On to New Hampshire
 

Iowa gave us an interesting turn of events. Some thoughts:

It's pretty clear people in Iowa didn't like Dean, and I believe a lot of people across the country feel the same way. He should have shown some humility in his speech last night, but instead seemed intent on giving his vocal chords a punishing stress test. Bad move.

John Kerry, who I think is a likable guy, is still hard to take seriously for me. I'm still puzzled by his doublespeak about the war. Furthermore, neither he nor Edwards had much to say about children living in poverty, health care and so forth until they decided to co-opt that from Dean. Edwards, "Mr. Positive," still strikes me as a lightweight.

Kerry, on the other hand, seems to have been studying the Gore campaign and came away with the wrong lessons. I saw him this morning on NBC saying one of the reasons he won was because he has run a positive campaign, yet he was sending mailers to Iowa voters attacking other candidates, Dean specifically. Already this morning his campaign sent an e-mail to voters in New Hampshire lambasting Clark for saying he is a Patriots fan. "In New England, he dons a Pats jersey, in Wisconsin it's the Packers," the e-mail read. "What will Wes wear in South Carolina today?" That's it, Senator, focus on the important themes.

As for Edwards having appeal in the South, some insiders are saying he is the one that worries Bush (or whoever is doing the thinking for him) the most. I think the Democrats should just write off the South. It's over, though they can still get Florida. The Democrats should concentrate on the growing non-Cuban Latino vote in Florida and in places like the Southwest and go after a couple big states with good ole traditional Democrat values to get the votes they need. The South always gets a lot of effort from Democrats, but lately it seems like wasted effort. Just being pragmatic here.

Lastly, Dean still has the most money and he still has a big following of rabid anti-war supporters. I don't see how Kerry or Edwards could get all those supporters.

Enter Clark. And hello New Hampshire.

Clark will not get the nomination and neither will Dean. It's a two-way race between Kerry and Edwards, IMO. Kerry is only one percentage point behind Clark and that's sure to change in no time.

And if Kerry gets the nomination, wait until the first one-on-one debate with Bush; he will blow you away. I've seen him a few times when he was up for re-election in MA and those are the moments when the man truly shines. Bush will be quaking if Kerry gets the nomination. Bush should be afraid.

In time, I'm sure you'll like Kerry, Carne! :laugh:

I know what Kerry is capable of. I've voted for the guy and I've seen him speak several times. It just made it all the more frustrating to me that he couldn't seem to get his message straight. Now the media is saying he was wowing them in Iowa in the last several days. That may be. It's the same media that was predicting less than a week ago that Dean was going to run away with the caucus.

Be that as it may, Kerry has a distinguished record but his "I was in Vietnam and I am hero" fall-back message is wearing thin, at least with this voter. Still I would be able to forgive him that. He was in a hellish war and he truly distinguished himself. He then stood up in front of the Senate to speak out against the war. I'm just wondering why he couldn't do the same with the Iraq war. All we got was a confused message. He was hedging his bets. And this nonsense that he's been positive on the campaign trail is just that--nonsense. Sorry, I'm not inclined to vote for Al Gore. Didn't in 2000. Won't in 2004 in the form of Kerry. My vote is going to a third-party candidate if he gets the nomination. I feel betrayed by John Kerry.

Wow - I can make the distinction of Kerry's war stance. But, if you cannot then I'd bet alot of people cannot. That does not bode well for the D's.

Finally, I have often wanted to vote for a 3rd party candidate, but never did because I knew I'd just be in essence voting for the person I most did not want to win in a tight race where the third party person had no hope of winning. But, its your vote and it is pretty much a given that NY will go Democrat by a significant margin, etc. :cool:

Well if you want four more years of the guy that has lied to you and is ruining this country, then yeah vote for the third party candidate. I like Kerry and can see why he voted for the war. I don't like it but I understand it. That is not the only issue we are facing here. Our economy is farked. We are running up a huge deficit. All of our jobs are being outsourced to foreign countries. I think Kerry gives a damn. Nothing will ever convince me that Bush does.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...nce/index.html

Bush set to make case for second term
Aides say he will defend war in Iraq, oppose gay marriage


:distress: :distress: :distress:

Sorry, that logic gets nowhere with me. I vote my conscience. I couldn't in good conscience vote for Gore or Bush in 2000. I don't believe I can in good conscience vote for Kerry. You can call it what you want, but I ain't voting for Bush. I'm voting for what I believe in. Do you realize we may be the only "democracy" (I know, I know, Jason, it's a republic) in which the greater number of voters cast their vote out of strategy rather than belief? It is a sad state of affairs, and one in which I refuse to participate.

As for the other issues, you are quite correct. But the reason Bush has had such an easy time of screwing things up is because the groundwork was lain by the Clinton administration. Much much that was not truly in the tradition of Democratic values went on in the Clinton years. I will mention the disregard for the environment and the dismantling of antitrust regulations. And I won't even go into the atrocious welfare bill. I literally shake when I think of it. Bush Sr. passed more liberal policies than Clinton. But, hey, the economy was good during the Clinton years, no thanks to him but to a little thing called the Internet, so no one was paying attention. The idiot Republicans (I'm referring specifically to idiot Republicans, not implying all are idiots) happily played along by distracting us with investigations into quaint sex scandals.

You wan't the same old bull****? Go ahead and vote for the guy who is going to maintain the status quo, be he a Republican or Democrat. I vote for change. I may not succeed, but I'm going with what I believe in.

Bless his heart - his defining marriage smacks of the old "science and the Bible demonstrate blacks/darkies are inferior and, therefore, deserve less rights" rhetoric of days of old. It is time for this a$$hole to go. Sadly, most of the country and/or politicians feel this way like they did when segregation and/or sep. but equal were around.

Kudos to you my friend.

Finally - I am making headway!!! :cool:

Exactly; he seems like the most genuine man in the race (along with Kucinich). I have a great deal of respect for him and the fact that he stands for everything I believe (except for the ****-up he made when he voted for the war; that was a mistake that has no excuse but I do see his point). He's a staunch environmentalist, he's fought for the working class, and he's a liberal down to his bones. I've supported him in the Senate, I've supported him when he decided to run for president, and I will continue to support him because I believe he's a man of great integrity and kindness. I think he could turn this country around and I think he could bring prosperity back to our country. I believe he could give us back our dignity, or at least put us on the road to reclaiming it. And I adore his wife. :laugh:

Just my opinions, though, and I'm glad that everyone here cares so deeply about our country and its politics. :)

I agree, but just out of curosity, why do you think it won't be Clark winning the nomination? Sorry if you've already explained this.

- Jake

I went to his site www.johnkerry.com . He seems like a stand up guy and I love the fact that he is the only elderstatesman in the race on both sides - the exception being Cheney - but I do not think he ever was a Senator, etc.

Agreed. It gives me hope.:)

I would love to see a Bush/Kerry debate too.:)

Interestingly. Al Gore was supposed to be known for his debating skills, yet he did not slam W in any way and I though Gore choked in the debates. So, hopefully, Kerry will do better.

BRAVO!!!
:nod: :nod: :nod:
I agree with you 100%. I'm a registered Republican and I did not vote in 2000 -- I could not bring myself to vote for either Gore OR Bush. I nearly voted Browne, but I did not. Your post makes me regret I didn't.

This country desperately needs a major 3rd party to shake up this ridiculous deadlock that both parties are contributing to.

Weren't the debates part of Al's perception problem though?

I agree with you. Who's a contender?

Clark has no domestic experience and I don't think his status as a general will be enough to sustain much momentum. The new polls are in and Clark is at 19%, while Kerry is at 20%; they've flip-flopped. While this doesn't say a whole lot, history has shown that the winner of the Iowa caucuses usually wins NH. I just don't think the entire party will rally behind Clark; he is not the man who can beat Bush. He's got diaharrea of the mouth and just says the first thing to pop into his mind, whether or not it contradicts anything he said previously or if it doesn't make any sense. Also, he isn't a real Democrat, just like Dean isn't; they're both Republicans. Clark has been a Democrat for only three months.

Clinton did not win Iowa and it was either Carter or W that also did not.

Sadly no one. But, with the way the electoral system works, it is possible for a third party to build up support in non key states that no one pays attantion to, e.g. the Dakotas, and then they could spring forth from there. Jesse V. was a good example of this, but he chose to retire.

Carter won Iowa. Senator McCain won Iowa in'00 I think.

Agreed. Isn't that what Nader was trying to do last time until the whole thing got so convoluted? BTW I think former governor Ventura has some kind of Parkinson's. He shakes.

I think the reason McCain didn't win NH was because he wasn't well known to them. Kerry and Dean are, so I think one of them will win, but my money's on Kerry. Clark doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell.

I think Charlie Gibson has it, too.

Part of the thrid party problem is the money. Until they take the money out of our electoral system, I don't think any third party candidate can raise enough money to be viable.

Really? I stopped watching morning television after September 11.

I only watch GMA. Today makes me vomit and the Early Show should be earlier...so I can't see it.

Yeah, Gibson shakes like a madman. It drives me bonkers.

Do you honestly believe that presidents are responsible for the country's prosperity or lack thereof?

:laugh: :laugh:

Dean is a Republican now? Dude, you're losing the thread a little bit. But enough about Dean. Clark can't beat Bush!!?? I submit to you he is the only one who can beat Bush if Dean self-destructs, which looks entirely possible.

Who was the last senator to get elected to the White House? Quick.

I agree with you to an extent in that the economy is the sum of many parts. I actually think the Fed. via Greenspan has the most control/power in one person because it controls two very important things the money supply (all of the definitions of that) and the Fed Fund rate, which is an effective tool in controling inflation and deflation. But, I do think W's policies have stimulated growth via the tax cuts (not meaning to start an argument over them :cool: ) because they put spending money in every taxpayers' pocket (albeit in different amounts), although I certainly agree the tax cuts certainly were not the only thing.

Interestingly, I read an article awhile back perhaps in The Economist that suggested the tools govt's use are helpful only to a limited extent and the economy traditionally just goes in cycles. So who knows.

Finally, I think the last boom economy fell so hard because it was built on stock prices which in no way even closely resembled the value of the company as traditionally calculated (future earning in present day value divided by number of shares). The nasty deeds of Enron, MCI, and others, which cost the taxpayers about a trillion dollars overall and brought many related and unrealted companies and people to financial ruin, certainly did not help once the recession was started.

Food For Thought :cool:

Yes, but who were the last gov.'s - Carter, Regean, Clinton, W. Hmm - I see a trend :laugh: I, too, think Dean is a little out there and has the chance of self destructing. Only time will tell and the next two weeks will be very interesting.

Richard Milhous Nixon.:)

To a certain extent, yes they are. Case in point: the Carter administration.:)

Wasn't Bush I a senator. I know he was an ambassador.

No that was his father. Bush lost to Yarborough in '64 & 70 but did serve in the House.

Thanks - I knew one of the Bushes was a Senator somewhere!!!!

When it comes to the war, he shares the sentiment most liberals do. But on most other issues? He's quite conservative.

Who was the last general?