That sounds almost exactly like what people were saying before the Bush-Gore debates.
Underestimate Bush at your peril.
“Toss in a couple of photos of Kerry hugging Ted Kennedy or hanging out with Jane Fonda and, well, you get the idea.”
Toss in a couple of photos of dead servicemen laying in the sands of Iraq, and no WMD found, and a couple of photos of out of work textile workers (and their 2,000,000 jobless compatriots since Bush took office in 2000) and, a couple of pictures of “Kenny Boy” Lay, and, well, you get the idea.
That’s nothing like what people were saying before the Bush-Gore debates. They were talking about watching the Genius Statue debate the Idiot Fratboy; what we ended up seeing was Gore alternately sneering at Bush and agreeing with him on substantive policy. He came across as a contemptuous hypocrite in the debates. AND STILL GOT MORE VOTES.
Kerry, from what I’ve seen, doesn’t ooze insincerity the way Gore did in 2000. He’s not my first pick, but he’s got his head in the right place, and he comes across as honest and not prone to following the polls for every position. (Not that these things matter to me – I’d vote for a pathological liar if I held the same policy positions as she did – but a lot of voters consider character to be important)
Still and all, my preference would be to see Edwards debate Bush. One of Edwards’s primary strengths is his rhetorical skill and his ability to play to an audience, IMO, and I would dearly love to watch him reduce Bush to a quaking shivering mass on national television. But that’s just the sadist in me talking :).
At this point, though I’d prefer an Edwards candidate or a Dean president, I’m thinking we’re going to get a Kerry/Edwards ticket. And I’m cautiously hopeful for their chances in November.
Daniel
All Kerry (or Edwards, or Dean, or whoever) has to do is to publically challenge George W. Bush to a live, unscripted (no questions available in advance) debate.
Either Bush chickens out and reveals himself as the clueless puppet that he is, or Bush shows up and gets whupped like the clueless puppet that he is. Either way is fine with me. 
So true. Rather than ignoring Bush, pay attention to the men behind the curtain. They’re the ones that got him there, and they pedal a lot more influence 3 1/2 years later.
As an independent “anyone but Bush” voter, I feel that Kerry may carry his party but Kerry won’t carry the swing voter. I see Wes Clark as the only candidate that the disappointed Republican might embrace. He’s an outsider that’s been around government all his adult life, and has a war record x2 of Kerry. He won’t be considered a regular Joe either, but he has stellar qualifications that should suit the office.
The Democrats need to realize Kerry’s dyed-in-the-wool party membership is going to work against them in such a tight election. Clark may be a Johnny-come-lately to the Democratic party, yet that suggests an open mindedness that’s going to be critical in giving confidence to the 3% to 5% of swing voters that will make the difference come November.
Barring disaster, the Bush machine will keep the swing voter margin that close.
The biggest thing I got from last nights marathon hardball coverage was an exit poll that showed something like 70% of those indie votes for Kerry were of the “anybody but Bush-we want him out,and Kerry seems the most electable”
If this sentiment holds in future primaries (any other states let you vote as indie?),could be a key to a Kerry win,that is,if the future primaries in MO.Wisc.and maybe the Sowest keep reporting the same vote pcs.between candidates.
Seems to be a real “hate” backlash going on with more than the registered Dems harboring that sentiment.
An article in Salon today says some Republican operatives now regret attacking Dean because it led to the rise of Kerry, whom they consider a more formidable opponent.
Now, it seems, they are holding back on attacking Kerry until the general election, because they don’t want to do anything to help the campaign of the man they really fear, John Edwards.
From the article:
spoke-, also from that ABC news link: “I think the fight is all over this country,” Kerry said. “Forget about those red and blue states. We’re going to change that now, and we’re going to go out there and change the face of America.”
To me he was simply saying that one does not necessarily need the south to win the election, not that the south as a whole was an unimportant part of the country.
Titan2, that poll showed that, among those NH voters whose #1 concern was electability, 69% voted Kerry. As for what issues they had as #1, the war was down around 15%, with environment and health care #1 and #2 - and among those who had those as their top concerns, Kerry was the easy winner too.
**spoke-, ** that Salon article simply shows that the people who lost by half a million votes last time still don’t understand what’s going on. Not that many of us really do, but we don’t pretend to or make our livings dependent upon it. They’re right about the “two Americas” issue having resonance now, just as it did when Mario Cuomo made his “shining city on a hill” speech in '88, and in a long tradition starting probably in ancient Athens. The nominee, whoever it is, will likely take that populist tack, also knowing how it won for Gore. The Reps will, in turn, be simply sneering “Liberal! Liberal! Liberal!” no matter who it is.
Yes, but in the case of Kerry they’ll have much more ammunition.
I think it would have been better if you had said, "misunderestimate Bush at your peril.
They’d have more ammunition if it was Dean, and I think arguably more if it was Clark.
How so? (With respect to each?)
Dean gives lots of ammo because he has no service record to back up his war criticisms. He’s also drawn a fire for his public comments on lots of issues, which tend to be very indelicate to say the least.
Clark has some very liberal positions too, like eliminating the income tax for families making under $50,000 per year.
Hadn’t heard that one before, but assuming it’s accurate, you think that position makes Clark <i>less</i> electable?
It’s on his website. I don’t think it hurts, I just have no idea how it’s supposed to work.
And actually, speaking of taxes I forgot the main thing that I think could hurt Dean: he supports increasing taxes for everybody. Wants to repeal the entire Bush tax cut (his opponents want to roll back the cuts for the rich). I support expanding healthcare, which is what he wants to do with the money, but campaign promises of HIGHER taxes don’t have a very high success rate.
I should clarify a bit. I think many voters will think that’s too protectionist of the poor, and many middle-class voters will resent having a bigger chunk of the tax burden shifted to them. Clark says nobody else’s taxes will change except those making over $1 million a year, and I’m not sure the math adds up.
I was referring to a poll reported by one of the remote site staff at a voting precinct (s?),supposedly the largest in terms of raw head counts in the state.This question was only put to indie voters.And that pc for Kerry was because of the “anybody but Bush” sentiment/electabilty according to the reporter.
The broader range poll included every voter. (or maybe just the Dems?)
And this just in…
“Poll: Democrat Kerry Opens Big Leads in Missouri, Arizona…”
“Kerry has opened a 34-point lead in Missouri and a 21-point lead in Arizona, and trails John Edwards (news - web sites) by 1 point in South Carolina and Wesley Clark (news - web sites) by 8 points in Oklahoma in a three-day tracking poll of the four states…”
I agree with those Dopers who peg this to an “anti-Bush” sentiment more than to a “pro-Kerry” sentiment. It would appear that the movement toward Kerry has more to do with “electability” that with his stand on issues. This is all to the good, the Dems have far too often placed a noble stance above the practical, even somewhat dirty, truths about a democratic republic.
But don’t kid yourselves, this is gonna be one ugly sumbitch.
True. The only thing that will be uglier is claims for each side that the other side is leading in the ugly dept. 
Kerry has, what, 19 yrs in the Senate? Gotta be a gold mine for the mud slingers. Plus-- wasn’t he Lt Gov with Dukakis? And then there’s the photo ops with Kennedy during the primaries. Let’s not forget the best of all: Botox anyone?
I could conceivably vote for the chap if he tones down his “CEOs who send jobs offshore = Benedict Arnold” rhetoric and makes a strong case that he’ll reduce the size of government. And, if he doesn’t pick Gephardt as a running mate. We’ll see.