That is your evidence that Kerry is dismissive of the concerns of Southerners?
Is he saying that he doesn’t care about jobs, national security, health care, or any issues that concern Southerners (or, come to think of it, voters across the country)?
Or is he responding to Edwards’ divisive tactic of labeling himself The Only Candidate Who Can Win The South And Thus The Election?
Again, the last Democrat running for President from the South was Al Gore, who couldn’t even carry his home state of Tennessee. Substitute Edwards, who has vastly less experience (in a time when we continue under the shadow of 9/11 and people will be susceptible to the “don’t change horses in a time of peril” strategy) and carries exploitable baggage (it has just been reported that in Ohio, Edwards has raised a lot more money than Kerry, thanks to hefty donations from trial lawyers), and I question whether he can do any better than Gore in the South.
I kind of like the idea of a candidate who seeks to unify the entire country, rather than pandering to sectional resentments.
It is clear evidence that he has no serious intention of campaigning in the South-- that he is, in effect, ceding the South to the Republican Party.
What does that make Kerry but a regional candidate? And you want to talk about sectionalism???
I want a candidate who will seriously campaign nationwide, as Edwards will do, not someone who will turn tail and retreat to the northern side of the Mason-Dixon.
And again I didn’t open this thread to stir up regional resentments. You have taken us down that path, my friend. (And you seem oddly determined to steer the conversation in that direction.)
But, for the record, Gore was hardly a Tennesseean. He was born, mostly raised, and spent most of his career in Washington DC. Unlike Edwards, he was hardly a man of the people.
More critically, Gore was a lousy politician- a stiff and formal speaker, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, who campaigned mostly on his lengthy Washington resume and his service in Vietnam. Sound like anybody you know?
It is really nonsense to suggest that any Democratic candidate would not campaign in the South. And to supply some further sentiments from the Kerry speech (rather than just the one line you quoted) - from abcnews.com:
'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.’
Kerry spokesman David Wade insisted Kerry thinks campaigning in the South, “is important, too. Fritz Hollings [D-S.C.] wouldn’t have endorsed John Kerry if he didn’t believe he was committed to, and would and could carry states in the South against George Bush.”
Wade noted that the minority leader of the South Carolina state house and former Georgia Democratic Sen. Max Cleland has endorsed Kerry and is campaigning on his behalf."
C’mon. I’ve stated multiple reasons for not supporting Edwards. The part about his attempting to stir up regional resentments is just one of them. If you don’t want to discuss that aspect of his support, stop responding with unsupportable statements (not to mention avoiding certain uncomfortable facts, like Kerry’s winning more Southern primaries than Edwards.
Gore ran on his Vietnam service record? Really? I don’t remember that.
I don’t doubt that Kerry could eventually have trouble with some regional chip-on-the-shoulder voters who would rather sit on their hands or actively support Bush rather than vote for a (shudder) Northeasterner. And there are those who are drawn in by a slick stump speech who would more readily vote in the American equivalent of Tony Blair than pick someone who is perceived as lacking in charisma.
But let’s see Slick win Super Tuesday before we conclude that he is more “electable” than Kerry.
The question on the table is not which of the remaining candidates is most appealing to Democratic primary voters. The question is which candidate can best appeal to independent voters, and to disaffected Republican crossovers. Kerry ain’t that guy. (One of us is ignoring some uncomfortable facts, and it isn’t I.)
Unfortunately, the Democratic primaries have a poor track record for producing good general election candidates. It is quite possible that the party will again pass over the candidate most likely to win in November for the one who is best-connected to the party establishment.
And poll numbers (such as those regarding sentiment of independents), representing a brief snapshot in time of voter sentiment, have an even poorer record of predicting victory. Howard Dean knows that all too well.
Argh! It is you. Listen, spoke-, while I may have come in here feeling generally favorably about Edwards, just reading your posts is kind of changing my mind (until I rationally think it through and remember that one rabid supporter on a message board shouldn’t make me think poorly of a candidate. Sure, when you dismiss out of hand the breakdown of support in all the exit polling in which Kerry wins among independents and republicans, then yes, Edwards wins among independents and republicans.
I do believe that Edwards would generally fare well against Bush, but I think that Kerry will be a better counter to one of Bush’s intended message points - national defense.
But please, without any further evidence, please stop asserting that Edwards is stronger among independents and republicans. T’ain’t so. At least, there is no good evidence yet that it is.
When I studied Kerry’s voting record in the mid-1990s, I found it to my liking.
That said, Kerry has poor geography and is a mediocre speaker.
Edwards has terrific geography and is an experienced speaker. He can rally the troops (the committed) as well as the swing voters. Furthermore, the fact that he apparently appeals to higher-income folks indicates that the anti-Nafta problems will go away as he downplays them after the primaries.
Edwards also lacks experience, which will hurt. However, this week’s Economist notes that Edwards was, “…the southerner whom Mr. Bush’s people feared most at the beginning of the contest.” (Lexington, 2/21/04, p. 34)
Well, that’s Q.E.D., as far as I’m concerned. (Emphasis added.)
Kerry’s thoughtful, nuanced approach to the issue won’t play too well in this election year. Combined with his geography, he will be easy to smear as a Massachusetts liberal. Although I believe that Kerry would make superior decisions as President, I am voting for Edwards in the primaries.
It would be nice to have a candidate who hasn’t hamstrung himself on this issue.
Kerry has rubber stamped every trade agreement he has encountered. For him to argue for fair trade now makes it sound like he’s trying to have it both ways. (The Bush camp has taken notice. “He’s for free trade and he’s against it.” --Bush on Kerry last week.)
Edwards, unlike Kerry, has argued for fair trade all along, recognizing that failure to include enforceable labor standards and environmental protections in trade agreements ensures a race to the bottom among our trading partners, and makes it difficult for America to compete for manufacturing jobs.
It’s not to late to choose Edwards (…though it will be difficult to overcome the Lemming Effect created by Kerry’s early success).
My favorite “lemming” comment came during an NPR panel discussion on the evening of the Iowa caucuses, where some bozo was speculating that Kerry won because 1) late polls showed Kerry in the lead, 2) the voting public decided he could win, and 3) voted for him.
Never mind that Howard Dean had been the Inevitable Nominee for weeks and way ahead in polls and fundraising. Nah, the lemming-like public seized on the fact that Kerry had moved in front in a couple of polls and decided to reward his freak popularity.
!!! Can’t you save that kind of thinking for the general election? The primary season is the stage where we have the luxury of voting our consciences! I’m campaigning for Dennis Kucinich, just for the sake of helping him get his message out. Nobody will be more surprised than I if he gets the nomination; and if he does, he will lose in November as surely as McGovern lost in 1972, and for the same reason: because the American people unfortunately are not ready for a sharp turn to the left. But they still need to be reminded, as often as possible, that the left exists and won’t go away.
If indeed they need to be reminded of that (and frankly, I think that Fox news does a terrific job of reminding the public about the liberal menace ), quixotic candidates are a piss-poor method of doing so.
It would be better, for example, to engage the opposition in a policy-by-policy debate. That is, the left might (among other things) focus on building up an ideologic infrastructure: examples of successful implementation of this plan can be seen on the right, in the form of the Heritage Foundation, etc.
If I care about something, I care enough to use my head. Part of using my head involves tracing through the consequences of my actions. Failure to do so strikes me not as conscience, but self-indulgence.
One person will be more surprised than you, I think: one Dennis Kusinich. DOH! I’m sorry, cheap joke.
Actually, I admire people who go with their conscience and not just the most electable candidate. Props to you, BrainGlutton.
The Atlanta Journal published today a poll of likely voters in the Georgia primary (coming up Tuesday). As in Wisconsin, it’s an open primary, and as in Wisconsin, Kerry wins among self-described Democrats, but Edwards runs far ahead among independents and Republicans. Granted, the Republican appeal is not as meaningful, and may even be anti-Kerry voters. But the fact that Edwards is again running well ahead among independents should be a message to those looking for an “electable” Democrat.
As for the “lemming effect,” Hentor, you can argue with me, but you can’t argue with SCIENCE!
), quixotic candidates are a piss-poor method of doing so.