I didn't say he'd win the nomination... I only said that Independants like him. He's never ran for office... which certainly doesn't help him... and he entered the race late which also hurts his chances.
It's nice to see how the republicans treat a decorated war hero. Not any better than how they treated McCain with push polls... or showing images of Max Cleland with a photo of Osama and questioning his patriotism.
But a Dean/Clark ticket... don't think that scares the republican strategists a little?
Dean/Clark, now that's a little more interesting - although Vice Presidential canidates usually have a negative impact, or none at all.
Frankly, I think Dean is a stronger canidate - Clark is going to get beat up pretty bad...
You have'nt mentioned Hillary...to me she has an outstanding chance if she ran - there is much left to say about her that has'nt been aired...
For those who think that you can't find a good newspaper in a "red state," read this sharp analysis of Dean's press treatment in the Pahrump Valley Times . That's Pahrump Valley, Nevada, if you were wondering.
Quote:
The Washington Post in July said Dean "is seen as the most liberal of the major Democratic candidates." Notice here the weasel words "is seen as." This sentence represents a campaign press corps (with the Post's own reporters in the forefront) portraying Dean as liberal and then describing the effect of its portrayal.
Howard Dean is a medical doctor, and in the U.S. a liberal physician is nearly a contradiction in terms, but the portrayal of Dean is flawed in more ways than that. To some extent what we're seeing is projection by both press and public. Among journalists, there is a practice of using litmus tests to determine labels for politicians. For instance, they determine whether a candidate supports women's issues by zeroing in principally on abortion and projecting from there.
Dr. Dean is gaining support from a lot of people who have no idea what he stands for - and would probably be appalled by many of his positions. As governor of Vermont, he was the darling of the National Rifle Association, supported the death penalty, ran amok handing out tax loopholes to business, slashed taxes (a whopping 30 percent in state income tax rates), curbed services to the poor, championed a relatively punitive welfare-to-work program, clashed repeatedly with environmentalists, and was the target of a liberal impeachment effort for cutting social programs.
But national journalists looked at his opposition to the Iraq war and the fact that as governor he signed the bill making gay civil unions legal, then applied the label: Liberal. It's a preposterous conclusion from miniscule bits of evidence.
Regardless of all this, the Republican marketing machine will still convince middle-america that Dr. Dean is a liberal and therefore cannot be trusted to run the country. Shame.
He's pretty much a centrist... he comes from a state with lots of hunters ... no big urban centers... a small population in general... and the state is very liberal... he was bound to piss people off.
Civil Unions between gays is not a big deal to most people in the center... and neither is opposing the war in Iraq... if they push that as being liberal they'll find alot of people don't disagree with it...
Dennis Kucinich is by far the most outwardly liberal... and Kerry votes very liberal in the senate... Kucinich is a good guy... but not electable... Kerry could get elected but his style isn't reporter friendly... he doesn't speak in sound bites.
Comments
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I didn't say he'd win the nomination... I only said that Independants like him. He's never ran for office... which certainly doesn't help him... and he entered the race late which also hurts his chances.
It's nice to see how the republicans treat a decorated war hero. Not any better than how they treated McCain with push polls... or showing images of Max Cleland with a photo of Osama and questioning his patriotism.
But a Dean/Clark ticket... don't think that scares the republican strategists a little?
Dean/Clark, now that's a little more interesting - although Vice Presidential canidates usually have a negative impact, or none at all.
Frankly, I think Dean is a stronger canidate - Clark is going to get beat up pretty bad...
You have'nt mentioned Hillary...to me she has an outstanding chance if she ran - there is much left to say about her that has'nt been aired...
She's doing her best for NY in the Senate...
that's where we (as New Yorkers) need her.
I wonder how the SCLM will cover the protests at the GOP convention in NYC next year?
Originally posted by chu_bakka
She isn't going to run... so the point is moot.
She's doing her best for NY in the Senate...
that's where we (as New Yorkers) need her.
I wonder how the SCLM will cover the protests at the GOP convention in NYC next year?
Sorry SLMC?
The Washington Post in July said Dean "is seen as the most liberal of the major Democratic candidates." Notice here the weasel words "is seen as." This sentence represents a campaign press corps (with the Post's own reporters in the forefront) portraying Dean as liberal and then describing the effect of its portrayal.
Howard Dean is a medical doctor, and in the U.S. a liberal physician is nearly a contradiction in terms, but the portrayal of Dean is flawed in more ways than that. To some extent what we're seeing is projection by both press and public. Among journalists, there is a practice of using litmus tests to determine labels for politicians. For instance, they determine whether a candidate supports women's issues by zeroing in principally on abortion and projecting from there.
Dr. Dean is gaining support from a lot of people who have no idea what he stands for - and would probably be appalled by many of his positions. As governor of Vermont, he was the darling of the National Rifle Association, supported the death penalty, ran amok handing out tax loopholes to business, slashed taxes (a whopping 30 percent in state income tax rates), curbed services to the poor, championed a relatively punitive welfare-to-work program, clashed repeatedly with environmentalists, and was the target of a liberal impeachment effort for cutting social programs.
But national journalists looked at his opposition to the Iraq war and the fact that as governor he signed the bill making gay civil unions legal, then applied the label: Liberal. It's a preposterous conclusion from miniscule bits of evidence.
Regardless of all this, the Republican marketing machine will still convince middle-america that Dr. Dean is a liberal and therefore cannot be trusted to run the country. Shame.
Civil Unions between gays is not a big deal to most people in the center... and neither is opposing the war in Iraq... if they push that as being liberal they'll find alot of people don't disagree with it...
Dennis Kucinich is by far the most outwardly liberal... and Kerry votes very liberal in the senate... Kucinich is a good guy... but not electable... Kerry could get elected but his style isn't reporter friendly... he doesn't speak in sound bites.