Who will be the Democrat Presidential nomination for 2004?

I hope it's Wesley Clark. But it will probably be Edwards.

 

I hope Kucinich, but also think Edwards will win.

 

How has the money raising effort gone for each of them?

 

I hope Clark, expect Kerry.

 

Imagine Clark and Bush standing side-by-side in a debate...

Gawd, I can at least dream.

 

Edwards is probably the nominee -- he's smooth, he's Southern, he's a lawyer...hmmmm, sound familiar?

Kerrey's too stiff ...Gephardt's even stiffer ...Lieberman's too conservative ...Sharpton's too divisive (Moseley-Braun's role is to, um, emasculate him politically). . .Dean's too liberal.

Hilary will sit this one out.

Clark would be an interesting choice, but his odds are dependent on how much money he can raise.

I have said this before, I think Gary Hart would be an interesting and potentially electable candidate. But like Clark, it depends on the dough.

 

Well, I live in Raleigh, and I just have a hard time seeing Edwards making it.

What I think people nationally don't understand is that the guy was essentially apolitical until he ran for the Senate. He caught alot of flak because he'd only voted about half the time. And I can't recall ever seeing him at any of the local Democratic party stuff (and I went to alot of that from about 1990 to 1996.) The man was less involved in politics than Bush, which is saying something.

I'm not saying he doesn't have alot of pluses, it's just that his political resume would be less impressive than Bush's, and Bush probably had the least impressive political resume of any president since Lincoln. (Well, if you don't count Eisenhower.)

Maybe that's the new era of politics now. Guys decide to run for office and 6 years later they're taking the presidential oath. Still seems weird.

I'll say one thing...a debate between Edwards and Bush, under any format, will be a mismatch of Real Madrid vs. Pittsburgh Riverhounds proportions.

 

This says volumes about the relationship between VT/New England and the rest of the country. One of the biggest criticisms of Gov. Dean around here for the last few years is that he is too conservative (of course the GOP tried to paint him as too liberal, to little success)! His strict adherence to fiscal discipline drove the Progressives and many Democrats nuts, even as they aplauded his liberal social views.

As for the eventual nominee? Who knows. I'm not particularly impressed by any of them yet, though hopefully that will change after meeting a few of them at next week's "100 Club" dinner.

 

Gee, where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, I remember, it was back in 2000 when the greatest debater of all-time, Al Gore, was going to clean GW's clock.

That final score again:

GWB 3, Al Gore 0

 

That may not be a good idea.

http://www.zpub.com/un/clark.html

I like Edward the best so far.

 

So when is it that you let a discharged Brit soldier decide your presidential nominee?

What a fukkin traitor...

 

You were upset because there's something in the internet saying something bad about your choice?

I like someone who is clean to begin with. Edward is better, young, smart, no political controversy, and surely can win a debate with Bush, i think. Putting a soldier in the White House? I am not sure about that.

 

That ain't exactly bad company, FWIW.


Alex

 

Yeah, kind of ironic, don't you think?

The difference betwen Bush and the other 3 guys is that Bush had a crappy non-political resume as well. He failed at a bunch of businesses until he used political influence to get the taxpayers to buy his team a stadium, at which point his team skyrocketed in value.

A year ago I never would have said this, but now I can: Now we know why that matters.

 

Fixed, and best of all, improved.

Some math isn't so fuzzy.

 

Fixed your post.

 

Maybe democrats should ask themselves a question. Out of John Kerrey, Joe Lieberman, Wesley Clark, John Edwards, Howard Dean, and Rev. Al Sharpton, who is the guy that Bush is mostly afraid of meeting face to face?

 

And then what? I remember how GHW Bush and his wise guys wanted Bill Clinton, he was such a piece of damaged goods.

I'd think Dean would be formidable in a debate, but then I thought that about Dukakis, too.

One thing that is a good rule of thumb, discount the conventional wisdom coming out of the superdaves of the world. Dubya vs. Gore was supposed to be a huge mismatch, too, superdave (like alot of Democrats) is still in denial about Dubya's political skills.

 

First, let's keep the revisionist history to a minimum please. Politically and intellectually Dubya v. Gore was every bit the mismatch it was supposed to be. But everyone, EVERYONE, always knew that Dubya was going to be much more personable and thus connect to voters in a way that Gore never could. Add in that America is clearly pretty much split down the middle on the issues, and it was always going to be a close election.

 

How is he too liberal? He is a fiscal conservative first of all, ballancing budgets by tighting the belt rather than raising taxes. He also is supported by the NRA, who agree with his gun control views (local option should decide, but he does support the Brady Bill and killing off sales at gun shows without background checks). Yes, he did sign the bill establising civil unions in VT, but they did it after the state Supreme Court said that it was legal. Dean is a lot more mainstream that a lot of people thing and he will make a damn good President.

 

I agree, as I posted earlier most of the complaints about him up here have come from other Democrats and the Progressives because of his conservative fiscal policies and willingness to cut spending to balance the budget. That said the GOP has attacked him with limited success on complaints of "big government" in reference to Act 250 (environmental review of developments) and Act 60 (school funding) and of course Civil Unions back in 2000. Plus he is running the furthest to the left of the major candidates in the primary so far. As this article from the AP yesterday shows, he is actively courting the activist/liberal base of the party that opposes war in Iraq and wants to see more opposition to W.

 

Clark: tall, handsome, a general- and smart as a whip.

 

You didn't fix it!

You RUINED it!

I HATE you!

Anyway, what's the point in writing to Bush? He hasn't even found out what happened to that caterpillar yet.

Better not show him "There's a Monster at the End of this Book!" It would probably have him hiding in the Lincoln Bedroom for a week.