Democratic Hopefuls in 2004

[Bruce_Daddy]

*Originally posted by tracer *
**Is that because, if he loses, you can hear him say “I’ll be back!”? **

Negative.

“Vote for me if you want to live!”

[minty_green]

Stupid hamsters. Since my witty and insightful post is so much rodent kibble, allow me to sum up:

Sterra, you have a thing or two to learn about marketing.

Elvis, we’ll just have to wait and see, won’t we?

[minty_green]

There is, by the way, an interesting piece of advice on CNN’s site from columnist Thomas Friedman:

Democrats have been groping for a way to counter George Bush’s maniacal tax cuts, which are designed to shrink government and shift as many things as possible to the market. May I make a suggestion? When you shrink government, what you do, over time, is shrink the services provided by federal, state and local governments to the vast American middle class. I would suggest that henceforth Democrats simply ask voters to substitute the word “services” for the word “taxes” every time they hear President Bush speak.

That is, when the president says he wants yet another round of reckless “tax cuts,” which will shift huge burdens to our children, Democrats should simply refer to them as “service cuts,” because that is the only way these tax cuts will be paid for — by cuts in services. Indeed, the Democrats’ bumper sticker in 2004 should be: “Read my lips, no new services. Thank you, President Bush.”

Say it with me now: “Read my lips, no new services — or old ones.”

Whenever Mr. Bush says, “It’s not the government’s money, it’s your money,” Democrats should point out that what he is really saying is, “It’s not the government’s services, it’s your services” — and thanks to the Bush tax cuts, soon you’ll be paying for many of them yourself.

[rjung]

*Originally posted by vanilla *
Whoever the nominee is, he needs to make a clear difference between himself and Bush on an issue, an issue which the public will agree with HIM on.

He should make a clear difference between himself and Bush on many issues, which the public will agree with HIM on.

Not that this should be hard…

[Spoke]

Howard Dean at the top.

Wesley Clark as VP (to lend foreign policy/military credibility, and to put a Southerner on the ticket).

You heard it here first.

(Whether they’ll beat Bush is a separate question, not yet answerable.)

[Binarydrone]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
**…If anybody knows anyone actively involved in the Dean campaign, let them know they have a strong supporter who will give some volunteer time, or, if they still have paid positions open (they did when I signed up), is not actively employed and will work cheap and devotedly. **

You may have already found this but here is a link to the page where you can find out about upcoming Dean events in your area. This will probably be a good first step in getting involved.

Looks like June 23rd may be a pretty good date, as that is when he will officially announce his candidacy.

[CyberPundit]

Yes, Clark as VP would be very interesting and I had suggested Kerry-Clark as a possible winning Dem ticket. I should add that I still think that Kerry’s chances are pretty good in both the primaries and the general. It’s just that I don’t think Dean is unelectable.

BTW does anyone know how popular Graham is in Florida? Would his inclusion as VP give a big boost to the ticket there? I think that Florida is going to be 50% of the battle since it’s the one big state in the South where the Dems really have a chance. In fact I suspect that if Graham had been picked as VP candidate in 2000, Gore would be President.

If Bush picks Cheney for VP again I think the VP slot will be an opportunity for the Dems to score points. Cheney is no big vote-getter whereas the Dems have people like Graham and Clark who can really help them in their weak areas.

[Sterra]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**Stupid hamsters. Since my witty and insightful post is so much rodent kibble, allow me to sum up:

Sterra, you have a thing or two to learn about marketing.
**

I think Dean is marketing himself fairly well on healthcare and a balanced budget. At the very least he has recently been gaining ground in NH and Iowa whereas Kerry has been losing it in both states.

I think the real difference between Dean and Kerry is personality. Dean has a personality more like Clinton. Kerry has one more like Gore.

[Marley23]

Cheney IS Bush’s VP. They’ve announced it formally, the debate is over unless Cheney dies or has some kind of giant health setback. And yes, it’s probably an opportunity for the Democrats to score points, as Cheney is not popular and widely seen as evil.

[Sofa_King]

What interests me the most about Clark is the hypocritical vitriol he is already generating within the right wing press–Rush took a swipe at him last month. This guy doesn’t have a single position recorded on www.issues2000.org and yet the dittoheads are already being primed to hate him.

Why are they so scared of him? Because he’s eloquent, educated, and qualified. That damn near already beats two years of on-the-job training, if you know what I mean.

I’m considering going to work for Clark’s campaign, if he decides to go for it. I don’t have much of an interest in working for anyone else.

[Spoke]

I don’t see Graham as VP on a winning ticket. He is a milqetoast, and a bit of a flake (ever read about his journals?). Any help he might give in Florida would be more than offset by damage he could do elsewhere.

Moreover, I don’t see Graham being much help in the South outside Florida. Clark is the best VP choice, followed by Edwards (if he doesn’t get the Presidential nomination himself).

Clark is more the type who could bring fence-sitters over to the Democrats than either Edwards or Graham, IMHO. His military background would be a HUGE help.

[Esprix]

I must admit it would be refreshing to have a Democratic candidate who doesn’t waffle and actually stands up for himself. Clinton used to do that, but wasn’t quite up to snuff during his second term; ditto for Gore, IMHO.

Esprix

[Shodan]

Has Dean mentioned how he is going to balance the budget? Is he going to cut “services” or increase them?

Or is it more “eliminate waste and fraud” bullshit?

Regards,
Shodan

[minty_green]

By raising taxes on the wealthy, of course. Worked wonders for the deficit and the economy during the Clinton years.