No Worries: I'll be watching Clark too. I'll be watching all of them. I love a good primary race, by either party. My point about Dean was that the primary requirement of a VP candidate is to comfort the electorate that he'd be up to the job of prez. If he's able to do that, he'll contend for the nomination (just by virtue of owning the left in this field); if he's not, he'd be a bad VP choice. While it's important to select a balanced "team" for the ticket, it's more important to select someone the electorate would be comfortable with as top dog.
I am not as pessimistic as Batman, but the costs of the Iraq war and the associated rebuilding costs will likely be a drag on our economy. If Bush can keep his missles in his pocket until after the 2004 election, I would not be surprised to see a real economic recovery in 2004. A rebounding economy did not help his father win re-election, GWB may suffer a similar fate (given he runs against a quality opponent).
Don't leave out the tax cuts, No Worries. Or the interest on the deficit, which is way larger than any projections by the Bush team. It's not just the military expenses which, by the way, will almost surely be higher than projected.
As a counter example, I give you Dick Cheney. I will be watching the Democratic primary closely too. 2004 may be the first time in 24 years that I will have voted for a Dem or Rep in the general election (first time ever for the Dems). Being from Texas, I know it will be all for nought.
No modern VP candidate makes my point better than Cheney. The main knock on Bush was that he was inexperienced. Cheney countered that and gave the ticket weight. That's why Bush's numbers went up when he selected him. In fact, if you'll remember, back then a lot of people were more comfortable with the VP candidates than Bush or Gore. Cheney was also not challenged on ideology. Not by Gore and not by Lieberman. But the main thing: people who weren't necessarily comfortable with Bush in the White House became more by the thought that Cheney would be there to help him.
Oh, and I would say another thing for Kerry. At least he did acknowledge that there needed to be a regime change in Iraq. I do wonder how Kerry would've brought about that regime change in Baghdad, especially considering the UN would not go farther than letting weapons inspectors snoop around for whatever banned weapons they could find. I guess Kerry would've been able to talk 'em into not only the use of force to disarm Saddam, but also a UN Resolution authorizing the overthrow of the Iraqi government. If the guy is that persuasive, I don't think there's any question he'll walk away with this election.
I agree with your points about how Cheney helped Bush. But I do not think the voting public would want to see Cheney as the top dog (which was my original counter point). We will see. The 2004 election should be the most interetsing election we have seen in quite some time.
I don't dislike Kerry, I just don't feel any charisma there. Perhaps Dean has some. I haven't seen him speak, so I only know what little I've read about him. I know he wowed a group of party regulars at an early "beauty contest", but I didn't see the speech. Perhaps Clark could balance a ticket with Dean, I don't know. But I've been surprised at his composure and his thoughts while watching quite a lot of him on CNN. He's very self-possessed. I wish he was from a larger state and that we knew more about him. Time is passing. One term is more than the country can handle of Bush as it is, imo. We need a winner.
I saw Dean on Meet the Press a few weeks ago and he really struggled with the questions. They dug up several outlandish quotes and asked him to explain them. He looked really uncomfortable.
IMO, most of the Democrats can't win in the general election. Maybe John Edwards and Wesley Clark have a chance. RE: costs of Iraqi reconstruction, maybe we're paying for it, maybe we're not. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...4apr04,1,3857799.story?coll=la-home-headlines Estimates of Iraq's potential oil earnings during the first year or two after the war range from about $15 billion to $20 billion, depending on price and production assumptions. Estimates of Iraq's reconstruction needs start at about $25 billion and run as high as $100 billion. The Council on Foreign Relations predicts that reconstruction will consume about $20 billion a year for several years. Iraq's external debt -- loans from foreign countries and international creditors -- totals at least $60 billion and as much as $130 billion. Sandi, who has contacted a number of governments to discuss Iraq's financial situation, said his best estimate is about $115 billion.
Do I think that other countries don't have ulterior motives? No, I'm not that stupid. Governments take advantage of situations to further their own goals. I also think that it is double speak to say that we are invading Iraq to enforce a UN violation, yet doing so without UN backing. This is damaging our relationship with other foreign governments.
I saw Dean on Meet the Press a few weeks ago and he really struggled with the questions. They dug up several outlandish quotes and asked him to explain them. He looked really uncomfortable. Given who our current president is, I think that this will not be a problem for the electorate.
