NOT! It's early yet, but tonight's results clearly show that a candidate has to be more than just the anti-bush to win the democratic nomination. So where do they/we go from here? Kerry the momentum but must finish in the top two in NH to keep it going. Dean has to win NH, or finish a strong second. He's got the strongest national organization though, so he figures to be a player for some time. I think he'll have a hard time when he gets to confederate flag territory and, whatever he does in NH, he'll wilt in the heat of the south. Edwards need only finish in the top four in NH, but he's got to be close. South Carolina is the big test for him. My view is that money and edorsements will start to flow his way if he is at all creditable in NH. Clark is the wild card. He's got to do well in NH, but I'm beginning to think that he's just Dean w/ stars on his shoulders. That's still something, but I don't think it'll be enough to carry him through. Kerry is just as big a war hero, and has a much more impressive political resume. Edwards will do as well, if not better, in the south, which leaves Clark to split the angry vote with Dean, and tonight's result shows there may not be enough of them to get the nomination.
Decided to have another thread to slam Clark, basso? I guess the other one didn't work out to your liking. And you still haven't admitted that the slander of Clark was wrong. You still repeated the same nonsense and now have decided to give it a go in another thread. Not too classy, in my opinion, but your certainly entitled to do as you will. Just don't expect to have much better luck. Oh, and if you ever feel up to it, there are several posts from others in your other thread besides me telling you to take the blinders off and asking for at least an acknowledgement that, in this instance at least, you were wrong. Ignoring the truth is not going to enhance your credibility. That's my opinion as well. Kerry, Clark and Edwards are obviously the big winners from the Iowa results. I think Dean is toast, and I'm not sorry. I bet there are some pissed off people in the White House tonight. I'm getting a kick out of it.
Just out of idel curiosity, is there any reason at all that you are beginning to feel this way? I see almost no similarity between the two...
Think you meant Iowa not Idaho. I've seen Howard Dean speak in person twice. The first time was in September 2002 when nobody knew who he was. This was a speech in a someone's backyard in Austin with maybe 30 people in attendance. It's funny but judging from that appearance I didn't get the feeling he was an angry person at all. In fact I remember thinking then he might be too dull to win it despite liking what he said. The next time I saw him was in Houston , November 2003. I think the media has made him out to be this hothead and he's bought into the image somewhat. He said all the right things again but his demeanor has changed significantly. Now I don't have a problem with him being passionate about his positions but I think he hurts himself (and the party) more than helps in the eyes of the average American independent voter. I do like Dean but I've never thought he could beat Bush, if only because he was the man responsible for bringing the term "civil union" into America's lexicon. Rove would have a field day with that at the expense of gays and lesbians across the country. Perhaps he would make a good Surgeon General or Secretary of Health & Human Services (though i disagree with his position on medicinal mar1juana).
basso is a bit of a riddle, isn't he, MacBeth? I really don't understand why he says some of these things, as he is obviously one of the more intelligent conservatives on the board. This is really a stunning result. It's just how I was hoping it might turn out, but never dreamed would occur. It strengthens the remaining candidates who are the most appealing to me... Clark, Kerry and, to a much lesser extent, because I don't know a lot about him, Edwards. Gephardt, a very decent man, but with no chance to get the nod, drops out. Dean, who I heard in the next room giving his "concession speech" and didn't know who the hell that howling guy was, has suffered what I hope is a mortal wound to his campaign. This looks like the turning of the tide to lead to a strong Democratic ticket of Clark, Kerry and/or Edwards. It's very apt to be balanced in a number of ways and must have Bush's clique sweating bullets. I'm really pumped tonight about the chances of throwing Bush out on his ear. I can't wait.
Thanks, outlaw. Iowa! It's been a long day on too little sleep for the replicant guy. I must be hungry for a baked potato. I don't think Dean is some angry lunatic at all. He's gotten a very bad rap, as has Clark and anyone else who has a chance for the nomination will receive. I just came to the conclusion that he couldn't win and that is of paramount importance to me, as long as the Democratic winner is a decent person.
You may not be aware of the one thing that has hurt Howard Dean's candidacy the most: His wife is Jewish. Voters are not ready to have a Jewish president (in Joe Lieberman). Niether is the country to accept a Jewish first wife at the White House any time soon. Not even a half-Jew president (in Wesley Clark) would sound right at this moment. A vice president? Maybe, if not for the hanging chads. Wish MLK were still alive.
Actually, I am oft surprised by the seemingly contradictory personas of several 'conservative' posters in here, basso not least among them. Even Bama, who posts some of the most ridiculous, one sided crap at times, especially when the Palestinians come into the discussion, at other times seems quite bright and almost sane. Several others are all over the map...Mr.C, ref, ect. Even johnheath used to surprise me with an annual good thought. Let's not even get into the potential interpretations for T_J's reasoning. Basso seems bright a lot of the time, but also seems to suffer from Accute Ostrich Syndrome, which intentional subjectivity would seem to contradict being bright, but obviously doesn't. It's a conundrum...
The results of the Iowa caucus shows that the Democrats (finally) are thinking long-term. They finally realize that the #1 goal is to defeat Bush in November. Therefore, they must nominate the most electable candidate. Dean is not that person. I believe that either John Kerry or Wesley Clark will inevitably get the Democratic nomination. I believe that John Kerry would run a strong race but would ultimately lose to Bush in November. It would be a close election, but Bush would win. I believe that Wesley Clark, if he gets the nomination, would beat Bush in November. In a debate, a former Nato commander who is a Rhodes scholar would make Bush look like the blueblood partyboy silver coke spoon disengaged nincompoop that he is. I'm quite certain that the Bush team would love to run against Howard Dean just as much as they would love to run against Al Sharpton. I believe that they are cringing at the thought of running against Wesley Clark, and for very good reason. Let the games begin!!!!!
Dean and Clark losing have nothing to do with a Jewish wife or being half-jewish. This is ridiculous. The fact that Gore almost (or did he?) won the last election with Lieberman as the VP showed people really do not see this as an issue. You sound like someone searching for racism where is doesn't exist.
I'm surprised by the results, but not unhappy at all. Although I agree with Dean's views, I think he has an abrasive style that turns a lot of people off. On the other hand, I've got very high hopes for Edwards -- I think Southern Democrats are currently the party's best hope for electability. Edwards distinguished himself in Iowa by running a positive, upbeat campaign, and that seems to be playing well with voters who are tired of the bickering. I think he's going to surprise a lot of people with his increasing popularity as this campaign goes on.
Deckard, Macbeth, I didn't start this thread to bash Clark, nor in fact did I start the Drudge thread for that reason. In the latter case I merely wanted to vet what I saw as a real issue. Defensiveness in the face of legitimate scrutiny is no more attractive from the left than it is from the right, and I abandoned that thread because it had degenerated into meaningless name calling and attempts to paint republicans as racist. In this case I wanted to talk about what the results mean for the rest of the campaign for the democratic nomination. there'll be ample time to discuss the race against Bush after the dem nominee becomes clear. There are three ways for a republican to look at this process. One is as a partisan, through the prisim of which democrat would be the easiest for Bush to defeat. I don't really find this discussion thhat interesting, but for the record, of the major candidates, it's probably Dean and then Clark, for reasons which I'll explain in a moment. The second way to view the contest is to actually consider which candidate would be the best president. After all, there's a not inconsiderable chance that one of these guys could end up in the white house a year from now. Consequently, it's important to find out who these guys are, what their strengths and weaknesses are, by subjecting them to the same critical process that the left does GWB. I see nothing wrong with this and if I make a point in a post that highlights a particular weakness it's usually an honest attempt to discuss the issue. Lastly, there's pure political theater, and last night's caucuses were great political theater. I've been following politics since 1964 when my parents were the only people on our cirlcle in Kensington, MD to vote for Goldwater. Along the way I've voted for Carter, John Anderson, GHWB, Clinton, and GWB. Seldom in my experience has a candidate gone as quickly from juggernaut to also-ran as Dean did in the past few weeks. Moreover, the rise of Edwards to serious contender in the same time is equally fascinating. Now, purely as an academic exercise, my thoughts on each of the main remaining candidates: -Kerry: The best qualified of the bunch, although I wonder if he'd be able to put his Vietnam mindset behind him if the country were once again attacked like we were on 9/11. His war experience gives him an invaluable perspective, but I fear he'd be unable to take the risks necessary to respond to an al Queda-like threat in the way GWB has. Of course, I view W's response to the war on terror favorably, something many of you do not share. I have trouble seeing a liberal northeasterner winning the election, however. -Edwards: If he catches fire, this is the guy Bush should fear most. He's got something of Clinton in his personality, and I think most americans glance cursorily at the issues and then vote for the guy they like. He's got great energy, and he's the only dem who has a chance in the south. -Dean: Iowa seems to demonstrate that opposition to the war isn't the strong issue w/ dems that Dean thought it was. W/o that, his candidacy loses it's raison d'etre. Voters seem to have tired of his abrasiveness, and I just don't see him gaining any traction in the south. His implication that he'd take his supporters home with him if he didn't get the nomination may have turned a lot of voters off. He's got a formidable organisation and a ton of money however, so I think he'll remain a player as long as he wants to be. If two of the other candidates end up tied, Dean's support could put them over the top. -Clark: He's the hardest to get a read on, but by next week we'll know alot more about his chances. He's certainly a brilliant guy, and on the face of it his military background should be a major plus. He lacks the common touch however, something that Clinton, another brilliant guy, had in spades. He's been almost as relentless as Dean in his attacks on Bush over the war. His earlier statements on this issue, both in his testamony to congress and comments on CNN and elsewhere, will almost certainly come back to haunt him in a general election, and then there's the video where he extolls the virtue of the entire Bush team. Next week we'll learn more, but I don't think he's as formidable a candidate as many would believe. In retrospect, perhaps I should have posted in Major's thread, rather than starting my own. Perhaps in the future we could have one thread for each primary, like the game threads. Admins please feel free to merge this one w/ the other.
Only if the facts are distorted and misinterpreted, which is likely. I can understand you avoiding your Clark thread because of the sidebar Ted Nugent/racist crap, but there's some legit arguments in there by myself and others I'd like to see your response to. I'm trying to resist bumping it just to get your attention. I don't get your point about Kerry and his Vietnam mindset in responding to a potential terrorist attack. Could you explain that some more? What "risks" would he shy away from in the war on terror? Creating the Dept of Homeland Security? Going after terror-support bank accounts? I wonder if Clark really has the personal touch myself. My biggest problem with him is he hasn't defused the criticism on his imaginary stance-switching on the war. If I'm doing a better job explaining it than he is, there's something wrong. It's true that many americans vote for the guy that they like, I think that happened with Clinton. Now I'm really curious about Edwards, didn't know he's from the south, I'll have to read up on him.
Well, I don't disagree, but Clark losing probably has more to do with him skipping Iowa. I agree wholeheartedly with Mrs. JB. I think Edwards has a great shot to take the Presidency if he can make it out of the primaries. A southern Democrat who's fairly moderate and brings us a positive message with solutions is the Republicans biggest nightmare. I predict you'll start hearing the words "trial" and "lawyer" spewing out of the RNC pretty soon.
watching all of them, i "like" Edwards the most. even when i don't agree with him, he's still likeable.
I'm sure you will. I hope the DNC responds with the proper and accurate terms "trust fund baby" and "draft dodger" from Dubya's past, and "disengaged", "arrogant", "imperialist", and "out of touch with working people" from Dubya's present.
