Kerry now up by 18 points

New Hampshire people must be crazy to support Kerry. He's old, and has no charm; more importantly, he is not a principled man. He can be a good lawmaker but he can't be a national leader. Supporting Kerry is a unwise move because he is unelectable beyond Massachusetts. You basically waste your vote on him. IMO there are no excellent candidates from democrative side this year, none. Clark doesn't look presidential, according to his physiognomy, which is an important factor. Dean doesn't have it, Kerry doesn't have it either. Only Edwards looks good. Edwards' advantage is his pretty face and agreeable manner and personality, plus his root in the South. But these qualities still don't make him a good president. A president needs to be a visionary of the future and should be himself a mature thinking machine. Can you say any of these four major candidates possessing such qualities? Democrats should give credits to Howard Dean for standing up to Bush by supporting him. That is a matter of principle. Running for the presidency is not a beauty contest; otherwise democrats should nominate Ben Affleck for president. Democrats should not unseat Bush for unseat Bush's sake. If you replace a Bush with another Bushlite, why waste taxpayers' money for an election? You might as well let Bush sit for another four years. To give Bush a good run in November, first, Dems need a principled man, (which Kerry is not) second, they need a charmer. The Dean/Edwards (principled man plus a Southern pretty face) ticket is the best choice and best hope for the Democrats.

 

These are single-day polls, but according to Suffolk Dean has moved to back within one point and Zogby shows Kerry only four points up on Friday.

God, this is fun. I have no idea who is more electable, but the idea that a big Kerry win could end all of this on Tuesday was just a little sad. Let it go all the way to the convention and make the race the only major news story from now until July.

 

While I obviously would feel comfortable voting in the general election for any of the guys with a realistic shot at the nomination, I really hope Kerry doesn't win. He has no charisma and would get rolled over by Bush.

 

One thing is for sure: any former Dean supporters who were switching to Kerry because of that 'yeeeeeaaaaaaooooowwwhhh' incident are either politcial IDIOTs or FOOLS or brainless, gullible victims of anti-Dean propaganda.

 

I completely agree. I have a gut feeling that Dean is going to stage a comeback. This thing is getting an aura of inevitability. John Kerry of today is the same John Kerry that the Democrats were rejecting some four weeks ago. Watch how fast this love affair vanishes.

I suspect that Kerry will pull it out, but by only 3 or 4 points. The perception will be that Dean, like Clinton, is the "comeback" kid.

Finally, next week is when this thing begins. South Carolina (Edwards) Arizona (Liberman) and Missouri (Clark) could all split this thing in multiple ways.

Is Hillary watching?

 

Voting for John Kerry == voting for Bob Dole.

 

I don't think that's what he meant. He meant a vote for John Kerry is a wasted vote because he would get crushed in the general election.

 

Ben, what I implied is - Kerry will lose the election like Dole did, if he was nominated.

I am not saying he is not a liberal.

A wafflering, unprincipled liberal at least.

 

This DEFINES the Democratic Party. Dean stuck with the liberals on the Iraq question, but if you look at his record in VT, there's plenty of unprincipled "wafflering" going on in favor of corporations. No one is worse than Senator Lieberman (R) - CT though.

 

Wafflering, is it? Our resident genetic expert with questionable command of the English language strikes again, it seems.

Clark's physiognomy is fine - its Dean's that's the problem. Every time I see Dean he seems like he's either at a rodeo or getting a proctology exam. He has the most uncomfortable smile of any man I've ever seen. Clark, meanwhile, looks fine, and even Presidential. As to your deluded and groundless belief that he's a Bush "lite" - provide some examples. He's pro-choice, pro affirmative action, against the Patriot act, what else do you want?

I don't really like Dean or Kerry, but to say they're "wafflering", whatever that means is just stupid. No good politician completely adheres to a set of ideals. Those that do are either maniacs, losers, extremists or a combination of all three (Nader).

 

I've spent plenty of time at rodeos and I'll have you know our smiles look all-natural, thankyou.

 

Waffling, that is. Kerry, a Washington insider, trusted Bush. Don't forget that. He voted for authorization of the invasion of Iraq which now unnecessarily resulting in more than 500 Americans' death. Now he is stealing everything Dean has to say to the potential voters and pretend he is anti-war. He is imitating at most. And his lead over Dean is shrinking fast to only 12% this morning because people realize that Dean is the real man. Apparently some of former Dean supporters have woken up.

Clark supported and praised Bush's war before he decided to run for president. He has no political conviction before that moment.

"No good politician completely adheres to a set of ideals?" what a lame excuse for business as usual. That's why we need Dean, a fresh face and force, in the White House.

As far as physiognomy goes, I already said none of them are looking good except Edwards.

 

Kerry looked pretty good in the hockey uniform last night on C-SPAN, actually. Doesn't really fight in the crease, but then, he's more Robitaille than McSorley. The event was slightly marred by some gate-crasher from Vermont screaming "Check the tall guy into the boards! YAAARRGH!"

Anyone who doesn't love Clark's line about "putting on a flight suit and prancing around an aircraft carrier" hates America and all it stands for.

Lieberman got off some good shots against Bush. I don't know why he even bothered to run in the Republican primaries. Maybe Lieberman should join the Democratic Party.

 

Riding the bull?

 

You know, he's a Senator. He has to occasionally take the President's word for something. He was wrong to vote for the war, and he says that now.
As for being a Washington insider - who cares?

No, he says he was wrong in voting for the war. He's not yelling like crazy.

"The real man?" The real man who'll be creamed by Bush in the election, sure.

Oh god, not the Drudge report nonsense again.

Its not a lame excuse for business as usual. Its true. Every politician has his own core beliefs, but politics is about compromise, after all. Do you expect someone to be a traditional Democrat? Because if you do, you'd have to define it first. No such animal exists.
You think Dean is "principled"? He's as "wafflering" of a Democrat as anyone. He's very moderate, and relatively pro-business. How's he a liberal? The war issue shouldn't even be a liberal vs. conservative issue.

And you were wrong, I know.

 

Ted Kennedy is a senator too.

Of course he said it's wrong now, that's only because he wants to be the president.

He would say anything you wanted to hear.

But it's foolish to cast a vote for someone who has been historically waffling on the war issue since the invasion of Iraq. He will say things according to who the audiences are. And you took the baits.

 

And a poster child for principles, right? LOL.

I love mind readers. How do you know that?

Kerry has no idea what I want to hear. Perhaps he's being.........honest?

So according to you, one mistake equals waffling? Dean has taken some contrary positions too. Apparently he's unprincipled. Or is he allowed to change his mind?

 

How can you be positive if you know about the following of Kerry? You want to scream like Howard Dean! To quote RuthWA from atrios: