Dean would have been more interesting. Honestly, I think he would have actually had a better chance.
The problem with Kerry is that he's basically won the nomination by default. After Dean's demise, only Edwards could challenge him, and he didn't really have the resources to do it.
Fran, Kerry is in big trouble. Bush has had a terrible 3 months, and his poll numbers have gone UP, not down. To answer some of what you said:
1) Clinton doesn't want Kerry to win. He's going to screw him. Guaranteed.
2) Umm...the convention? The morons are having it in JULY....while the Republicans are having theirs in September. Bush will unload all his primary money on Kerry in a span of 60 days. Momentum? How? The Republican convention will be followed by the 9/11 anniversay. Timing is everything here.
Fran, Kerry is weak. I understand that you cannot stand Bush, but that doesn't make Kerry anymore attractive.
Dean is a .bomb loser from a fifth rate state. The internet and media hyped him up to more than his was and now were all wonder what happened. What happened was that he was nothing to begin with.
Bush is the incumbent... he should be a minimum of 8 points ahead right now... but he isn't.
You need a record you can brag about in order to capitalize on your incumbency...and Bush doesn't have one.
It's the candidate that appeals to the middle that will win.
When people step into the voting booth and think... do I want someone new? or is the guy in there now going to do a better job than he did in his first term?
When things aren't going well, it's not very reassuring when the guy in command shows no inclination to change course or admit mistakes.
Please? Bush was grinning from ear to ear at the prospect of running against Dean.
Clinton? McCain? You're in irrational Dean worship land. Come back to reality.
If Bush was so happy to face Dean then why did the Republican Slander machine work overtime against him so early?
And I wasn't that big of a Dean fan. Actually at all. I was looking over the field to see who I liked best. I favored McCain more, by far. But by and large I don't like anyone running.
And when did Clinton or McCain EVER show that much excitement over being able to set policies back on a rational path? I remember the Clinton campaign well enough to not remember him show that type of emotion.
And when did Clinton or McCain EVER show that much excitement over being able to set policies back on a rational path? I remember the Clinton campaign well enough to not remember him show that type of emotion.
as a resident of louisiana, and next door to mississippi and alabama, allow me to just say that "fifth rate" is still better than some "third world" states i know of.
i mean, sure, it's small, and kinda wedged up in the corner geographically, and doesn't have a reputation of other states for certain commodities or lifestyles, but still, if you can get past the winters, vermont ain't a bad place to be. i just cannot stand very long, cold winters...
I personally didn't like Dean as much as I liked the prospect of Clark. Valid he was very passionate about the country and everything but I don't think he was ready for the big time. For me its entirely on who's kerry's VP side of things if I vote for him, or else I'll probably not vote at all. Seeing as how if I voted democratic in the middle of a politcal texas rut, I don't see it making much difference anyway.
Wesley Clark had something smelly about him...somthing "sellout"-ish about him. I know that I'm not alone in that perception. It was the equivalent of someone "going Hollywood". He allowed himself to "go fake" and it showed. His very real credentials fell aside when he began acting like a politician... saying things he had to spin later when he realized he'd said too much.
That inexperience with the real world of politics is, in a similar manner, what happened to the Dean camp. His disparate klatch of followers spread across the country had passion, but passion that had never been tempered with the realities of politics. Quickly built, quickly spent, McAuliffe & Clinton's machinations of the Dem machine was something that Dean's advisors could understand and anticipate, but something that his followers couldn't.
Coupled with the relentless pressure of media scrutiny, Dean's "pitchfork army" was quickly scattered by the more experienced militia of the Democratic establishment. Anyone who believes that the Republicans were solely (or even primarily) responsible for Dean's downfall didn't pay attention to what was happening.
Senator Kerry has things that Dean didn't and never would. He has the backing of influential Democratic patriarchs, he has deep pockets, he knows how to ride the waves of the media reporters, he knows how to doublespeak as only beltway insiders can, he has a military past from which to draw (although one that is horrifyingly controversial (horrifying that is for his managers)) and he has TV hair.
But now that we're three or four months beyond Dean it does become obvious that Kerry truly isn't as strong as he'd like to be. His beltway experience seems to have (for the moment) become very unimportant. Howard Dean's denouncements of Bush would ring far more clearer than Kerry's at this point because Kerry's record is entangled in the record of the invasion of Iraq. This is the easiest assault on the President and Dean would have seemed to represent the "everyman" from here to November.
So yes, at this point in time I believe that Dean (had he won more primaries) would have far more influence on public opinion. Between Clark, Dean and Kerry it was Dean whose message rang most true.
I was referring to his infamous "yell" and the intensity and enjoyment on his face at rallies. You don;t see any of these guys actuall happy to be making a difference, or trying to.
Not to say that Dean would be the next GREAT president by any means. It just would be nice to see someone WANT to do good things rather than simply just want to elected.
Bush is the incumbent... he should be a minimum of 8 points ahead right now... but he isn't.
You need a record you can brag about in order to capitalize on your incumbency...and Bush doesn't have one.
It's the candidate that appeals to the middle that will win.
When people step into the voting booth and think... do I want someone new? or is the guy in there now going to do a better job than he did in his first term?
When things aren't going well, it's not very reassuring when the guy in command shows no inclination to change course or admit mistakes.
This is all pretty rhetorical thinking on your part. Bush has some problems, and so does Kerry.
Bush: Iraq hasn't been going well from a political standpoint. The polls on this issue aren't looking good for him. He also is going to take heat about the deficit. These are his two weak points right now. It's funny though, that even though there has been bad news coming out of Iraq, his overall numbers haven't gone down much. That doesn't make a lot of sense.
Kerry: Kerry is vulnerable on his flip flops, his voting record, his anti-war activities (and admitting to comitting war crimes....admitting it on camera), and frankly, his personality that makes the statue of liberty look animated. He's going to lose the extreme left vote because of his support for the war, and in that same vein, Nadar isn't going to help him.
Honestly, I don't see Kerry pulling this out. There simply isn't the enthusiasm for him. Much of his support (and it's substantial) comes from those who are simply A.B.B (anyone but Bush). That's not going to win him the election.
Boy you know 2000 was Gore's election to lose and he lost it. I was hoping Gore would give a good reason to vote for him and he never did. Now Kerry should have a slam dunk against Bush and it's already in question. In the spirit of David Chappelle, "Democrats are fuckin' up"
I like how the manufactured Republican Kerry talking points are now blithely talked about as if they were actual Kerry attributes.
Thus: Kerry's political problems are his "horrifyingly controversial war record"
and his "flip-flops".
Now I grant you, these notions may play in the election, but they bear as much relationship to Kerry's actual war record and voting record as the meme "Gore is a serial liar who will say anything to get elected" did to Al.
But of course, this is the idea, to normalize what was once scurrilous slander and name calling into conventional wisdom so that you can con the electorate into thinking: "I dunno, that Kerry fellow makes some good points, but I don't know if I want to put a flip-flopper into the white house." Of course without actually knowing what Kerry might have "flip-flopped" on.
Even the term is obviously designed to be an easy mnemonic for weak character, combining attributes of a fish with indecisiveness.
I'm sure Karl Rove is delighted, but I can't see how anybody else should be.
I like how the manufactured Republican Kerry talking points are now blithely talked about as if they were actual Kerry attributes.
Thus: Kerry's political problems are his "horrifyingly controversial war record"
and his "flip-flops".
Now I grant you, these notions may play in the election, but they bear as much relationship to Kerry's actual war record and voting record as the meme "Gore is a serial liar who will say anything to get elected" did to Al.
But of course, this is the idea, to normalize what was once scurrilous slander and name calling into conventional wisdom so that you can con the electorate into thinking: "I dunno, that Kerry fellow makes some good points, but I don't know if I want to put a flip-flopper into the white house." Of course without actually knowing what Kerry might have "flip-flopped" on.
Even the term is obviously designed to be an easy mnemonic for weak character, combining attributes of a fish with indecisiveness.
I'm sure Karl Rove is delighted, but I can't see how anybody else should be.
I don't know if I would call the Kerry "flip-flops" a product of Republican talking points as Clinton used them equally well against Dole in 1996.
I think it is something about the nature of the Senate. It must do something to people in how they talk and vote that no other office seems to do. Historically it has been almost impossible to get elected from the Senate.
I don't know if I would call the Kerry "flip-flops" a product of Republican talking points as Clinton used them equally well against Dole in 1996.
I think it is something about the nature of the Senate. It must do something to people in how they talk and vote that no other office seems to do. Historically it has been almost impossible to get elected from the Senate.
Nick
Point well taken.
Since the Senate is the more deliberative body, I assume there is more opportunity for nuanced response to the issues that come before it, opening Senators to this "wishy-washy" thing. (Which is stupid no matter who is doing it).
WHile Clinton certainly used the label against Dole, I don't recall it becoming one of these mantras, where the label practically becomes a synonym for the candidate.
WHile Clinton certainly used the label against Dole, I don't recall it becoming one of these mantras, where the label practically becomes a synonym for the candidate.
The Clinton/Gore 1996 mantra was Dole-Gingrich as if Gingrich was Dole's last name.
From an article about conservatives becoming dissatisfied with Bush, this bit:
After three years of sweeping actions in both foreign and domestic affairs, the Bush administration is facing complaints from the conservative intelligentsia that it has lost its ability to produce fresh policies.
The centerpiece of President Bush's foreign policy -- the effort to transform Iraq into a peaceful democracy -- has been undermined by a deadly insurrection and broadcast photos of brutality by U.S. prison guards. On the domestic side, conservatives and former administration officials say the White House policy apparatus is moribund, with policies driven by political expediency or ideological pressure rather than by facts and expertise.
I was under the impression that was what they liked. I mean, there are only three real reasons to support Bush:
1.) You like expending America's credibility on massive fuck-ups in other countries.
2.) You like hearing conservative rhetoric married to poorly thought-out ideas with severe and hidden negative consequences, enacted just to shut up whoever's complaining the loudest.
3.) You really, really hate Democrats.
Even if your reasons for supporting Bush trended towards number 3, I wouldn't think that would be enough to ignore 1 and 2. I'm glad they're finally realizing it, but there hasn't been any real change between 2001 and 2004, except that the screwups can't be directly blamed on Clinton anymore. Name me something the Bush folks have done based on facts and expertise, please. It would be a nice surprise.
Comments
The problem with Kerry is that he's basically won the nomination by default. After Dean's demise, only Edwards could challenge him, and he didn't really have the resources to do it.
Fran, Kerry is in big trouble. Bush has had a terrible 3 months, and his poll numbers have gone UP, not down. To answer some of what you said:
1) Clinton doesn't want Kerry to win. He's going to screw him. Guaranteed.
2) Umm...the convention? The morons are having it in JULY....while the Republicans are having theirs in September. Bush will unload all his primary money on Kerry in a span of 60 days. Momentum? How? The Republican convention will be followed by the 9/11 anniversay. Timing is everything here.
Fran, Kerry is weak. I understand that you cannot stand Bush, but that doesn't make Kerry anymore attractive.
Bush is the incumbent... he should be a minimum of 8 points ahead right now... but he isn't.
You need a record you can brag about in order to capitalize on your incumbency...and Bush doesn't have one.
It's the candidate that appeals to the middle that will win.
When people step into the voting booth and think... do I want someone new? or is the guy in there now going to do a better job than he did in his first term?
When things aren't going well, it's not very reassuring when the guy in command shows no inclination to change course or admit mistakes.
Originally posted by Scott
Please? Bush was grinning from ear to ear at the prospect of running against Dean.
Clinton? McCain? You're in irrational Dean worship land. Come back to reality.
If Bush was so happy to face Dean then why did the Republican Slander machine work overtime against him so early?
And I wasn't that big of a Dean fan. Actually at all. I was looking over the field to see who I liked best. I favored McCain more, by far. But by and large I don't like anyone running.
And when did Clinton or McCain EVER show that much excitement over being able to set policies back on a rational path? I remember the Clinton campaign well enough to not remember him show that type of emotion.
Originally posted by FaydRautha
...
And when did Clinton or McCain EVER show that much excitement over being able to set policies back on a rational path? I remember the Clinton campaign well enough to not remember him show that type of emotion.
When did Dean?
Originally posted by Scott
Dean is a .bomb loser from a fifth rate state.
as a resident of louisiana, and next door to mississippi and alabama, allow me to just say that "fifth rate" is still better than some "third world" states i know of.
i mean, sure, it's small, and kinda wedged up in the corner geographically, and doesn't have a reputation of other states for certain commodities or lifestyles, but still, if you can get past the winters, vermont ain't a bad place to be. i just cannot stand very long, cold winters...
That inexperience with the real world of politics is, in a similar manner, what happened to the Dean camp. His disparate klatch of followers spread across the country had passion, but passion that had never been tempered with the realities of politics. Quickly built, quickly spent, McAuliffe & Clinton's machinations of the Dem machine was something that Dean's advisors could understand and anticipate, but something that his followers couldn't.
Coupled with the relentless pressure of media scrutiny, Dean's "pitchfork army" was quickly scattered by the more experienced militia of the Democratic establishment. Anyone who believes that the Republicans were solely (or even primarily) responsible for Dean's downfall didn't pay attention to what was happening.
Senator Kerry has things that Dean didn't and never would. He has the backing of influential Democratic patriarchs, he has deep pockets, he knows how to ride the waves of the media reporters, he knows how to doublespeak as only beltway insiders can, he has a military past from which to draw (although one that is horrifyingly controversial (horrifying that is for his managers)) and he has TV hair.
But now that we're three or four months beyond Dean it does become obvious that Kerry truly isn't as strong as he'd like to be. His beltway experience seems to have (for the moment) become very unimportant. Howard Dean's denouncements of Bush would ring far more clearer than Kerry's at this point because Kerry's record is entangled in the record of the invasion of Iraq. This is the easiest assault on the President and Dean would have seemed to represent the "everyman" from here to November.
So yes, at this point in time I believe that Dean (had he won more primaries) would have far more influence on public opinion. Between Clark, Dean and Kerry it was Dean whose message rang most true.
That doesn't mean I would have voted for him.
Originally posted by Scott
When did Dean?
I was referring to his infamous "yell" and the intensity and enjoyment on his face at rallies. You don;t see any of these guys actuall happy to be making a difference, or trying to.
Not to say that Dean would be the next GREAT president by any means. It just would be nice to see someone WANT to do good things rather than simply just want to elected.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Kerry is plenty electable.
Bush is the incumbent... he should be a minimum of 8 points ahead right now... but he isn't.
You need a record you can brag about in order to capitalize on your incumbency...and Bush doesn't have one.
It's the candidate that appeals to the middle that will win.
When people step into the voting booth and think... do I want someone new? or is the guy in there now going to do a better job than he did in his first term?
When things aren't going well, it's not very reassuring when the guy in command shows no inclination to change course or admit mistakes.
This is all pretty rhetorical thinking on your part. Bush has some problems, and so does Kerry.
Bush: Iraq hasn't been going well from a political standpoint. The polls on this issue aren't looking good for him. He also is going to take heat about the deficit. These are his two weak points right now. It's funny though, that even though there has been bad news coming out of Iraq, his overall numbers haven't gone down much. That doesn't make a lot of sense.
Kerry: Kerry is vulnerable on his flip flops, his voting record, his anti-war activities (and admitting to comitting war crimes....admitting it on camera), and frankly, his personality that makes the statue of liberty look animated. He's going to lose the extreme left vote because of his support for the war, and in that same vein, Nadar isn't going to help him.
Honestly, I don't see Kerry pulling this out. There simply isn't the enthusiasm for him. Much of his support (and it's substantial) comes from those who are simply A.B.B (anyone but Bush). That's not going to win him the election.
Thus: Kerry's political problems are his "horrifyingly controversial war record"
and his "flip-flops".
Now I grant you, these notions may play in the election, but they bear as much relationship to Kerry's actual war record and voting record as the meme "Gore is a serial liar who will say anything to get elected" did to Al.
But of course, this is the idea, to normalize what was once scurrilous slander and name calling into conventional wisdom so that you can con the electorate into thinking: "I dunno, that Kerry fellow makes some good points, but I don't know if I want to put a flip-flopper into the white house." Of course without actually knowing what Kerry might have "flip-flopped" on.
Even the term is obviously designed to be an easy mnemonic for weak character, combining attributes of a fish with indecisiveness.
I'm sure Karl Rove is delighted, but I can't see how anybody else should be.
Originally posted by addabox
I like how the manufactured Republican Kerry talking points are now blithely talked about as if they were actual Kerry attributes.
Thus: Kerry's political problems are his "horrifyingly controversial war record"
and his "flip-flops".
Now I grant you, these notions may play in the election, but they bear as much relationship to Kerry's actual war record and voting record as the meme "Gore is a serial liar who will say anything to get elected" did to Al.
But of course, this is the idea, to normalize what was once scurrilous slander and name calling into conventional wisdom so that you can con the electorate into thinking: "I dunno, that Kerry fellow makes some good points, but I don't know if I want to put a flip-flopper into the white house." Of course without actually knowing what Kerry might have "flip-flopped" on.
Even the term is obviously designed to be an easy mnemonic for weak character, combining attributes of a fish with indecisiveness.
I'm sure Karl Rove is delighted, but I can't see how anybody else should be.
I don't know if I would call the Kerry "flip-flops" a product of Republican talking points as Clinton used them equally well against Dole in 1996.
I think it is something about the nature of the Senate. It must do something to people in how they talk and vote that no other office seems to do. Historically it has been almost impossible to get elected from the Senate.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I don't know if I would call the Kerry "flip-flops" a product of Republican talking points as Clinton used them equally well against Dole in 1996.
I think it is something about the nature of the Senate. It must do something to people in how they talk and vote that no other office seems to do. Historically it has been almost impossible to get elected from the Senate.
Nick
Point well taken.
Since the Senate is the more deliberative body, I assume there is more opportunity for nuanced response to the issues that come before it, opening Senators to this "wishy-washy" thing. (Which is stupid no matter who is doing it).
WHile Clinton certainly used the label against Dole, I don't recall it becoming one of these mantras, where the label practically becomes a synonym for the candidate.
Originally posted by addabox
WHile Clinton certainly used the label against Dole, I don't recall it becoming one of these mantras, where the label practically becomes a synonym for the candidate.
The Clinton/Gore 1996 mantra was Dole-Gingrich as if Gingrich was Dole's last name.
Originally posted by Scott
When did Dean?
Maybe you missed his speeches.
Originally posted by FaydRautha
Maybe you missed his speeches.
Yea I say one or two. He had the angry stichk going on.
http://www.pandagon.net/
No Longer Enchanted
From an article about conservatives becoming dissatisfied with Bush, this bit:
After three years of sweeping actions in both foreign and domestic affairs, the Bush administration is facing complaints from the conservative intelligentsia that it has lost its ability to produce fresh policies.
The centerpiece of President Bush's foreign policy -- the effort to transform Iraq into a peaceful democracy -- has been undermined by a deadly insurrection and broadcast photos of brutality by U.S. prison guards. On the domestic side, conservatives and former administration officials say the White House policy apparatus is moribund, with policies driven by political expediency or ideological pressure rather than by facts and expertise.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...13027_2004may9
I was under the impression that was what they liked. I mean, there are only three real reasons to support Bush:
1.) You like expending America's credibility on massive fuck-ups in other countries.
2.) You like hearing conservative rhetoric married to poorly thought-out ideas with severe and hidden negative consequences, enacted just to shut up whoever's complaining the loudest.
3.) You really, really hate Democrats.
Even if your reasons for supporting Bush trended towards number 3, I wouldn't think that would be enough to ignore 1 and 2. I'm glad they're finally realizing it, but there hasn't been any real change between 2001 and 2004, except that the screwups can't be directly blamed on Clinton anymore. Name me something the Bush folks have done based on facts and expertise, please. It would be a nice surprise.