Not too different. But if Kerry wants to win instead of ending like Gingrich (villified and discredited), he should lay this off. With victory so close, he sounds suspiciously like a crow aficionado.
Victory so close? There's at least 11 months before we'll know. Who'd have predicted in March of 1991 that Clinton would be the Democratic nominee?
MILITARY victory (in Iraq, anyway). Sidenote: anyone think Bush would drag this war to Iran or Syria just for fun, ...and votes?
mrpaige...I've infected this board with nearly 12,000 posts, so I feel obligated to read everything. sinohero, sorry for the misunderstanding.
Are we having a poll or a pool? Theoretically we could have a pool on Saddam's capture/death date and then on war on Syria by date x or Iran by date y.
First, the major contenders (Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards) have all supported the war. Only Kerry has even criticized the way the whole thing went down, and he's still been a strong supporter of the war itself. And you're wrong to say they've already secured the left vote. Republicans won in 02 largely because the left and other traditional Dem blocs (like minorities) stayed home in droves. They already made the mistake you suggest they make again -- assuming their base would vote for them without being asked. And those contenders who supported the war without even having a debate (they're all in Congress) will never get my vote. If they'd supported a meaningful debate and then supported it I would consider them. Actually, I'd still consider Kerry (given his record on such affairs, his support was the only of the three I didn't find cowardly and politically motivated - plus Gephardt as a leader in Congress had a responsibility to encourage debate, however he felt about the issue) but not the others. As for the stuff you mentioned in your second graf (first in my quote of you), this is always the deal with primaries vs. general elections -- with both parties. You have to play to your base to get the nomination and then play to the middle in the general election. The last two presidents dodged this somewhat by employing an "electability" strategy in the primaries, negating the need to play too hard to their bases. They were also both blessed by very weak opponents in the primaries. Although McCain campaigned well, the party has never been comfortable with him. And once Kerrey went out in 92, Clinton didn't have to worry about anyone but Tsongas and (my man) Jerry Brown. Bush's (er, Rove's) strategy was especially clever and insidious: play to the middle, talk electability and then govern extreme right. This next Dem primary will be a fight for the soul of the party. Will they play to the base and sacrifice some moderates or try to present another flavor of the same ideology (as they did to the chagrine of Dems everywhere in 02)? What they SHOULD do is make the case that they ARE moderates, reminding voters how many of the Dem party's bread and butter positions they favor over Republican ones, especially now that Dems are the undisputed deficit hawks (weird as that sounds). They've got environment, education, economy/deficit and abortion (don't underestimate this one - Roe v. Wade's in serious trouble now - Bush got to sidestep this last time - this time he won't) on their side. The Republicans have national security, military affairs and terrorism on their side (which, incidentally, the prominent Dems mentioned above COULD nullify by their support). They also have a clear edge on taxes, but that's shrinking. And when polled re: lower taxes resulting in higher deficits the numbers favor the Dem position. The issue Republicans win on right now with voters seem to be the only issues of import right now. How could they not? Domestic stuff's virtually out of the picture. We'll see if that's the same come election time. Knowing Rove it will be, whether it's necessary or not. If they can keep it going, they'll likely win. If Americans start paying attention to domestic affairs again and the Dems nominate someone likeable it'll be a hell of a race. And, just to be clear, Kerry's position was that Bush needed to be replaced not for CONDUCTING the war, but for alienating allies along the way. His premise was that it would take a new leader to patch up strained alliances. Not that controversial a position, no matter how hard anyone spins it. p.s. If you're a Democrat, I encourage you to vote that way in the primaries. Dean in 04. Electability be damned.
Anyone ever find out more about retired General Wesley Clark? I've been impressed with his analysis and demeanor on CNN during the war. I think Batman mentioned that he was testing the waters about becoming a Democratic nominee. The unknown, of course, is his positions on Democratic issues... choice, for example, and the type of judicial appointments he might make. Thought I'd throw his name out there again. I'm not to impressed with the possibilities for the party so far and I would like it to nominate someone who could win. Perhaps Clark could be that person.
Certainly Clark can negate those areas Batman mentioned as strengths for the Republican Party. We'll see, though, what kind of campaign the Democrats can mount. Still a lot of time left.
Deckard, unless you just hate Kerry I wouldn't count him out. His record of military service and his moderate-to-hawk positions on past conflicts make him a formidable opponent on issue of war and peace. Clark is a big unknown right now on almost all issues, much like Powell was before he declared he was a Republican and, much later, revealed his positions on various issues (leaning right on some, left on others). I suspect Clark identifies as a Dem (cause he says he does) but would have at least some positions which would trouble Democrats as with Powell and Republicans. Imagine Powell having to argue in favor of Affirmative Action in Republican primaries. Wouldn't be too pretty.
Bush didn't win in 2000. Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, and the U.S. Supreme court won in 2000. Unless you think that 40,000 florida residents primarily from democratic majority counties who were taken off the registered voter list because the state of florida used a database company owned by republicans to do the voter screening wouldn't have been enough voters to overtake the 537 votes that Bush was ahead by when the Supreme court conveniently stopped the recount. Bush will win again as long as he can keep the carrot of war in front of everyone's eyes long enough for them to not notice the complete lack of a sane and progressive domestic policy from the Bush administration. It's not like most Americans will bother spending any time researching any of the candidates before they vote.
Ever stop to think that maybe the "several foreign governments" wrecked their relationship with us? France is so obsessed with makeing the E.U. a "counterpoint" to the U.S. that Chirac can't think straight. Not to mention that France profits from keeping Saddam in power no matter what the evil consequences are... I'm not asking you to agree with the above, but don't for a second think that other countries don't have ulterior motives in all this mess.
Dean would be a mistake. I like what he has to say but he is too liberal to win a general election. He might make a good VP choice. I think Kerry is the man to beat. I have seen he run for reelection against a well financed Republican and he kicked but. There was no way he would loose the election (given his state and that he was the incumbent). He even promised that he would not sling mud like his opponent. But in the end he couldn't help himself. This is a man who will not back down from Bush. He will call Bush on all of his many mistakes. You Republicans out there ought to be scared, very scared. The general public I think will less forgiving of Bush in the debates this time round (seeing that he has been president for four years), when Kerry exposes Bush's ongoing ignorance of foreign and domestic issues. No more free rides.
NW: I'd agree Kerry's the guy to beat in the primaries and also that he'd give Bush a very tough fight. I heartily disagree with the relative wisdom of basing a primary vote on electability. It's not our job as Democrats to handicap the general election. When we do, choosing someone who wouldn't be our first choice out of some sort of strategic voting, the party moves to the right. And when the party moves, the center moves too. That's how a conservative Dem like Clinton can be branded a liberal. And that's how our party loses touch with its core values and beliefs, even while they still resonate with average Americans. The Republicans don't have this problem. They just keep saying they're moderates and legislate like conservatives. I'd encourage you to let the party bosses and the big donors handicap the race and vote your conscience. I think Kerry would have a better shot at beating Bush than Dean, but I'd rather have Dean as president and so that's how I'll vote. If you'd rather have Kerry as prez, you should vote that way. By the way, there's no chance in hell Dean would be a vice prez candidate. First off, he adds nothing to any ticket geographically. Vermont's going Dem no matter what happens, as is most of the NE. Second, candidates for president choose a running mate that balances a ticket either with experience (like Cheney), geography or ideology. Whomever the nominee is, if Dean doesn't inspire confidence in the electorate as a presidential candidate he'd be a liability to the ticket as a vice prez.
I think you are wrong. People vote their pocket books. The economy has pretty much sucked the entire time he has been in office. A Democrat asking "are you better off now than four years ago" will get a lot of traction. Bush might try to start another war. The only opponent "of merit" is North Korea. And that is a war that even neo-con chickhawks do not want to start. Even if Bush could find another "imminent" non-nukulur opponent with which to make war, the Dems this time round will fight Bush on it.
That question may not be so effective in '04 because of September 11th and the (very) possible economic recovery in the next ONE AND A HALF years.
Wow, you really WILL believe anything the Bush team tells you. See you in a year and a half. I hope you're right, but I know you're wrong. And I love how you guys think you own 9/11. 9/11 may give Bush license to sidestep the usual rules for military conflict but it won't make his disastrous economic policies disappear.
I was thinking that if Clark won the nomination someone like Dean would balance the ticket, in the foreign and domestic policy sense. BTW, I will be watchihng Clark very closely. His knowledge of the military and foreign affairs has impressed me.
