Only 5 Democratic Presidential Candidates Matter
 

I could put this under politics, but it's my rant, so I'll put it here.

I don't like unsolicited calls, but I don't mind doing the phone surveys...I finished a 20-minute one with an apparent Democratic pollster earlier. It was actually good for me, because I had no idea who the Democratic candidates were in my Congressional district...now I do.

One of the questions that came up was, "If the presidential election were today, who would you vote for out of the 9 current Democratic candidates?" Which got me thinking...

The primary season starts this month, which will begin to thin the herd. Some will try to make their last stand, as they won't get so much publicity in their life again. But for some of them, they might as well call it a day already.

With less than two weeks to go before the Iowa Caucus, these are the 5 candidates that really matter...in my opinion, of course.

Howard Dean: Came from out of nowhere to take the lead. An easy target b/c he is now the front-runner...has had his share of gaffes recently. Liberal enough for liberals, yet could win some conservatives, particularly from the pro-gun crew.

Wesley Clark: Has bounced back from a rough start...not afraid to speak his mind. Could give Dean fits in the South.

John Kerry: Everybody loves a war vet...more or less. Will be interesting to see him and Dean face off in New England.

Dick Gephardt: Gephardt represents the old Democratic party--union base, fights for workers, stands up for middle America, blah blah blah. His weak leadership in the House is part of the reason the Dems are nearly pathetic these days.

Al Sharpton: He has absolutely no chance of winning, but he's been the clear winner of the debates I've watched thus far. He'll sell himself to the person that is most willing to take up minority concerns.

As I see it, it's going to boil down to Dean and Clark...and I don't think there will be any divisiveness in Boston come July: this means too much to the Democrats for them to fuck it up.

Re: Only 5 Democratic Presidential Candidates Matter
 

doesn't mean they won't! :angel: Especially if the party establishment can't get over this pathetic "we hate Dean because we didn't anoint him."

(I'm not a rabid Dean supporter. But it's way past time for the party hacks to get off their butts and realize that he's a serious candidate and they have to deal with him whether they like him or not.)

I listened to a fair chunk of the radio debate yesterday. NPR ran a lead-in sound biting each of the candidates promising free stuff. for everyone. Dean had more "right" answers than most and emphasized a balanced budget, he still comes off as defensive but the rest keep sniping at him. He picked up Bradleys endorsement recently. Lieberman was most often wrong being pro-war, anti-gay marriage... he'd be in the Republican right wing why he remains a Dem?.. Carol Mosely-Braun sounded less strident than usual and slipped a few personal things in that humanized her a bit... but seriously. Clark wimped out knowing that America is sick of Southern accents in the White House. Kerry still leaves no impression other than being mad at Dean. Gephardt sounds irrelevent and dated. Al didn't show either, to bad, this group is pretty boring. Dennis still comes off as a really unelectable nice guy.

Kerry comes off as being anti-Dean, because at this point to come off as anything more could land him in Dean's boat as well. Reveal anything to the field to shoot at, and you can be sure they'll take the shot.

As it stands, Dean's been so publicized, even if he wins New Hampshire free and clear, it won't really generate any interest. He's in the poor position of only being able to leave NH doing "as expected" or worse. Iowa will trim the fat, NH will show who's got the strength to be the real contenders, come South Carolina, we'll see who's where.

I still firmly believe that if any Dem is going to beat Bush, it's going to be Kerry. He has the war record to counter Bush, the Republicans will be pounding the 9/11 drum all campaign (their politicizing the WTC site this year still turns my stomach - any such politicizing would do so, no matter what party is on the dais) but the IAFF (the firefighter's union) endorses Kerry. Now that's a battle I want to see play out.

Less than 2 weeks to Iowa...here we go, kids.

I read something the other day that basically compared Dean to Mondale and Dukakis...WTF?

Lieberman won't get anywhere, simply because he is Jewish. We don't even have to go into the Republican in Democrat's clothing spiel.

I disagree with you on the Southern issue, Griff. We've had 3 in a row (more or less)...if it were the right guy, people would go with pretty much anyone.

Kerry doesn't have the moxie to pull it off, IMO. He comes across too much like...ummm...Dukakis.

I think February 3 is going to be more interesting than Super Tuesday: Arizona, Washington, Missouri and South Carolina. The hardy conservatives in SC, the insane liberals in WA, the old people in AZ, a good chunk of black folk in MO and SC...a pretty good representation of the nation in just 4 states.

By America I meant...me. :)

Yeah, like you're representative of most Americans...or me...or most of the Cellar for that matter...

I'm still leaning Dean, even with the gaffes, even with the inverted RNC strategery. Who would want this job?

He aint perfect, but he's better. I admire his moxy. Clark strikes me as the complete puppet. Kerry-ineffective, Lieberman not a leader, and Gephardt- milktoast. Mosley Braun is refreshing, Dennis intends too much goodness, and that would surely be disasterous. Al, well hes got to do better at explaining his 3K hotel room.
It will be very interesting to watch the absurd and massive Bush war chest launch into action. Dean or whoever is going to be hunted, raked over the coals, twisted, attacked, repeatedly. Its an ugly game, but I'll be pulling for Dean. If the diverse body of non Bush supporters can get smart and get interested, there is a chance for change. If the dems scatter, and destruct with the delightful help of the Reps...score another for Rove. Unless the spy-out thing catches up. But I suppose the timing can be manipulated.

Of whom?

Well the strategists point to the Clinton political factions of the Dems. The curiousity of a handsome democratic general, the longshot at Bush, but a no-lose situation really- gaining experience in prep for a Hillary assist run next time.

You could also point to the defense contractors for whom he was a lobbyist. Its kinda weird to have a lobbyist candidate, but then again, I guess not.

He keeps talking about bringing us out of our dysfunction, using the leadership and management experience he gained in the military. That's a bit freaky to me, but then again I guess it shouldnt be.

Moseley Braun is out, gives support to Dean, people ask, "Who is Carol Moseley Braun?"

Why is Terry McAuliffe still the head of the DNC?

The Dems have plenty of ammo, and they're just standing there, scared as shit to shoot. Of course, we're talking about Dems here...

And Zell Miller is going to campaign for Bush. I respect Miller for his recent blunt criticism of the Dems, and his pro-gun stance. But campaigning for Bush? He's not running for another term in the Senate, so I guess he's got nothing to lose.

I know if we have to, we'll make it through more or less, but I can't imagine the Bush administration being in office another 4 years...Goddamn, that's scary.

Scary? What's your worst fear?

I too, get these feelings of the head says it's OK but the gut feeling is something is amiss.:(

Radar for president.:worried:

Hmmm...it's a tie.

--That the Bush administration (and in particular, the greatest embarrassment of the state of Missouri) will chip away more of our freedoms.

--That we will get dragged into another costly and unnecessary war.

From the Chicago Tribune profile of Howard Dean (registration may be required)...

Favorite Movie: Animal House

Goddamn, that is funny...

Gephart was successful in hit hit job on Dean, allowing the chosen candidate Kerry to get the win. NPR played a cut of Dean doing an awful Kennedyesque (Teddy) cheerleading scream this morning... I guess we'll just assume thats a Kerry endorsement. Imus is running the sound byte now, Howard might as well go home.

I saw that televised last night and it was absolutely frightening.

UT Wrote:
I listened to it on the web this am. It bore a chilling resemblence to Jim Jones' last speech. Frightening is about right.

[Pointless Rambling]
I don't see a one of the dems whoopin' W. As a conservative, I am wondering why that doesn' t make me any happier than it does.

I'm not sure which is worse - Bush, Ashcroft and Cheney using the Consitution and Bill of Rights as toilet paper and the Treasury as corporate spoils or someone like Kerry transforming our wonderfully efficient capitalistic economy into a socialist nightmare even the French would envy.

Some conservatives think its a good sign that W can and is raising such unprecedented sums of campaign money. To me, its a sign that "everything" is for sale.

We really need to get the corporate dollars out of elections.
[/Pointless Rambling]

Correct me if I'm wrong.... isn't the hallmark of a "wonderfully efficient capitalistic economy" that everything's for sale? How can you be pro-capitalism and then tell people they can't spend their money as they see fit, whether it's for a new television, an addition to their house, an endowment to give scholarships to prospective schoolteachers, or funding for Republican presidential campaigns? Won't the invisible hand of the marketplace take care of these things?

SteveDallas wrote:
I do not find the two highlighted quotes of my prior post to be contradictory.

The invisible hand theory applies to the sum of the economic activity of consumers buying and selling goods and services. I'm all for unrestricted gifts to campaigns from individuals who are registered voters. I oppose the large corporate contributions because it reeks of bribery. When a company donates THAT kind of money, there is an under-the-table agreement or, at the very least, the appearance of one. Either way, its a perversion of the political process.

When I complain about "everything" being for sale, I'm not talking about consumer goods and services. I'm talking about elected officials writing and passing laws and engaging in other conduct which creates an unfair economic advantage as compensation for large political contributions.

That's the important part of limited government that a lot of people seem to miss. If the scope of government is limited, there is less for crimin..er..politicians to sell.

Griff, are you saying that he should back out of the race?

cock-us

I don't think he can win with a sound byte like that floating around, but he should stick it out to force the others to be substantive.

Let's keep in mind, though...this is only one state. Gephardt won Iowa in '88...and we all know how well he did in the end.

So do you object to the fact that it's a corporate donation, or that it's a large donation? If we agree for the sake of argument that a donation of $10,000,000 from MegaConglomerate to the Republican Party is perverse, would a $10,000,000 donation from a private citizen be equally perverse? It seems to me that if case a) results in undue influence being exerted on behalf of the donor, then so does case b). The only difference is whether a single person or a corporation (a "person" in some legal senses, as I understand) benefits.

I'm not trying to be an asshole (which doesn't mean I'm not :angel: ), but I've thought about these things a good bit and haven't come up with any good answers.

One difference is that if it is a publically held corporation, they are legally required to use their money for the benefit of the corporation, or their shareholders can sue them. If they are not getting something in return for the donation, they are wasting the money.

This isn't a guarantee - they could merely expect the recipient to already support the corporation's goals rather than expect the donation to change the mind of the recipient. I suspect the latter is more likely than the former, though. Another option is that the corporation hopes to get good PR from the donation, but that only applies if they publicize it - which they usually don't.

I would guess that an individual is much more likely to donate altruistically than is a publically held corporation. A privately held corporation is essentially the same as an individual - the one(s) who own(s) it.

In the end, though, I support donation limits across the board to remove the appearance and fact of bribery, and level the influence game's playing field.

Kerry and Bush belong to what society?
 

Interesting piece, do not access without proper tinfoil precautions.

Good find, Griff.:eek:

Which candidate do you think is most for the tinfoil hat vote?

Lieberman's out...can I get an amen? Can I get a hallelujah?

Praise be!

That's OK. Still 3 more Yalies and 2 skull & bones, including Bush.;)