'04 Democratic candidates

[Pharaohrock]

i actually think it's going to end up being GEPHARDT or KERRY, and more likely GEPHARDT. Gephardt took the popular position on the war and you can bet the Republicans will be reminding everyone of all the naysayers come election time.

Gephardt is also the strongest personality here, easily IMO, and the Democrats aren't going to win the next election without having someone strong and commanding like that, who also projects a certain Americanism in an overt way. Gephardt the Eagle scout is the guy. This is simply the terms the Bush admin. have set in wartime, that will carry through to the next election in my belief. I also think it's ill-advised to try and differentiate from Bush too much or attack him and there's no doubt that some Dems won't be able to resist that temptation. I think the anti-war Dems don't realize how much they've alienated middle America. So I'm hopeful Gephardt won't "go there" because I honestly think he's the best shot for a Democratic run at the White House, whether you like his politics or not.

Also, this Dean guy is pretty generic if you ask me, and he also has very weak name recognition. I can't see where he would end up being the nominee, and yet many are talking as if he's one of the strongest candidates. I don't get it.

Thoughts on the 04 Dems?

[Jazzmoose]

All I can say is that if it is Gephardt, welcome to Bush Jr., part II...

[weizen]

Yeah, it ain't a pretty picture --- basically Gephardt, four Senators and the lunatic fringe. I'd have to agree with you about Gephardt. He's the real "walk around pol" in the crowd. Dean isn't going anywhere and I just don't think Kerry has the star power to get beyond issues like throwing away his service medals. On top of that he's a bit too aloof for his own good and has a wife that has a 'loose cannon' gene floating around that spells
T-R-O-U-B-L-E. As for Lieberman.....well, he's good 'ol dutiful VP material.

[BFrank]

Really depressing.

[RonF]

Originally posted by weizen
Yeah, it ain't a pretty picture --- basically Gephardt, four Senators and the lunatic fringe. I'd have to agree with you about Gephardt. He's the real "walk around pol" in the crowd. Dean isn't going anywhere and I just don't think Kerry has the star power to get beyond issues like throwing away his service medals. On top of that he's a bit too aloof for his own good and has a wife that has a 'loose cannon' gene floating around that spells
T-R-O-U-B-L-E. As for Lieberman.....well, he's good 'ol dutiful VP material.

Depressing now but early in the game and Cowboy still has to calf rope that runaway economy.

Gephardt has been around too long. He's smart and has the experience of running for pres before but I don't think it matters. He compromised himself in jumping on Cowboy's War Wagon and he's a dull as a post.

I've actually heard mumblings of a Dean/Gen. Wesley Clark ticket which might be interesting but Dean has a long, long way to go. I don't think his anti-war stance hurt him as badly as some think. The jury's still out on how great Cowboy's war was. Lieberman has no chance. Kerry has the best shot at it, imo. He's working on that aloofness. Kerry is very intelligent, a war vet and extremely articulate. In a debate, unlike Al Gore, he could put Cowboy on display for what he really is. A puffed up buffoon. A pitiful puppet.

[Pharaohrock]

Kerry is a war vet, but Bush does a better job of *acting* like one.
Do most folks know the difference? Do they care???

[weizen]

Originally posted by RonF


Kerry is very intelligent, a war vet and extremely articulate.


Yes, he's definitely brainy. In a Senate commitee hearing room he will assimilate complicated information quickly and -- unlike the many members who mechanically rattle off the questions staff have prepared and then drift off -- will typically press ahead with probing/detailed follow-up questions. The problem (imo) is that, in addition to the other 'soft' spots I cited earlier, he also has a bit of a cold fish demeanor that people definitely pick up on.
You can always work out some of the kinks in your stage presence (clothing, hair, etc..) to better sell yourself --- but on a never ending campaign trail of pressing the flesh you just can't hide this. You either 'have it'...or you don't.

[3pointdeli]

yeah, and he "looks french."

[RonF]

Originally posted by weizen

You can always work out some of the kinks in your stage presence (clothing, hair, etc..) to better sell yourself --- but on a never ending campaign trail of pressing the flesh you just can't hide this. You either 'have it'...or you don't.

Cowboy's handlers sold him, weiz. If HE can do it, ANYONE CAN! :rolleyes:

So you think Cowboy "Has It", huh? EEEEK! :eek:

[RonF]

Originally posted by Pharaohrock
Kerry is a war vet, but Bush does a better job of *acting* like one.
Do most folks know the difference? Do they care???

No, most folks don't know the difference. Karl Rove and the puppeteers earn a living by making sure they don't. I have faith. Nobody dreamed that Cowboy's Dad could possibly lose and he boy did he lose. The public has a woefully short memory. The ratings will demonstrate that before long. The Rummy-Cheney led mob will attempt to keep the war and terror waters churning but it may backfire. We can always hope can't we? :)

[Andy D]

Hi.

Norm Chomsky calls this 'the manufacture of consent', one idea or though kept alive and real by the media. So the US has to have enemies, as we do in the UK and now people see suicide bombers under the bed instead of reds!

For me community development is the key Micheal Moore has some good ideas on how to create an alternative.

Regards

Andy D.

[Fran]

Originally posted by Pharaohrock
Kerry is a war vet, but Bush does a better job of *acting* like one.
Do most folks know the difference? Do they care???


Yes our Shrub II is another fake ala McCarthy.
Remember war time hero Churchill didn't last after the euphoria disipated. Lets hope the citizens see him for the charlatan he is by the time the election booths open for business.

[Andy D]

Hi.

Churchill was indeed displayced, more to do with economics than moral principles.

The trouble is that US media, and indeed the world media is very much biased towards the interests of a few. Michael Moore's book " Stupid White Men" is a great condemnation of the US System.

I have little faith in the people to see what is really happening, as long as the media is dominated by vested interests, and we are more interested in the points difference between the Rockets and the Spurs, than we are in the economic and social disparities that exist in the world.

Kind regards

Andy D.

[catesta]

Moore must have you on commission.:rolleyes:

[Andy D]

Well him ,Chomsky and the other liberal intelligencia:)

Andy D.

[Andy D]

Well I thought it was a type of 'spot cream', rather than some kind of contradictory terms

Seems to me that those who are critical of a system(s) often have terms like this thrown at them, systems need enemies and simple terms will do, the more simple the better these then become the 'slings and arrows' of the establishment.

Now I think I am beginning to sound like a conspiracy theorist:)

Regards

Andy D.

[KeithC]

"Isn't "liberal intelligencia" an oxymoron?"
Well it may be, but it's also spelt wrongly, try "intelligentsia" meaning that part of the nation that aspires to independent thinking (OED). So perhaps not an oxymoron, merely tautology.

[Andy D]

Now there is a concept 'nations that aspire to independent thinking' !

How do you go about this? I mean lets us imagine that there are restrictions on what you can watch on TV or write in newspapers. Let us imagine that country singers are banned from having their music played, because they talked about their feelings about the Iraq war.

Let us imagine that the divide between rich and poor, black and white, social class, education is one of the widest in the 'developed' world. Let us imagine that a country is responsible for 25% of the worlds polution and yet has a fraction of the worlds population and so and so on.

So how do we go about creating a nation that has independent thinking? A country in which independent thinkers are encouraged and given time to express their thoughts and ideas?

I hope I git the spelling right on this one:)

Regards

Andy D.

[Pharaohrock]

"So how do we go about creating a nation that has independent thinking? A country in which independent thinkers are encouraged and given time to express their thoughts and ideas?"

At the risk of sounding glib, scale this sucker down. People don't think because they believe someone else will think for them. If we had human life organized into smaller societies people would have to be more accountable to one another. As it stands we all have so much insulation, so many reasons to say "that's not my responsibility."

[Pharaohrock]

Am I the only one who thinks John Edwards is a completely goofy guy??

[Andy D]

I agree that things need to be scaled down.

One of the points made in " Stupid White Men" is what is possible when communities and groups, take up their own local issues and become 'interested' in things.

Trouble is it is all very global and corporate and this makes it so much more difficult but not impossible.

Regards

Andy D.

[BeRiGaN]

Originally posted by KeithC
"Isn't "liberal intelligencia" an oxymoron?"
Well it may be, but it's also spelt wrongly, try "intelligentsia" meaning that part of the nation that aspires to independent thinking (OED). So perhaps not an oxymoron, merely tautology.
Well, the Liberal and the Conservative misspelled it...perhaps is was compassionate conservatism that kept Adam from pointing out the mistake;)
Socialists rarely like independent thinking, look at what folks like Harry Belafonte say about Colin Powell, or what Chris A has said about Condi Rice:eek:

[Andy D]

Interesting perspective re-socialists and independent thinking:)

Is this another one of those 'oxy' things that Keith talked about?

:D