Anyone want to comment?
Comments, Anyone?
ned said on 12/15/02 at 11:18 PM,
well, speaking for myself, working with mass young dems, it was a pain in the ass trying to convince students that he was the guy. People our age (then) never bought it... with his stupid fucking 'hollywood is bad' thing, and his inability to hide the fact that he must be an alien. Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones should hit him with a phaser or something.
So, in that respect, thank GOD.
In the other respect, JOHN KERRY is just as much of a problem as mr. gore. Except, he's actually LESS likeable! yay!
gephardt, daschle, lieberman? bagage bagage bagage.
Howard Dean has my attention now... but it's certainly a new day today.
--
now sara, why not comment yourself first? You knew i'd write, didn't you...
.......................sara said on 12/15/02 at 11:18 PM,
why is kerry a problem?
.......................tbone said on 12/15/02 at 11:18 PM,
I for one never liked Gore. It isn't just his lack of charisma, I think he's arrogant. I do like Kerry because he seems to speak his mind, doesn't pander to the party or waffle.
Than again to have a candidate from my homeland, VT, would be awesome. I give Dean a lot of credit for approving civil unions, but I think that fact makes him too liberal a candidate if we want to beat Bush.
.......................sara said on 12/15/02 at 11:18 PM,
did you ever see that episode of Malcolm in the Middle where Reese teaches Malcolm to turn of his brain?
well. i thought al gore was funny on SNL.
.......................ned said on 12/15/02 at 11:18 PM,
heh. i didn't get to see Gore on SNL because an unnamed tbone and presley wouldn't let me go home to watch.
har har. anyway, i like Dean. Dean actually is angry that Liberals are getting excited about him- he doesn't see himself that way. His health plan is centrist compared to Clinton/Gore's... It's not single-payer, but seeks to work with the insurance comapnies to extend coverage... so it might actually work.
Kerry is a problem because he gives the general impression that he's ALOOF. he's a new england liberal too.
And he's divorced, remarried to the wife of the ketchup fortune, who is still talking about her dead husband, Senator Heinz. it's just ODD.
I guess the reason I think Dean is a better bet, despite being a new englander, is that vermont isn't massachusetts. The gay union thing might be a liability down in Trent Lott country... but I obviously agree with him on that.
I like Governors, and there aren't many out there on our side.
.......................ned said on 12/15/02 at 11:18 PM,
by "agree with him on that", i meant dean, not LOTT.
.......................presley said on 12/15/02 at 11:18 PM,
yes but think about it ... KETCHUP! That's what we need in a President...more ties to KETCHUP?? Am I right 666?
.......................albany dan said on 12/15/02 at 11:18 PM,
I like this Trent Lott fellow. He makes a lot of sense.
.......................Todd Bridgewater said on 12/15/02 at 11:18 PM,
Some interesting observations Ned. Let me throw one at you. The centrist Democratic Power Structure that has shifted the policies of the party to the right of center, while still managing to maintain the "liberal" label (with the practical effect of redefining the term liberalism to a more moderate philosophies), along with the DLC, our favorite family the Clintons, and everybody's favorite Dick Morris, have all been preaching for years that the only way Democrats can take the White House is by putting forward a southern Democrat.
My question is--and it may be directed more at your own centrist Albany Dan, Do Democrats really have to put forward a southerner? Hear me out, Has anyone considered that Democrats could just tell the south to go F*** themselves and run a real campaign. Let's put forward "ackward" John Kerry for example. Let's assume that In 2004, all of the states that went for Bush (excluding Florida) went to Bush and all of the states that went for Gore go to Kerry (this is likely true with the exception of Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan). If Bush had lost any other state, Florida would have been irrelavent. All the Dems have to do is carry the states that Gore carried in 2000, and pick off one or two of the states that Bush carried. I would suggest that Florida is a waste of time. It by no means will be a certainty for either party, and the immense amount of resources it takes to win Florida could easily cover massive campaign expenses in other states.
So here is what I propose--Send Kerry to Ohio, West Virginia, and North Dakota. If Kerry wins 1 of those states, Bush can take Florida and still lose the election. I can assure you that if Kerry went to West Virginia and presented a major plan (endless possibilities) to benefit both coal miners and coal producers, he would carry that state by 6-7 points. If he went to eastern North Dakota--the Republican stronghold of the state (whereas the rest of the state is heavily Democrat) and proposed major federal initiatives to benefit farmers (again, endless possibilities), he could easily carry that state as well. Let's remember that North Dakota in the end is still part of the old prairie populist states, and was virtually ignored by Gore much to the chagrin of Senators Dorgan and Conrad. Many Gore advisors argued hard that Gore should have gone back to Ohio because it was in play. If you do the electoral math, All Gore needed was one of these states, two at the most, in order to take the Presidency.
With the right proposals, Kerry could easily take any of these states in 2004. These states have constituencies that are far from those of the radical right in the South. It's time to say enough is enough with the south. For too long they have had a disproportional influence on policy in this country. I say piss on Florida, ignore the South, and elect a New England Liberal. It's possible.
Now all I ask, is to tell me where I am wrong??? Ned? Albany (centrist) Dan?
.......................nedward said on 12/15/02 at 11:18 PM,
I love that Albany Dan is the Centrist... Maybe it's because I live in Massachusetts that I get Lib. Creds...
(todd, i block-ed out your text so it was actually readable! sorry!)
well, i would say:
Honestly, my reply is that elections are not always that predictable. If there is one thing that the 2000 election should tell us, it's that there hasn't been any kind of realignment in this country. It was a matter of personality.
And I do not think Mr. Kerry's personality is Presidential. He's a Senator through-and-through... You've got to lead.
We'll give him the benefit... hell, I will probably be involved in the campaign. But I don't really have confidence in him as a candidate.
AND, the convention is going to be in Boston. You can't underestimate the negatives of being from massachusetts. That's a lot of mass to swallow. And, at least Dukakis had integrity.
Does anyone think it's odd that Edwards is likely to be the only southerner ? And what about Wesley Clark? I don't know what to make of that.
.......................sara said on 12/15/02 at 11:18 PM,
i don't know who this Todd Bridgewater chap is, but i have to agree with him.
.......................Any Trackbacks?