I get the impression that Fastow will be getting a bit more than a handslap…
If Lieberman runs, I would even consider voting for him.
No one who didn’t support the war on Iraq has a chance. No one who supports a big new spending plan (like universal health care) has a chance. I rather suspect that the front runners (as silly as it sounds to talk about a front runner a year and a half before the election) will cut each other up while Bush goes about his business looking Presidental.
The liberal wing of the Democrats all shot themselves in the foot carping about how Bush was going to handle the war on Iraq. The moderates have no one to speak for them, and the conservatives get shouted down.
Their best chance is an outsider, and only if the economy does not recover.
Of course, a party that takes the candidacy of Carol Mosely-Braun or Al Sharpton is not a party that needs to be taken seriously.
I read today that Dick Cheney is on the ticket in 2004 for the Republicans. Too bad in a way - I was hoping for Condoleeza Rice. It may still happen if Cheney has any more heart problems.
Regards,
Shodan
How’s it going? Not spectacularly, so far. But it’s early.
The way I see it, there are five candidates who could plausibly win the nomination: Edwards, Gephardt, Graham, Kerry, and Leiberman, and Graham’s a longshot. Dean’s managed to fight his way out of obscurity and into the second tier, and he’s way ahead of the Kucinich-Braun-Sharpton ragtag, but he’s not gonna win.
The Dems should have the guts to kick Al Sharpton off the stage. There’s really nothing he can do that can atone for his role in the Tawana Brawley business, and his presence on the stage with the other candidates damages the party as a result. If a few of the major Dem contenders got together and said, “We refuse to share a stage with this bozo,” and threatened to hold their own set of debates if the party refused to see it their way, they could force the party to go along. If no one of them has the balls to pull a Sister Souljah moment by himself, then maybe they could do so collectively.
Despite my having been against the recent war, I agree that the Dems had better nominate a candidate who supported it. Iraq may still be a muddle in 2004, but it won’t be worse off than it was under Saddam. Regardless of all the other relevant factors, the public is going to see just that one, and it will conclude that going to war in Iraq when we did was a Very Good Thing.
I agree with Sam that the Iraq issue will have much more staying power into 2004 than it did in 1992.
I think the Dems need to wrestle with what we should do with Iraq now that we’ve got it. (And maybe take a closer look at Afghanistan, while we’re at it.) Just questioning the Administration’s plans (if it can settle on any), or ignoring the subject altogether, shows their lack of seriousness in foreign policy. Where’s a Sam Nunn or a Scoop Jackson when you need one? A Presidential candidate doesn’t have to take the lead here, but if nobody else does, one of the candidates needs to.
I disagree with Shodan about the political merits of big spending plans. Opposing tax cuts simply to keep the government fiscally sound is wonderfully responsible and I’m all for it, but it won’t win many votes. Having something else to do with the money instead, that has some political appeal, is the only way to get there. If the other candidates are going to diss Gephardt’s proposal, they’d better be prepared to have something in its place.
Looking at the political geography, I’ve got to like Graham (FL) and Gephardt (MO). I think Gephardt, despite his lack of charisma, would play well in the Rust Belt, which I think is where the election’s going to be decided: the Dems have the NE and California, while the GOP has the South, Plains, and most of the Rockies. They need a candidate who can do well in places like PA, WV, OH and MI. (I’m thinking Kerry’s not that man.) I’d rather have a candidate like that than one (Edwards) who may pick up better-than-usual support in the South, but may still not carry many states in that region.
Most of all, I want a Dem candidate who runs in a way that gives voters a reason to vote for the party, not just the man.
Of course, I’d vote for any of the nine except for Sharpton if they won the nomination, and Sharpton doesn’t have a prayer.
I didn’t read Will’s column - I almost always know what he’s going to say ahead of time, and it’ll be dumb, so why bother? - and he’s wrong on this too. The bunching of primaries makes early money an essential condition of victory, because you don’t have the time to raise money for later primaries on the basis of your showing in earlier ones, if the ‘later’ primaries are in March, rather than May and June. So you can’t be on TV and radio in many states before they vote, and if your candidacy’s invisible, you don’t win. So even if, say, Kucinich won in Iowa and NH, there would be no Kucinich snowball.
Aside: even if Cheney’s health goes south, GWB’s not going to choose a VP that would pose a threat to brother Jeb’s likely run in 2008.
I don’t see why you think that Dean doesn’t have a chance. In New Hampshire he tied with Kerry.
Even if Iraq does have staying power I sincerely doubt many people are going to say “Hey look how Bush is helping the Iraqi people I think we should vote for him again” unless they are Iraqi or possibly very liberal. I don’t see why most people would care about Iraq.
The fact that Dean is willing to stand up for that position helps him much more than the actual position hurts him. Kerry was instrumental in forming Veterans against the war, but he says he is pro war. I don’t think that people want another democrat who says “I agree with Bush” at the beginning of every speech.