teh Forum

Has anyone been paying attention to the race that is developing for the Democratic Presidential Nomination for next year? Quite a few interesting politicians are lining up to try to be the one to de-throne Bush.

Kucinich is the left fielder. He is throwing out a ton of great liberal postitions. He sounds as good as Nader. ...so we can pretty much count him out.

Dean seems to be carrying the banner of the left. Quite a few organizations are behind him. I like what I have heard out of him (for a politician).

Gephardt reminds me so much of Bob Dole when he speaks it is uncanny. Yes Bush is a "MiserableFailure" TM dude. He seems pretty damn confident, but he is a typical republicrat.

Lieberman is even more of a republicrat and I can't stand to watch him speak. Is he running completely off of name recognition from the last election? Plus he looks like a muppet.

Kerry - I liked what I heard out of him for a while, but as time passes he just seems more phony and middle of the road.

Sharpton - yeah, well he at least pulls the politicians left a little.

Edwards has got the pretty boy face and the likable story about growing up lower class, but he is republicrat up and down.

Graham has one of the most liberal voting records in congress, but he is old, not well known and looks like a republican.

Braun has a ton of great things to say. Look for her to get a cabinet position for sure.

And now entering the ring is General Wesley Clark. Look for this guy to lay the hammer down. He has got a great reputation and many democrats think he could easily beat Bush. I haven't seen him or heard his positions at all though, so I can't comment. Michael Moore has gotten behind though. Plus, when he worked for NATO his position was "Supreme Commander"! You gotta like the sound of that.

Anyone else following this at all?

As an avid follower of U.S. politics (geek), I am excited to see Clark enter the race because I think he may have the ability to appeal to moderates. A Dean/Clark, Clark/Dean, Kerry/Clark, Clark/Kerry ticket may be just the thing to get rid of Bush. Personally, I don't care who the hell the Dems run as long as that individual can beat Bush. Unfortunately, 90% of Americans can't identify any of these candidates (but can name the third string quarterback for the SanDiego Chargers or Brittany Spears bra size) and half of America (at least) won't vote. Most of the folks that I talk to don't like to watch the news, so I just tell them to watch the Daily Show. It's funny (and therefore accessable) and I figure that some info about the candidates is better than none.

Of note: Dean's grandmother was a bridesmaid in the wedding of Bush's grandmother. Is there a North East/New England aristocracy in the U.S?

I really like the Dean/Clark ticket. I am pretty captivated by this race already and the election is 14 months away. Should heat up as we get closer to the Iowa caucus in mid Jan.

What are your thoughts on Kucinich, Jason? How about the others?

Kucinich is borderline "crazy left" and has no chance of winning even a city council seat in most places. Plus, he physically looks like a gnome. This may seem trite, but appearence is important. Example: Kerry's bad hair is blamed in some circles for his lower than expected poll numbers.

Dean is really a moderate appealling to the liberal base; good move for now, but may hurt him later. I think a Clark 4 Prez/Dean 4 Veep would be the strongest, depending on how Clark does on TV and in the press the next few days. He's already shown capacity for bad slogans during his candidacy announement. ("making the inconceivable conceivable" or something like
that - it was bad, his speechwriter should be fired).

Braun is really good. She decided to run when she was told by the GOP that an AfricanAmerican woman can't win....sadly, they are correct.

Gephardt lost in the 80s....*yawn* or was that Graham *yawn* WHO CARES about these two jokers. Graham should stay in the Senate so that his seat isn't lost to the Republicans in Florida and the same for Gephardt's Congressional seat in Missouri. Edwards is in the same situation in N.Carolina where he has a serious fight to keep his Senate seat. Edwards is young and successful and I think his bid for Prez is premature.

Sharpton is just fun to hear, but "middle-America" despises him.

Lieberman is the Democratic version of Dan Quail and should just go away.

Kerry? He looked like the ringer a few months ago - who's managing his campaign? It's a mess. Kerry's hair frightens many and he has flipped and flopped himself into nothing but trouble. I'm not worried about him giving up his Senate seat. Massachusetts will never have a Republican senator.

Please someone beat Bush....anyone with a spine....hell, I'd even vote Libertarian at this point.

This is very informative. I expect you both to keep up this commentary, as it's the most comprehensive I've seen (no other commentators have picked up on Kerry's socially divisive hair policies.) I haven't been following closely yet, but it's obviously interesting, as bad US Presidents affect us all.

Good work lads.

I may resort to a write-in ballot for Bill Bradley (again). Go Knicks!

Oh, I am sure I will promptly lose interest in all matters of American politics the moment I hit Japanese shores.

Here are my takes:

Kucinich- Haven't even heard of him, therefore... he has an icecube's chance in hell of winning anything.

Dean - Read all about him, including his issue stances posted on his website. Based on that fact that he comes from the Vermont political arena, and that Nader was quoted as saying "if Dean runs I wont," he seems to be the popular liberal that politics needs. On the other hand, I have read articles about him which are saying that he's softened and moved to the center on certain issues...(which is not a good sign). I'm also a little worried about a guy claiming to be liberal who comes from an old-money family, having never lived like the most people do. In any event, Dean is at the top of my list.... unless Nader enters the fray.

Gephardt - Middle of the road republican-in-a-democrat-package. He's been around forever, and probably has juice in the inner circles of the democratic party, but..... blehhhgh... he was behind bush for this crappy war... and did nothing as a leader of the democrats.... don't know enough to really dislike him.... but he smells funny.

Lieberman - I can't stand this dude.... He's the guy responsible for blaming hollywood, and the music industry for putting out inappropriate content corrupting american youth. ...and yea... he looks like a muppet.

Kerry - Another republocrat. Also sided with Bush before the war, and is now hooting anti-war all over the place. Too much of a politician.... You can count on this guy to accept lobbyist money left and right.

I would toss Gephardt, Leiberman, and Kerry in the Clinton-esque democrat bucket. Democrats by label, but republicans by action.

Rev. Al Sharpton - ahahahaha. He's great for entertainment value only.

Edwards - ???

Graham - ???

Braun - ??? She's a a she, so unfortunately she already has 2 strikes against her.

General Wesley Clark - According to the media he has avoided "the issues" up until now, but I've looked into him a little bit, and he looks like his stances are sound. Also gets a thumbs up for getting a Michael Moore endorsement. Sounds strange but, having an ex-general as a president would be good in a time like this, because he knows what it's like to have been in a war, and would most likely leave military action as a last resort.

I got this off the michael moore mailing list.... it's worth a read:

================================================
Citizen's Appeal to a General in a Time of War (at Home)

September 12, 2003

Dear General Wesley Clark,

I've been meaning to write to you for some time. Two days after the Oscars, when
I felt very alone and somewhat frightened by the level of hatred toward me for
daring to suggest that we were being led into war for "fictitious reasons," one
person stuck his neck out and came to my defense on national television.

And that person was you.

Aaron Brown had just finished interviewing me by satellite on CNN, and I had
made a crack about me being "the only non-general allowed on CNN all week." He
ended the interview and then turned to you, as you were sitting at the desk with
him. He asked you what you thought of this crazy guy, Michael Moore. And,
although we were still in Week One of the war, you boldly said that my dissent
was necessary and welcome, and you pointed out that I was against Bush and his
"policies," not the kids in the service. I sat in Flint with the earpiece still
in my ear and I was floored -- a GENERAL standing up for me and, in effect, for
all the millions who were opposed to the war but had been bullied into silence.

Since that night, I have spent a lot of time checking you out. And what I've
learned about you corresponds to my experience with you back in March. You seem
to be a man of integrity. You seem not afraid to speak the truth. I liked your
answer when you were asked your position on gun control: "If you are the type of
person who likes assault weapons, there is a place for you -- the United States
Army. We have them."

In addition to being first in your class at West Point, a four star general from
Arkansas, and the former Supreme Commander of NATO -- enough right there that
should give pause to any peace-loving person -- I have discovered that...

1. You oppose the Patriot Act and would fight the expansion of its powers.

2. You are firmly pro-choice.

3. You filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University
of Michigan's affirmative action case.

4. You would get rid of the Bush tax "cut" and make the rich pay their fair
share.

5. You respect the views of our allies and want to work with them and with the
rest of the international community.

6. And you oppose war. You have said that war should always be the "last resort"
and that it is military men such as yourself who are the most for peace because
it is YOU and your soldiers who have to do the dying. You find something
unsettling about a commander-in-chief who dons a flight suit and pretends to be
Top Gun, a stunt that dishonored those who have died in that flight suit in the
service of their country.

General Clark, last night I finally got to meet you in person. I would like to
share with others what I said to you privately: You may be the person who can
defeat George W. Bush in next year's election.

This is not an endorsement. For me, it's too early for that. I have liked Howard
Dean (in spite of his flawed positions in support of some capital punishment,
his grade "A" rating from the NRA, and his opposition to cutting the Pentagon
budget). And Dennis Kucinich is so committed to all the right stuff. We need
candidates in this race who will say the things that need to be said, to push
the pathetically lame Democratic Party into have a backbone -- or get out of the
way and let us have a REAL second party on the ballot.

But right now, for the sake and survival of our very country, we need someone
who is going to get The Job done, period. And that job, no matter whom I speak
to across America -- be they leftie Green or conservative Democrat, and even
many disgusted Republicans -- EVERYONE is of one mind as to what that job is:

Bush Must Go.

This is war, General, and it's Bush & Co.'s war on us. It's their war on the
middle class, the poor, the environment, their war on women and their war
against anyone around the world who doesn't accept total American domination.
Yes, it's a war -- and we, the people, need a general to beat back those who
have abused our Constitution and our basic sense of decency.

The General vs. the Texas Air National Guard deserter! I want to see that
debate, and I know who the winner is going to be.

The other night, when you were on Bill Maher's show, he began by reading to you
a quote from Howard Dean where he (Dean) tried to run away from the word
"liberal." Maher said to you, so, General, do you want to run away from that
word? Without missing a beat, you said "No!" and you reminded everyone that
America was founded as a "liberal democracy." The audience went wild with
applause.

That is what we have needed for a long time on our side -- guts. I am sure there
are things you and I don't see eye to eye on, but now is the time for all good
people from the far left to the middle of the road to bury the damn hatchet and
get together behind someone who is not only good on the issues but can beat
George W. Bush. And where I come from in the Midwest, General, I know you are
the kind of candidate that the average American will vote for.

Michael Moore likes a general? I never thought I'd write these words. But
desperate times call for desperate measures. I want to know more about you. I
want your voice heard. I would like to see you in these debates. Then let the
chips fall where they may -- and we'll all have a better idea of what to do. If
you sit it out, then I think we all know what we are left with.

I am asking everyone I know to send an email to you now to encourage you to run,
even if they aren't sure they would vote for you. (Wesley Clark's email address
is: mailto:info@leadershipforamerica.org). None of us truly know how we will
vote five months from now or a year from now. But we do know that this race
needs a jolt -- and Bush needs to know that there is one person he won't be able
to Dukakisize.

Take the plunge, General Clark. At the very least, the nation needs to hear what
you know about what was really behind this invasion of Iraq and your fresh ideas
of how we can live in a more peaceful world. Yes, your country needs you to
perform one more act of brave service -- to help defeat an enemy from within, at
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, an address that used to belong to "we, the people."

Yours,

Michael Moore
Lottery # 275, U.S. military draft, 1972
Conscientious Objector applicant

mistasparkle* wrote:Kucinich- Haven't even heard of him, therefore... he has an icecube's chance in hell of winning anything.

Obviously if Jaime hasn't heard of him he couldn't possibly have a chance

I can't imagine Nader saying anything like that about Dean. Anyway, Nader wouldn't be running on the democratic ticket so it doesn't really matter until after the primaries. Nader has no chance, especially not in this election where EVERYONE left of Karl Rove is just focused on getting the fuck rid of Bush.

enderzero wrote:Obviously if Jaime hasn't heard of him he couldn't possibly have a chance

Obviously you haven't heard of the Jaime-political-index

Seriously tho... I've been following the campaigning and early jockeying going on in the democratic race.... and I've heard and seen tons about kerry, gephardt, dean, and lately clark... If kucinich isn't getting any major press coverage at this point, he's got no chance....

This is good: CNN reported today that Sharpton has raised about $187,000 through June; Braun has raised a little over $210,000, and Dean is over 10 million.

This is good too: Some nutcase pundit on FOX (read FAUX) actually thinks that the Clintons are telling Clark to run so that he washes out Dean and the rest of the Dems and Bush wins. This guy was actually saying that the Clintons were basically trying to sink the Democratic candidates so that Hillary can have a clean shot in 2008. An incumbant Democratic President would severely hamper/eradicate her chance in 08, so this idiot thinks that the Clintons would suffer through four more years of Bush hell just so Hillary could have clear shot at the job. FOX is scary. People actually watch this shit in droves and take it at face value! This is how Bush got as many votes as he did in 2000....

From an article this week in the progressive:

Christian Amanpour, CNN's top war correspondent, has come clean, echoing Rather, but this time about the Iraq War.

"I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled," she said on "Topic A with Tina Brown" on CNBC last week. She added, "I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the Administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, [create] a climate of fear and self-censorship. . . . It's a question of being rigorous. It's really a question of really asking the questions."

She faulted the media for not asking tough questions especially about weapons of mass destruction. Said Amanpour, "It looks like this was disinformation at the highest levels."

For her frankness, Amanpour received a dressing down from the higher ups at CNN. Jim Walton, CNN news chief, had a "private conversation" with her, reported the New York Post on September 16.

Meanwhile, one of the Administration "foot soldiers at Fox News" had this to say, which essentially confirms Amanpour's point about how Fox tries to intimidate other members of the media: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for Al-Qaeda," Fox spokesperson Irena Briganti said.

As if that's the only choice!

Fox would have us believe that Bush's crude philosophy, "You're either with us, or the terrorists," applies now to reporters, who used to pride themselves on their objectivity and their skepticism.

As Amanpour and Rather suggest, what we're getting more and more of these days is TV journalism that serves as an instrument of propaganda for the state.

We need to deFoxify.

FOX has actually been covering the CNN situation with the dramatic title, "Meltdown at CNN." (Insert scary music here).

btw,

We need to deFoxify.

is one of the wittiest things that I have heard in a while... is that yours Mistasparkle*?

I enjoyed that too.

I sometimes wonder whether Bill O'Riledup is consciously modeling himself on Senator Joe McCarthy...

Here's some good stuff on Kerry. He has been touting his Vietnam Veteran war hero experience, and touched upon his Vietnam War prostesting experiences but this is just strange:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2087554/
At least he's been consistently flipping and flopping his entire political career!