I don’t think a single Democrat other than Kucinich will promise to withdraw from Iraq. Even Al Sharpton argued for more UN troops.
In fact I think they will argue for an increased number of troops through the UN. I think that Bush will have a hard time arguing against that.
I was hearing more and more noise over the weekend about Gen. Wesley Clark entering the race. I had thought Clark, with his high profile in recent months, was “running for Vice President,” or for a cabinet position, but maybe not. Maybe he wants the top spot on the ticket.
If so, I’d have to revise my lists:
Primaries:
That’s just about too close to call. Clark could make a run in the Southern primaries, and if Kerry and Dean split the Northern and Western states…
Could be a very interesting primary campaign.
General Election:
Clark has a legitimacy on foreign policy that sets him apart, and shoots him to the top of the list. As a Southerner with a military background, he would have a real chance of breaking the Republican hold on the South. (Southerners are frankly provincial. They like candidates with Southern accents. Just reporting the fact, not endorsing the viewpoint.)
A Clark/Edwards ticket (or vice versa) could be very tough in the general election. My Southern Republican dad, whom I regard as a barometer in these things, says that even he might be inclined to vote for such a ticket. Big swing vote potential, it seems to me.
Luckily for Democrats, Northern and Western voters are not as provincial as Southerners, and would vote for a two-Southerner ticket. (Witness Clinton/Gore.)
Dean’s fundrasing totals should shake up things quite a bit (for people not rooting for Dean). 7.1 million dollars. Kerry and Edwards are expected to get around 5 million dollars. Also there is the way he raised them. The average contribution was around 66 dollars. Dean is set to portray himself as a man of the people vs Bush’s money.
And looking at this poll I’d say that the Iraq war is shaping up to help Dean a lot.
As a lengthy and wonderful posting of mine got lost in the aether, I’ll let a few bullet points serve as my comments and prognostications.
Shortly after Bush-Cheney get nominated by the GOP convention, Cheney will withdraw, citing health reasons; allowing W an easier route to placing someone on the ticket that the Ultra-Right might object to–Rice, Powell, Guilianni; maybe even McCain. If the Right pitches a fit, Frist. This will add drama to the race; but ultimately veeps don’t make or break a candidate. (See Ferarro, Geraldine; Quayle, J. Danforth)
Joe Leiberman, victim of a “snear” campaign by those who never liked Clinton-Gore centrism, would be dynamite against George II. I’d be wary of taking his low ranking among Dopers as indicative of very much.
Kerry will fade fast, and be effectively out of the race six weeks after New Hampshire.
Graham will be the VP candidate, and he knows it.
Edwards has many future races to run; '04 isn’t his year.
The serious rivals right now are Leiberman, Dean, and Gephardt. Gentlemen, start your mud.
George is definitely beatable. The result may be the flipside of '00–the GOP leading in the popular vote, the Dems winning in the Electoral College by flipping Florida.
I’ve still got my money on General Wesley Clark. His little non-campaign is burbling along quite nicely. Since Friday he has:
[ul][li] Quietly placed an opinion piece in The Times of London on reconstruction in Iraq;[/li]
[li] Delivered a keynote speech to the Government Symposium on Information Sharing and Homeland Security on cybersecurity and critical infrastructure protection.[/li]
[li] Got as solid an endorsement as one can get from Bill Clinton in the pre-primary stage, widely circulated via the Associated Press.[/li]
[li] Had a nice 4000-word smoochie planted on him by Government Executive.[/ul][/li]
Additionally, the folks at www.draftwesleyclark.com announced today that they have already secured $80,000 in pledges for his unannounced campaign. That’s a pretty busy weekend for a guy who isn’t running for President.
I’m putting him first on both lists, because I think this fellow has a cheap and efficient plan to catapult to the top of the list by the end of October. Let the grass roots boost him up as far as he can go, then tap into the Clinton’s fundraising network for a quick infusion of cash a month and a half before the primaries. If he comes out of nowhere with an articulated domestic plan that squarely focuses on reviving the middle class, he’s got the job, simple as that, because nobody can touch his reputation as both a commander and a hard-nosed diplomat.
Nomination:
Clark
Lieberman (stealing the center is the safest bet)
Kerry (too regional unless he can afford to travel a lot)
Dean (one unfortunate phrase: “gay weddings”)
General:
Clark
Kerry (if he gets enough exposure to win the nomination, he’ll do well)
Dean (gay marriages are still going to cost him)
Lieberman (how is he different from Bush, again?)
He’ll have to deflect the fact that he is or was Jewish, Baptist, and Catholic, and he’ll have to minimize his role as tactical consultant at Waco, and he’ll have to laugh when the hypercons try to smear him for actually winning a war without getting truckloads of American boys killed. That’s really about it as far as I can tell.
If he wins the nomination, he’ll smoke Bush 55%-45% with at least 350 electoral votes, because Clark’s record will allow him to focus squarely on Bush’s utter failure to deliver on the “compassionate” side of his 2000 campaign, and thus refocus American attention on how shitty things are now compared to four years ago.
Every other Democrat will have to prove he’s qualified to command first, which gives Bush a fighting chance. I think it’s a safe bet that if Clark doesn’t win the nomination, Bush will either win fairly or get close enough to steal it.
And no, I’m still not working for Clark. Yet. But if he runs, I will volunteer.
Well, ya got your 3 yankees- Dean VT, Kerry MA, & Lieberman Conn. They have a good chance of winning the primary, but zip of winning the general election. Sorry. I like Lieberman, but he can’t win the election. No yankee can. The South will vote “agin” any of them in a block, and then it is over.
Of the Southerners, the best chance of winning is Graham, as he can deliver Fla, which was THE key state last election. Edwards would do OK. Edwards is the only one I have seen with a sensible tax plan. Gephardt also has a chance.
I’d say it sounds like Clark is “running” for Veep- and he’d make a pretty good one.
So- I’d say to win the primary- just about any Yankee. To win the election- you need a Southerner. A smart ticket would have a Southerner for Prez, with a Yankee Veep. I’d say Joe would do great there, as he has already been run the the election madness, and come out mostly clean- well, no skeletons.
One, maybe 2 of these will be be removed through a scandal.
Where are the Westerners?
This my tinfoil hat theory. I believe every word, mind you, but they said I was mad in Vienna! That my theories were unsound! The fools, I’ll show them who’s mad…
I think an unknown amount of Republican money is spent in support of Democratic primary candidates that they figure they can beat. Even though I voted for him, to this day I don’t understand how such a bland weenie as McGovern was offered as a candidate against a politicial ghoul like Nixon! And Dukakis! Dukakis!
The weakness of the Dems is money, money has an inordinate effect on thier primaries because so few people want to invest in a potential candidate. Or can afford to, more to the point. With a modest investment in cash, the Pubbies influence thier opposition to put forth the most beatable candidate.
So why Clinton? Because they took the year off, they figured after Iraq I it was a slam dunk, no need to try. The major Dem candidates figured the same thing, they put away thier ammunition for later. Only Free Willy had the cojones to go for it, maybe he smelled blood.
I personally think Kerry is the strongest candidate against GeeDubya. Dean is a good and sincere man, as is Kucinich, but in the media saturated world we live it, “image problems” are death. They need the kind of political savvy that comes natural to the Big Dog, or can be bought wholesale by the Pubbies.
So…Dean is the weaker candidate, if I’m right, Pubbie money is at work to nominate Dean and weaken Kerry. Keep in mind, if Kerry is nominated, sooner or later, squirm as he might, GeeDubya is going to have to explain what exactly happened to the last year of his Texas Air Reserve committment.
And Karl Rove would rather wipe his ass with a scorpion.
In the early fall of 1972 I attended a local meeting of the American Statistical Assn. The speaker was the late Albert Sindlinger, a Philadelphia pollster. At that moment, the McGovern campaign was in total disarray. Eagleton had just been replaced by Sargent Shriver as VP. McGovern was far behind in the polls.
Sindlinger told us that McGovern could still win the election by promising to give every special interest group whatever they wanted. I remember him saying, “The American voter is a selfish pig.”
Those who think that a Democrat can beat Bush based on the National Guard service mystery should consider that aphorism. Even if the AWOL accusation could be proved, the American voter doesn’t care. He wants to know what the candidate will do for him.
…Or has done to him.
Quite franlky you are wrong unless you think that Republicans somehow motivated their base and managed to get 59,000 of them to send that money at about 100 dollars a piece. Besides the way it was earned is a huge blow for the Republicans. Bush has been counting on Democrats being tied to the same 2000 dollar donors that he is, but Dean gets to frame himself as a man of the people against Bush’s money. What you are seeing is why Democrats went with the McCaine/Feingold bill even though it would hurt them in funding.
I actually agree with december on this. Nobody really cares about Kerry’s vet status or Bush’s AWOL status. Why should they? Thats like talking about Clinton’s indescretions or the fact that Dean is a doctor.
But Sterra, Clinton’s indescretions were big news. There was this whole impeachment thing and all…
I think I’m one of the few people who loves Dean and hates Kucinich.
Oh come on e; that’s crazy talk.
The smart Republican money is being spent to prop up the Green Party. Even now, Cynthia McKinney is contemplating a run under the Green Party banner. Imagine the glee with which Republicans must view that prospect. Why donate to a Democratic candidate when you can undercut Democratic chances much more efficiently by sponsoring the Greenies?
(And where is Ross Perot when you need him?)
Lieberman, IMO, has no chance of winning. Sure, he might be able to steal some votes from the Republicans; but if Lieberman is the Democratic ticket, y’all better get ready to start screaming shrilly at the Green party for losing you the election, because there’s going to be a helluva lot of liberals who won’t ever cast a vote for a Republican like Lieberman.
But I think the Democrats learned their lesson in 2000, and won’t try the same action hoping for a different result.
My money had been on Edwards (c’mon, I live in North Carolina; allow me a little local-boy pride). But I’ve been unimpressed with his campaign so far, and it looks like local conservatives have an organized campaign to portray him as campaigning for president instead of doing his job in Washington. Despite the fact that the Republican presidential candidate is just as vulnerable to the same accusation, I think it’s hurting him here. And if Edwards can’t win NC, I have few hopes for his winning of the primary.
Dean is rocking right now: his Internet fundraising coup is also a public-relations coup, and for a little while he might be the media’s darling candidate. I had no hopes he’d be able to compete against the big boys in the race, but I’m starting to change my mind. And lemme tell you Democrats something else: get Dean for your candidate, and you won’t have to worry about a threat from the Green party. Hell, you’ll probably get a lot of Greens coming to work for Dean’s campaign. I’m thinking about it myself.
Daniel
PS I’m sending a $100 check to Pat Buchanan’s primary run. Who’s with me?
Daniel
Clinton’s indescretions were big news, but Republicans going after that so much is why Clinton got a 70% approval rating. Voters might have thought it was interesting, but probably didn’t think of it as a bad thing. Likewise most people probably would say hey if I was rich I wouldn’t mind doing the same thing.
spoke, meet Republicans for Sharpton
Not sure if they’re serious or not, but given how low the GOP is willing to stoop in the last few years, I wouldn’t put it past them.
Iwould find it much easier to accept being a delusional paranoid if reality didn’t keep catching up with me.
Not sure if they’re serious or not, but given how low the GOP is willing to stoop in the last few years, I wouldn’t put it past them. **
[/QUOTE]
Not sure if they’re serious or not?! Dude, check out their Web site. They’ve stolen a few riffs from The Onion, made a few funnies; that’s about it. Kind of amusing, actually, but no way it’s serious.
Daniel