wealthy and privileged and the other for working people and the poor -- could have broad appeal. Bush operatives are also mindful that in Edwards' 1998 election, about six in 10 women backed him, and black voters supported him by a 9-to-1 margin. As Democrats moved on to the next round of primary states, Bush was heading to New Hampshire on Thursday, two days after the primary, to polish his image after months of pummeling by the Democrats. Later in the evening, Bush was raising re-election money in Greenwich, Conn. He has more than $130 million, a sizable a war chest that will allow him to hammer the Democrats between now and August. Officially, the administration says it is above the Democrats' fray. But White House corridors were abuzz Wednesday with talk of New Hampshire and the Democratic candidates. The Republican National Committee began compiling dossiers on each of the potential Democratic candidates as early as January 2002, and Bush's re-election campaign now has those files at its fingertips. The campaign's rap on Kerry: He casts himself as an enemy of special interests, while cozying up to them and benefiting from them as a senator; He has spent most of his career in Washington; He has a privileged background that leaves him out of touch with the concerns of everyday Americans; He is an "old Left" liberal in the mold of Edward Kennedy and Michael Dukakis; His populist talk smacks of "class warfare." Republican Party chief Ed Gillespie, who has criticized Kerry as being more liberal than Kennedy, was continuing the anti-Kerry message in a speech Thursday to the RNC that says Kerry's voting record shows him to be soft on national security. Kerry also fits into the Bush campaign's one-Democrat-fits-all criticism, several campaign officials said: He advocates rolling back portions of Bush's tax cuts; he has criticized provisions in No Child Left Behind, Bush's signature education reform law, and the new Medicare law; he is sharply critical of Bush's Iraq policy and would shift course there; he opposes parts of the Patriot Act and the supplemental spending bill that authorized $87 billion for Iraq military operations and rebuilding last fall. Kerry voted for education bill and the Patriot Act, though he has criticized the administration on both since then. He voted against the $87 billion for Iraq but did not cast a vote on the Medicare bill. Does the campaign see Kerry as a tougher opponent than Dean? "I don't know," Holt said. "Anyone the Democrats put forth will have very much the same policy positions, whether it's raising taxes, opposing the war. Even if we don't yet know who their nominee will be, we do know that they will have a left-wing philosophy."
I have a feeling Dean's in for a tough night of questions... the good news is, I feel Joementum coming on strong.
Batman, Looks like Conason agrees with some of what you say... ____________________ The land mines awaiting John Kerry The Democratic front-runner can maintain his post-New Hampshire momentum, but only if he avoids these four risks, temptations and deficits of campaign style. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Joe Conason Jan. 28, 2004 | With all due respect to spin, only one Democrat can plausibly claim momentum from Tuesday night's results in New Hampshire. That is John Kerry, of course -- but unlike last year, when the pollsters and pundits anointed him as the front-runner, the Massachusetts senator's two important victories this week confirm his power to persuade voters. Now he's the target again. Having long felt that Kerry possesses qualities and experience that recommend him -- despite his defects as a retail politician -- I hope he understands the problems and perils he will confront: The perception of "electability" can quickly become a trap. It tends to encourage excessive caution, which in turn leads to voter disillusionment and apathy. Kerry already suffers from a reputation for caution and opportunism, when he is also quite capable of daring and toughness. I first began to think that he could rouse the Democratic Party from its terrible torpor during the summer of 2002, when he called out Trent Lott and Tom DeLay as chicken hawks and threatened to filibuster against oil drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. He should emphasize his historical willingness to stand alone and fight for what he believes. To talk about conceding the South is a stupid error. Although Kerry hasn't endorsed a north-of-Mason-Dixon strategy, he hinted that the Democrats don't need Southern states to win in November. That may be technically true, as a matter of electoral college math, but it should never be mentioned again by him or anyone in his campaign. Instead, Kerry should emphasize his desire to unite the country across regional, ethnic and religious divisions. His status as a decorated veteran will allow him to seek support among military communities in every state, especially in the South and West -- where alienation from the White House is growing. The Democrats have to take their campaign into "red states" wherever possible, or else the Republicans will put them on the defensive in the "blue states." Press criticism of populist rhetoric deserves to be ignored. Owing to its own centrist and conservative biases, the media habitually discourages politicians from articulating the populist themes that have recently energized all of the Democratic contenders. When Michael Dukakis ran as a technocrat in 1988, his numbers kept falling until, too late, he reached for populist speeches against the plutocratic Bush regime. When Al Gore delivered his combative convention speech in 2000, the press gallery almost unanimously disparaged its "old-fashioned" populism. Gore's numbers soared, proving that the mainstream wisdom is always wrong, but he made the mistake of listening to them anyway and squandered his lead. Voters want a competent leader who they believe is on their side. Nearly every poll ever taken about George W. Bush shows they know he isn't that leader. Brevity is both merciful and wise. That advice is particularly pertinent for a stiff speaker like Kerry. His speaking style, rather than his voting record or his personal history, is reminiscent of the lamentably lame Michael Dukakis. Kerry tends to disdain the repetitive, rousing style that motivates voters, and to favor lengthy, discursive explanations that only bore them. His handlers ought to challenge him by pointing out that Bush -- a man of very limited verbal facility -- has mastered stump speaking. Kerry still must learn to keep it crisp. If he doesn't, he could still lose the nomination to the far more eloquent and animated John Edwards.
did any body see the debate? i missed it, read some recaps, but it's hard to get the flavor of the thing that way. any surprises? did clark blink? was brokaw as sanctimoneous as Peter jennings?
Nobody landed a hit on Kerry, though Dean made a weak try that was parried adroitly by Kerry. No surprises, no harm. Brokaw was OK, though he asked some silly questions and interrupted inappropriately (I thought) a few times. Clark did blink on occassion and had on a sane tie, as oppossed to what he was wearing for the NH primary. Edwards got good applause, Lieberman... eh, not so much. Sharpton answered some questions well and some with bluster. Kucinich believes in unicorns and magic frogs and that he wil be the nominee at a brokered convention. Dean looked subdued,but still made some good points.
Hmmmmm.... _________________ Who is robo-calling against Dean? by kos Fri Jan 30th, 2004 at 00:49:18 GMT It's no secret that Dean has faced some nasty robo-calling and push-polling in Iowa and NH, as well as NM and elsewhere. This exerpt from an upcoming GQ article gives a glimpse of what Dean has faced over the last few weeks: Fast forward to the days before IA: Trippi's "cell phone rings. It's his pollster, Paul Maslin, who not only has bleak news out of Iowa -- but bleak news out of New Hampshire. Trippi hangs up and stares out the window. His phone rings again. "WHAT? Aw, ****. I hate this business. This ****ing sucks. Okay, thanks." He hangs up. "They're robocalling our ones," he moans. "He has just gotten a report from the field that Dean "ones" are getting bombarded with computer-generated phone calls telling them to make sure to caucus for Dean-then giving them the wrong address." Who would do such a thing? "Kerry," Trippi snaps. "They're the only ******* snake campaign that would do it. Every frickin' day now, I'm reminded of why I got out of this in the first place." The Dean campaign keeps fingering the Kerry camp, and it's hard to see who else might be responsible. The calls were targeted at Dean in Iowa and NH -- the two states that were must-wins for both Dean and Kerry. Gephardt might've been behind a robo-calling effort in Iowa, but he'd have no reason to do the same in NH. Who else, the Republicans? Problem is that by all reports, these robo calls have specifically targeted Dean's "1s" and "2s". That level of sophistication would require an extent of polling unlikely from the GOP. Only Kerry would have conducted the type of polling identifying levels of support for Dean in both Iowa and NH. So it's all anecdotal, but the evidence suggests dirty tricks from the Kerry campaign. The thought literally makes me want to puke (some of the calls suggest Dean is not a real Christian because he's married to a Jew). None of the other candidates have faced this type of puke tactics, so there's only one guy engaging in it. God help Kerry if real evidence emerges.
I'd be interested in the answer too, but it's a moot point. If Kerry lost the debate by 1 point, he won by a landslide. I'm sorry to say I find that robo-calling story believable and it makes me want to puke too. I heard a phone interview with Trippi tonight and it broke my heart. If that's a real quote from Trippi, Kerry's probably lost my vote on innuendo alone. If he's the nominee I'll hope like hell he wins, but I don't think I'll be able to be a party to it. Unless Dean or Clark revive their campaigns (which is doubtful at this point almost to the point of being unimaginable), it's looking like Edwards or bust for me. Most likely bust.
A) Batty, if, as I'm heating in different places, Clark's initial ( and I gather simply superficial) awkwardness is being overcome, and he is on a steep learning curve, are you wlling to reconsider him? Also, am I doing you a disservice when I say your criticism of him was mostly superficial? B) Am I wrong in my recall that Edwards supported the war, and hasn't really altered his stance on that?
MacBeth: I will consider anyone who runs against George Bush. And I will concede that my criticism of Clark has been superficial rather than based on the issues if you and everyone else who has had doubts about Dean will concede the same about him. For both, the knock has been electability -- and for both the electability question has had its roots in the candidates' characters or, more to the point, their demeanors. I won't even go into how wrong the rap on Dean's demeanor has been, except to say that the "angry" candidate is known to have never yelled at a staff member in 12 years as governor while the Dem party's demeanor golden boy Clinton is known to have had a famous, furious temper and was prone to regular explosions. How did we ever let him hold the nuclear codes for eight years? We sure were lucky. The infamous speech thing was a load of crap too, but I'm too angry about it to post about it right now. If anyone's interested, I'll post some good links tomorrow. Edwards has changed his position on the war, as has Kerry, as has Clark, as did Gephardt. The ones who haven't changed their positions are Dean, Lieberman, Kucinich, Sharpton and Bush. Is that your criteria for choosing a candidate for president? Someone who hasn't changed their position on the war? I wouldn't blame you if it was. I'd downright respect it. If so, who do you like? Dean, Lieberman, Kucinich, Sharpton or Bush?
Batman I should have clarified... My terminology was not meant as criticism. Remember that the primary reason I am supporting the Democratic candidate is to get Bush out, and as such electibility is important to me as well. So when I was clarifying whether or not your criticism of Clark was superficial, that wasn't meant as a means to marginalize that criticism, but rather because I couldn't remember if there was something more fundamental, and because that is the area I am hearing he is improving, which obviously wouldn't matter to you if there was something deeper. Also I wouldn;t exactly call myself a Dean Critic. In fact I felt sorry for him, as I thought he was a moral, honest, and intelligent candidate. I just sensed that he would be an easier opponent for Bush to undermine with slights on his dependebility, etc. And if you will recall, I think I was the first in here to call 'Not that big of s deal' on the speech. Also, and this could be biased, but I actually don't think that Clark has changed his position. I think that that's s smokescreen, and the fact that he hasn't clarified it well is among my greatest concerns with Clark. If you review his quotes pre and post war, given what we were being told, he is consistent more so than Kerry or Edwards. Even when we were being decieved, Clark was qualifying his support as being defpendant on the info being correct, upon it being a last measure, and upon our building a coalition, etc. Kerry et al are now saying that was there position, and I don't disbelieve them, but Clark said it then, and to me this could be a real strong point for him if he used it better. My feelings about Clark are this; On paper, he is the best Presidential candidate I have seen in well over a decade. He is the kind of guy we all complain doesn't get involved in politics because of all the games. And I believe the reports of several people that state that his reason for getting involved is consistent with his career; his concern for his country. To me, this is a potential goldmine, and some of us are overlooking it because he's not as yet acquired the packaging of a pure politician. On the other hand, I know that the electorate can be fickle and superficial, and as such packaging is important. But I also know that Clark is brilliant, and with a reputation for quick thinking and charisma, although I concede it hasn;t been that evident yet. I also hear that he is improving remarkably for a first timer, and am still very much holding out hope that he can acquire momentum because not only do I feel he matches up well with Bush on several issues, but I feel that he would make the best President by a fair margin. It would be different if he were going up against a Reagan or Clinton; a politician whose elctibility/charisma was so extreme that it superceded his credentials, but neither Kerry nor Edwards blow me away, and are, if Clark continues to improve, well within his range, while falling below him in overall ability. So that is why I am still backing Clark with high hipes, hope ossibly being the operative word. Like you, I will supprt whoever comes out f this race against Bush.
Since Joe (the worst of the bunch) and Dean (my early favorite) are both pretty much out, it's time I rethink who gets my support. I equally dislike Edwards and Kerry (still think Edwards is gonna win it, by the way). I also think they are about equally electable. Kerry has the experience and the silver star, Edwards has the south and the charm. Both have compelling bios. Both have recent votes that make me sick. Since I'm torn with the frontrunners, I'm going with my heart... I am hereby endorsing Dennis Kucinich.
