Kerry gaining ground in Iowa
 

The latest poll shows Kerry, Dean and Gephardt in a dead heat in Iowa, with Edwards not too far behind. Not surprising, considering the campaign ads in Iowa are either Dean's or against Dean. No real discussion of why people should vote for these idiots.

Kerry's approach is smelling a lot like Gore's toward the end of the race in 2000 when his campaign went on the attack against Nader after ignoring the third-party candidate for most of the race. It didn't work for Gore and it won't work for Dean.

Are the Democrats too stupid to figure out what's going on? People don't want a senator or congressman, especially spineless me-tos who voted for the Iraq resolution. This is still Dean's race to lose. And really the only other viable candidate is Clark (outside of Iowa), even though he is nothing but Clinton Lite in my view.

It's frustrating. Looks like I'm going to start looking at a third party again to find my candidate.

Re: Kerry gaining ground in Iowa
 

Well, Lyndon LaRouche is running again.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Well, I'll support whoever gets the nomination, and I think it's between Clark and Kerry. I still stand by my belief that Dean will fall by the wayside in the coming months. Dean is really hurting the Democratic party (so are the others, granted), but from Dean, I just get this vibe of viciousness and it is very disconcerting. I think that he tells us liberals what we want to hear, not what he believes. And I think that if he was in a position to vote for the war, he would've done so.

Clark? No thanks. He changes his mind every other hour and never seems to make any sense or know what he's talking about. He's an incoherent mess of a candidate.

Re: Re: Kerry gaining ground in Iowa
 

OMG - IS HE STILL ALIVE!?!?!?!?! :laugh:

Viciousness? I don't think so. And if the liberals are paying attention, they have to know about his Israel and gun policies. Besides, I don't think he could possibly hurt the Democrats more than the party establishment already has. The party seems to believe that playing to the center will get somebody elected. What happens is confusion among the voters, enough that people couldn't tell the difference between Gore and Bush. Why give the nomination to another one of these citruls?

Re: Re: Re: Kerry gaining ground in Iowa
 

Yes. He's getting about $1.4 million in tax dollars from the presidiential elction fund to mount his campaign.:rolleyes:

Why won't Mrs. Dean get involved in the campaign? Does anyone else think that will hurt him?

As of todays poll, Dean slipped another three points and Kerry jumped into the lead. :D

I submit that outside of a runaway candidate a la Clinton in 96, all serious Presidential contenders must play to the middle to win.

I base this on the theory that most studies show close races are won with swing votes in the 20 or so swing states. A good example of this is the gun issue. I am not arguing about right or wrong; I am just stating a fact when I say most people do not want guns banned because they think there is a Const. right to own a gun. Therefore, the politicians know that harcore Democrats will always vote Democrat even if the leading candidate reaches out to more conservative voters with slogans like let's control guns with background checks instead of banning them. I mean look at what we have now. Almost all of the Democratic candidates are not for total gun banning. Yet, from what I have read every Democrat here will vote for them as the lesser of two evils. So, I think that the side issues (unfortunately gun control is one) will always be played to get the swing votes in the crucial swing states. Without these votes, the candidate cannot get elected. :cool: