Completely agree. Easy to glorify a dead person, but he was fantastic. Sad, sad day for us all when he died.
The candidate who shares most of my views is Kucinich (he shares my freaky vegan diet too, so I'm sure most of you will think him nutty), but he's not my favorite candidate. I don't vote electability, but I also don't vote for candidates who poll at 1%. There is a limit. I disagree with Dean on several issues, but I agree with him on important other ones and I just plain like him. I don't vote on likeability either, but it doesn't hurt. Those of you who think he's an unelectable liberal just aren't paying attention. He's neither. He also is decidedly not in the tradition of Clinton (as Max asked). Clinton had the outside Beltway, small state governor thing working for him, but it was a Southern state. Main thing though is that Clinton's entire strategy was the DLC one. Dean's is the polar opposite. And he has the ability, without ever waffling, to make a good case to the base and also to the middle, which is where his politics lie. He's not full of **** and he speaks truth to power, so as of today he's got my vote. And I'd love to see him debate Bush. He'd kick his ass. Kerry would also kick Bush's ass in a debate. I'm still pissed at him about the war though. If he started making the case that he voted for the war based on false, manipulated or willfully incomplete intelligence and that he was furious he voted to send Americans to risk their lives based on manipulated intel, he'd be even with Dean for me. Mostly because I'd love to see Bush bring up his 'strength' with regard to defense in front of a war hero who opposed Nam on moral grounds. I used to think Edwards was a DLC b**** only. I still think he's a DLC b****, but Will's recent article (which I don't think was posted here but was called something like "Centrist with a Message") gave me reasons to vote for him. In it he hammered away at Bush being concerned with rich people who sit on their couches and pick up the phone to find out how much money they made that day and Edwards being concerned with working people like his dad. The Bushies can bemoan "class warfare" all they want -- the math of the tax cuts kill that bogus, whiney argument dead. Will's obviously way behind Edwards (and hates Dean, seemingly personally, by the way) and this was the first time I felt I understood why. And I'd love to see Bush try and answer these points in a debate. He has a record to defend now, friendly as hell to the rich and dismissive as hell to everyone else. The numbers do not lie. Gephardt's yesterday and I really don't know what he's thinking, but he's hardly out of it. He will be soon though, I think. His only strong constituency (unless he were to get the nom) is labor and they're equally happy to have Dean, Kerry or Edwards. Moreover, they'll like a winner they can get behind. Ditto Lieberman who actually thought the 2002 Dem strategy was a good one and can only distinguish himself from this pack by repeating it. We don't need a Zionist in the White House during the difficult times in the ME and we don't need a Republican running to challenge Bush. Bush would kill him. In a smaller field, with less credible candidates, Graham would have a shot, and he should have one, but I don't think he does. And I agree with the poster that said MacB doesn't give him enough credit. His diaries are nutty, but that's the only stuff that I've seen that is. Those of you who vote none of the above just don't remember how primaries go. The candidates almost always look slight in a format where they have to debate each other (standing even and sharing time with various silly candidates like Sharpton or Gary Bauer or whoever) and they always look less presidential than the guy with the whole White House working night and day to make him look presidential (anyone read that hilarious Mount Rushmore article where Bush's guys took great pains to have him photographed as though he was the fifth face?). Kerry, Dean, Gephardt, Edwards or Graham could each give Bush a tough race. The way things are trending, if the nominee's any of those guys (and it will be), the Democrat will probably win in a close race. If they trend harder, the Dem will kill Bush. Lieberman will have to drop out before too long. He's badly sagging in polls and his fundraising's been atrocious. If Gephardt doesn't come up with a new tact, raise some serious fast money and slay in Iowa, he'll be out soon too. Those guys are a little more calculated than Graham, who may hang on after it's clear he can't win. I see a three man thing between Dean, Kerry and Edwards before too long though. And I don't mind that race at all. Three very different candidates, very different strategies, very different strengths/weaknesses and a great backdrop for a fight for the soul of the party. And while I have my favorite and my second favorite (with the third sagging far, far behind), I could vote for any of those guys in a general election and not have to wash my hands after. If Clark, Gore or Hillary were to get in, it would be an embarassment of riches. It's a good time to be a Democrat.
Bob- I really don't want to make this a Nader discussion. I'm sick of those. But, IT WAS GORE'S OWN DAMN FAULT. My Nader vote was a wake up call to the New Democrats to get the hell out of my party. I was hoping they would have gotten the message by the midterm elections, but they didn't. They sorta did afterwards though. (Pelosi over Frost for House Minority Leader). If you don't nominate a candidate that appeals to the base, the base won't vote. Period. I voted for Nader because he made me want to vote. Gore did not do that. It would have been really easy to do, because I like voting, but he didn't do it. This time around it will be even more difficult to get the left vote out. Bush looks unbeatable, most popular candidate lost last time etc...
ps, apparently things are getting interesting in the House today: from tnr THE HOUSE CRACKS UP: A few weeks ago, TNR chronicled the misery of House Democrats under a GOP leadership so tyrannical it denies them rooms to meet in. If anyone still had doubts about this, something that happened today should settle the question. Details are still sketchy, but it appears that Bill Thomas, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, instructed his staff to call the Capitol Police today to evict committee Democrats from a committee library adjacent to the Ways and Means hearing room. (If you're near a television, flip on C-SPAN--a very tense debate over the incident is now unfolding on the House floor.) The episode began after Democrats marched out to protest the committee's rush to pass a pension bill. An e-mail from a Democratic aide recounts events thusly: Thomas's committee staff called the Capitol Police to respond to "a disturbance" in the committee roomÂ…. The Capitol cops eventually realized that they had no authority to disband the meeting and arrest members of Congress who were gathered in a public room. The Sergeant-at-Arms finally showed up and said he also had no authority to break up the meeting. It was completely outrageous. While the Dems met in the committee conference room, [Democrat Pete] Stark held the ranking member's chair for the sole purpose of objecting to UC [unanimous consent] requests to dispense with the reading of the bill. When Stark was temporarily distracted at some point, Thomas asked for objections to the UC request and, obviously hearing none, gaveled the request and announced that the bill was to be considered as read. Even some of his own members rolled their eyes, but it worked; five minutes later, Thomas passed the bill without a single Democrat in the room. Tempers are flaring. "This is not a police state," Bernie Sanders of Vermont fumed a few minutes ago. Republicans, meanwhile, are saying the police were only called after Stark threatened violence. Arizona Republican J.D. Hayworth declared on the floor that "a physical threat was issued by a member of the minority party." Then, minutes ago, Missouri Republican Kenny Hulshof took to the House floor to read a committee transcript, which seems to show Stark threatening Republican committee member Scott McInniss of Colorado: "Oh you think you are big enough to make me, you little wimp?" Stark allegedly said. "Come over here and make me, I dare you. You little fruitcake, you little fruitcake, I said you are a fruitcake!" Democrats have been trying for months to draw more attention to the House GOP's dictatorial tactics. This might finally get people to pay attention.
Wrong that. Bush doesn't look unbeatable at all. And if the Dem nominee can actually come up with a reason to vote FOR himself to couple with the rapidly growing reasons to vote AGAINST Bush, it will be the Dem who looks unbeatable. And the left is ready to come back to the polls, if asked. Dean is asking them and, as a result, now the rest of the candidates are too. I agree with you on Nader, by the way. I didn't give a **** in 2002 because the party I identified with forgot who they were. When they do that, they deserve to lose and Gore deserved it too (even though he didn't lose).
Well, sure, but there's about a zero percent chance of them doing that. I agree with you on most of the rest of the thread, by the way.
Dammit, you people are not ending the Nader discussion. Grrrr. I'm turning green, but GREEN LIKE THE ****ING HULK! Grrrr! Where him now?! Hulk smash him! edit: Hulk remove nasty adjectives and descriptive phrases. RRRrrrr!
No, a goofy Hulk joke does not even give you a peek into my Nader attack, but yes, I'm glad it's over for now. I'm returning to my normal, non-green-colored self already... Whew.
I'm sure you'll like this: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=721 Bush Job Performance Slips to 53% Positive, 46% Negative; More Voters (47%) Say It's Time for Someone New Than Say He Deserves Re-election; Two-in-Three Say it Makes No Difference if WMDs Are Never Found, According to Newest Zogby America Poll President George W. Bush's job performance rating has slipped to 53% positive, his lowest since the terrorist attacks in 2001, according to a poll of 1,004 likely U.S. voters by Zogby International. His negative rating reached 46%, just under his pre-9/11 unfavorable of 49%: Bush Job Performance Positive % Negative % July 16-17, 2003 Current 53 46 June 10, 2003 Post Iraqi War 58 41 March 16, 2003 Pre Iraqi War 54 45 October 25, 2002 64 36 September 25, 2002 64 36 September 23, 2001 Post 9/11 82 17 August 27, 2001 Pre 9/11 50 49 April 26, 2001 100 Days in Office 52 44 January 16, 2001 Pre Inauguration 42 36 Voters rate only President Bush's performance in the war on terrorism positively, 59% - 40%. Opinion is split on foreign policy, 49% positive compared to 50% negative. His performance on health care is rated 36% positive, 61% negative; the environment, 31% positive, 65% negative; taxes, 45% positive, 54% negative; and jobs and the economy, 33% positive, 66% negative. For the first time, more likely voters (47%) say it's time for someone new in the White House, compared to 46% who said the President deserves to be re-elected. Date Re-Elect % Someone New % July 16-17, 2003 46 47 June 10, 2003 49 38 January 27, 2003 49 41 October 25, 2002 49 35 September 25, 2002 49 38 While nearly six in ten (57%) respondents say they have a favorable opinion of the President as a person, 42% now say their opinion is unfavorable. Date % Favorable % Unfavorable July 16-17, 2003 57 42 January 27, 2003 66 33 July 22, 2002 72 25 April 5, 2002 82 17 July 30, 2001 57 36 February 15, 2001 64 14 A plurality (48%) of likely voters say they would choose President Bush over a Democratic candidate (43%) if the election were held today, compared to June polling by Zogby International where 44% would choose Bush and 37% would favor any Democrat. A majority (50%) of respondents say the United States is headed in the right direction, while 44% say it's the wrong direction. Date Right Direction % Wrong Direction % July 16-17, 2003 50 44 January 7, 2003 55 37 July 22, 2002 50 36 January 23, 2002 71 16 July 2001 48 39 January 2001 60 32 July 2000 63 30 June 1999 54 36 July 1998 62 27 Support for the War Support for war in Iraq has eroded. When asked if the country had to do it over again, nearly six in ten (59%) said they would support a war against Iraq, while 40% say they would oppose it. In April 2003 polling by Zogby International, 75% supported the war then underway, while 22% opposed. Will WMDs be found in Iraq? Voters are nearly equally split on whether or not the US will find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, with 47% saying they will not be found, and 45% believing they will. Two in three (67%) say it makes no difference if they are ever found, while 23% say they would be less supportive of the administration, and 9% say they would be more supportive if they aren't found. When asked if they would be more or less likely to vote for President Bush in the next presidential election if weapons of mass destruction are never found, an overwhelming majority (75%) of respondents said it would make no difference. One in five (20%) said they would be less likely to vote for him, and 5% said they would be more likely to support him. Sentiment is split on the subject of public Congressional hearings about the reasons used to justify a war in Iraq. Just over half (52%) said public hearings should not be held, while 45% favor them. More people fault the CIA and other US intelligence (36%) than the White House (31%) as responsible for the confusion about the number and types of weapons of mass destruction that Iraq supposedly possessed. Pollster John Zogby: "What has been propping up the President in the past few months is his personal favorability rating. To me, what is most ominous is this alone has slipped 9 points in the past month. If he cannot count on a large majority of Americans to like him personally, this could spell doom for his re-election hopes because he has little support for his overall performance and how he is rated on the issues." The Zogby America poll of 1,000 likely voters was conducted from Zogby International headquarters in Utica on July 16-17, 2003. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 3.2%.
Thanks, Max. That poll's actually friendlier to Bush on the Iraq stuff than recent ones from CBS and ABC/Wash Post. Still it's no surprise to me that the guys who were crying "landslide" only a month ago have disappeared from this forum. Unbeatable, my ass.
it doesn't matter what side your on. No one is unbeatable. A lot can happen from now up until the election. A month ago GWB had a 60 something approval ratings, now it has dropped, 3 months from now, if the Iraq situation starts looking better who knows??? It's a guessing game until we start getting closer to the election. First let's see who the Democratic candidate will be and how the iraq situation plays out.
...but when you show the poll numbers on who would you vote for: Bush vs. Kerry Bush vs. Dean Bush vs. Lieberman Bush wins them all in landslides. ..but you don't like to talk about those numbers, now do you Batman...
See, now there is a demographic I would pay money to hear explain it's position. Can anyone hypothesize a viable explanation for this, other then blind loyaty? Oh, and my Graham is wacko position had nothing to do with his stances on terrorism, which i agree with, or anything political. It was more his journals, persona, and the amazing position he took to defend his journals...and he seems Dubya-dim.
Batman, the only thing that those polls show me is that the populace is on crack and is very fickle. Nothing has changed, yet Bush's popularity has eroded b/c of his lies re: Yellowcake. Weird. Everyone knew he was lying before. Has his stance on the environment changed? On the economy? On anything? Yet his #s are dropping out of control. Those same #s could bounce to 70 if the President simply has a returning aircraft carrier pull a u-turn so that he can do another Top Gun landing. My attitude towards the rockets' new logo changed after a Coors/Rock you Like a Hurricane commercial got stuck in my head. We're a silly bunch. Marketing: the opiate of the masses.
Achebe, i normally never agree with any of your posts but other than the part about the lies, that was well said. That's why it's too early to speculate. Anything can happen in a year and a half?
TJ is right Batman. It's easy to get pumped up b/c of Bush's drop... but honestly, the democrats aren't there yet. Thanks JPM, I think.
