Election 2004

[jku]

Now that Labor Day weekend is upon us, so is the start of the REAL race for the Dem nomination - who do you like?
Why?

My loyalty is clear.

[pisces2473]

I don't know who to like. I can't get a clear view of any candidate. You look at their biographies and think that's the truth, then you hear news stories that damages that truth, etc. Who to believe? Who can we trust? Hopefully we'll get some good discussion going...I can't wait for November 2004--it will be the first time I've ever voted in an actual booth:D. I was always in college and had to vote by absentee ballot. At least I voted though. :cool:

[klo1335]

Well right now I am torn between Kerry, Howard, and Kucinich. Why? Well all of the Dem candidates were in Philly and Kerry went to get a Pat's Cheesesteak, which is awesome cause thats the best place in Philly to get them. Howard had this big article in Philadelphia Weekly and when I interned on capital hill my roommate was in Kucinich's office and I met him a bunch of time. However, I really don't know where they all stand on the issues. Can someone give me some insight?

[jku]

The goal is to beat Bush because 4 more years of his kind of "leadership" would force people in their 20s now to in the future paying insane levels of taxes (like England) without all the good stuff like (subsidized) free education, free healthcare, and decent public infrastructure - while at the same time paying for their ailing parents who can't get their social security because it won't exist - and paying $100,000 a year for their kid's tuition!
You want to suffer in your 30s and 40s friends? Be my guest - don't vote or worse yet VOTE BUSH.

So...
In a world of IDEALS - Kucinich would win.

In a world where the Statist reactionaries aka modern day Republicans would be free of hatred toward Gay people and REAL respect for human life - not just fetuses and a desire to control women - DEAN would win...

In the real world where Politics is a hardfought battle of real experience, ideas, and mudslinging - Kerry has to be your guy.

Dean getting the nomination makes me nervous. I see a simple result - Dean passed a civil unions bill for gay people which was great - sad part is that lots of Republicans hate gay people.
Bush propaganda (just like his Dad used against Dukakis with Willie Horton) will be that DEAN is a "gay lover" and the "era of immorality will befall us!"

Vote Bush - he's not immoral, he just gives hard earned tax money away to huge corporations, covers up for terrorist states like Saudi Arabia, is in favor of every kind of benefit for Iraqis like schools and jobs - but is against schools and jobs in America.

All the Bush backers have to answer one question: When did
this President even ONCE backdown from corporate corruption and influence?

[Rainster]

I'm a Dean supporter. (On a checklist, though, I'm most closely aligned w/ Kucinich, but he has a snowball's chance of winning either the nomination or the presidency.)

Dean is *not* the total lefty candidate that Republicans would have voters believe... in fact, he's fairly moderate. Civil unions aside, he was pro-gun in VT, favors the death penalty in certain cases, is critical of medical-marijuana arguments, is fiscally conservative, and has been slammed for his vague positions on the Middle East. (*If*he gets the party nomination, I can see civil unions becoming the inflammatory issue of the 2004 campaign... as a political strategy to detract from other issues like the economy and US troops in Iraq. In any case, unless 2004 turns Congress over to the Democrats... most of whom are not exactly pro-gay marriage themselves... how likely is it that civil union legislation will pass?)

Good point a/b Kerry's experiences in politics. One of my concerns about Dean is that Vermont is a small, small state (my city has more people!), although policies he supported (e.g, health care, the environment) can still offer a working model for other states. But this election, I wonder if independents and undecideds will favor the insider/outsider image... I can't see Kerry appealing to anybody but Democrats.

Pisces --2004 will be the first time I vote non-absentee, too! I always voted absentee in college, and still have for the past 2 years. I'm switching it after this year's general election, though. :) I want do the whole wake-up-early-go-to-the-polls thing....

[jku]

I think a lot of the backing for Dean is from anger, not intellect. He's a fiery, pissed off, sweaty doctor with his sleeves rolled up looking for a fight. BTW, This would describe my Dad too.


But he's SO weak on SO many issues. Foreign policy being one of the major issues this election, Bush will SLAM him on it. "Loserman" and Kerry are already hitting him on it.

Dean didn't serve in the military - actually, the story that Bush will use to destroy him if they ran against each other was that Dean got out of the draft and was skiing while soldiers died.
You might say, well Bush went AWOL from the National Guard, etc - but he landed on an aircraft carrier and that image will be slammed down our collective throats this time next summer.

To put it in perspective. Dean is supported STRONGLY by Karl Rove, Bush's campaign manager.
Rove thinks he can use the $200 Million + to smash Dean into the ground.

In regards to Kerry - look at the pictures of him on a sailboat with John Kennedy, him in Vietnam wearing a ratty military issue t-shirt with his crew patroling the Mekong Delta - his protest of war with John Lennon - he military medals, years as a Senator, etc. Kerry may have voted in favor of giving Bush the OPTION of going to war as a last resort, but Dean would have voted for war too were he a Senator and not EX-governor last Fall.

In time, it will become clear to many Dems Kerry is the guy to go with. 2/3 of DEMS can't name ONE of the 9 candidates running now anyways.

But the sooner we stop blindly supporting Dean out of anger at Bush, and start looking at a guy who can WIN, this country will start working again.

[pisces2473]

Originally posted by jku
I think a lot of the backing for Dean is from anger, not intellect. He's a fiery, pissed off, sweaty doctor with his sleeves rolled up looking for a fight. BTW, This would describe my Dad too.

LOL x 100! :lol:

Originally posted by jku
But he's SO weak on SO many issues. Foreign policy being one of the major issues this election, Bush will SLAM him on it. "Loserman" and Kerry are already hitting him on it.

Can we please refrain from any name calling? You're messin' with my senator, dude. :p

Moving on...do any of you envision a Democratic split? Dean seems to be the champion of the working man, in favor of organized labor (did anyone see the coverage of him at Yale over the weekend?), etc...while a lot of people see Kerry as another elitist senator from Massachusetts who wants to be like the elder brother of the OTHER Massachusetts senator.

I can see Democrats not coming together, like what happened in 2000, thus the majority going to Bush. Remember what people said--a vote for Nader is really a vote for Bush? (I'm not anti-Nader, just pointing out a fact.)

What about the common person, someone in middle America that might not have much education, that can't see the bigger picture, that's just going to go with what Bush says because he's made statements that fall right into the beliefs of these people? Talk about brainwashing...

And finally, did anyone watch Kerry on Meet the Press this weekend? He got asked about Skull and Bones, lol. He was just like, "Yeah Tim, whatever" and rolled his eyes, haha.

[jku]

Dean was at Yale protesting - so was everyone else. Jesse Jackson just got arrested there today, right?

In re to Unions, you don't think Kerry has a belief in Unions? Let me give you a 2000 quote of his that I, being a Union member, felt heartened to read:

"Today -- when times are so good for so many -- there are millions of Americans who take their jobs for granted - who go to work each day in a safe workplace with good benefits and great pensions and a break for lunch and plenty of vacation time -- but who don't realize that seventy years ago in too many plants, in too many factories, there wasn't even such a thing as a lunch break or a bathroom break. They forget that hundreds of women burned to death in a zipper factory in Chicago because they locked the doors and kept them in that sweatshop and no one heard their screams. They forget that there was once such a thing as child labor in the United States - that the minimum wage and collective bargaining had no place in the United States when our grandparents were growing up. Workers organized to change that - they fought for our rights - they gave us basic safety rules - a floor on wages - decent pensions - health care - and a right to organize - and never forget that some of those workers fought and died on a picketline to build the United States of fairness and decency we have today. Never forget that the American Labor movement has been the greatest fighting force for fairness and decency our nation has ever known."

Greedy Corporate Republicans stand firmly against everything hardworking people in this country hold dear. It's amazing to see people in the RED states back Bush because he's a Christian, and at the same time lose their manufacturing jobs. The amazing thing to me is to see Bush speak to Union members today in Ohio, knowing well Bush stands against eveything Unions have to offer.
Fair wages, job security, and a chance at a middle class lifestyle.

[pisces2473]

Yes, I know Dean was at Yale protesting. I work there and am supposed to be on strike, but disagree with the unions, haha. So was Lieberman...I didn't see/hear about anyone else coming down to speak. Except for Jackson (roll eyes). I don't know if he got arrested or not. I do know that 80 people were arrested for picketing.

I didn't say that Kerry does or doesn't believe in unions. My comments were just from what I've seen and heard. Many people with whom I've spoken think that Dean is the champion of the hard worker, and Kerry is just another elitist. I don't know who to believe. Perhaps I haven't done enough research, but there's the problem. Every newspaper has got a bias, so again, it's who to believe?

But interestingly enough, in today's paper there was an AP story saying that Lieberman was in the lead, Dean and Gephardt following, with Kerry in the rear.

And about this, I totally agree with you! "Greedy Corporate Republicans stand firmly against everything hardworking people in this country hold dear. It's amazing to see people in the RED states back Bush because he's a Christian, and at the same time lose their manufacturing jobs. The amazing thing to me is to see Bush speak to Union members today in Ohio, knowing well Bush stands against eveything Unions have to offer.
Fair wages, job security, and a chance at a middle class lifestyle."

Sure, let's give them a $500 rebate, so they will think of us as champions, then we'll tax the shit out of them later. Real high-brow thinking, Republican-style.

[jku]

But what is it about the Republican message that is drawing people in. Sure, there message is CLEAR if you fall for simple minded jingoistic nationalism - but real democracy and "freedom" take some time and thought. Picese said it best:
"I have to learn more about the candidates and make an informed decision."

I think if people made decisions based on some research, particularly on Bush, to paraphrase Trent Lott, "we wouldn't be having the problems we are having today."

What ever happned to electing a guy based on experience and intellect? It happens in jobs all over the country. I can only move up in my job based on that criteria, why can't the President?

BTW, the BOSTON GLOBE did a great piece on Kerry a while ago...

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/

ADDENDUM: Any of the women who work at Yale know VANESSA KERRY? She played Lacrosse and was pre-med. She graduated in 1999.
His other Daughter, Alexandra, lives in LA - she's going to be in a movie called big budget SPARTAN in '04.

[pisces2473]

Whoo hoo, I got called a woman! Thanks Jku. Usually it's girl.

Anyway, no, I don't know Vanessa Kerry--I was still in college when she graduated from Yale.

Anne Dean, Howard's daughter, is a sophomore here...and we all know about the first daughter, named after her grandmother (rolleyes).

About the research and informed decisions...people are taking things at face value, which is sad. Bush knows that by giving people $500 rebates, these people are going to remember that come election time...even if he raises their taxes, because they believe in Bush (usually because he's a Christian). That's great if you want to vote along religious lines, but aren't things like treachery and deceit not Christian?

just some thoughts...

[doctor_kaz]

Hillary still may run. She is going to run for sure some day. It's just a matter of what year.

[coll214]

Nope- do not know Vanessa Kerry. She was probally graduating when i started working here...

I don't yet know enough about any of the possible Dem. candidates to make a decision either way yet, but do know that i will NOT vote for Bush. Didn't before and won't now. I agree w/ Pisces about all these people saying they voted for him b/c of his "Christian values"? I have yet to see him do anything while in office that would lead me to believe he even follows them...Jku's point is valid too "What ever happned to electing a guy based on experience and intellect? It happens in jobs all over the country. I can only move up in my job based on that criteria, why can't the President?". If i have to get my peon job b/c of qualifications, then why can't the presidency be the same thing? The good old boy network needs to die at some point...

[Rainster]

Originally posted by jku
I think a lot of the backing for Dean is from anger, not intellect. ... But the sooner we stop blindly supporting Dean out of anger at Bush, and start looking at a guy who can WIN, this country will start working again.

Agree w/ you about the anger part, but every Democrat is angry right now. (At Bush, at each other...!) BTW, it's probably not the best strategy to call everyone who doesn't support Kerry un-intellectual. ;) Up here, Dean has support from OR and WA state Dem party leaders, most of whom are centrist. As well as intellectual. I, for one, never "blindly support" anyone or anything, and most Dean supporters I've talked to and debated with are *not* jumping on the bandwagon just for the heck of it. They think he can win. More specifically, draw in the votes that the other 8 probably can't: the swing voters, the moderate Republicans (McCain supporters, say), the undecideds, and the sad vast demographic of Americans who just don't vote. It's these voters who will decide the 2004 election in my opinion, not those of us who will vote along party lines anyway. In my previous job I had to compile and cross-reference congressional scorecards on education/child care/TANF issues --I have a lot of respect for Kerry, I admire his record, I think we need more people like him in public service. In an ideal world, he'd be President based on his experience and abilities alone. But American voters being what they are, that's not the case.

Sometimes I feel like the Dean/Kerry people are wasting their (our! LOL) time discussing electoral strategy vs image vs predicting Republican campaign tactics. Meanwhile, Gephardt and Lieberman have a lot of support. Maybe I'm really cynical (still working on the post-Labor Day coffee to wake me up...
:D ) but to put a Democrat in office in 2004, I don't think it's going to be up to the primary voters in the "Blue" states.

And the elephants are laughing...

[dakotagopher]

I could vote for either Dean or Kerry pretty easily. I voted for Bush last time and probably would again with little debate if Gore were the opposition again. But I like it that Dean & Kerry are actually tossing ideas out instead of just bashing Bush, which seems to have been the Dems strategy for the last few elections (including midterms).

As I have said before, however, I still would not be surprised to see H Clinton run yet in 2004. Should she do so, I think she becomes the Dem frontrunner overnight and probably knocks Bush off easier than any other Dem candidate. My opinion.

However, should she run, I probably tilt back toward Bush, so I'm hoping Dean or Kerry win the nom.

Sidenote, off the topic. I think the VP choices will be very interesting this year. Look for Bush to select a minority or female. Dems will have to follow suit to cater to that section of their base. Thus Kerry might not be able to pick Dean (or vice versa), which I think would hurt him. I think a Kerry/Dean team (again, going either way on pres/vp, would be tough for Bush to beat). I've been thinking this for a while now, though i think the Dems hold their convention before the Republicans this year, no? That could be interesting.

[doctor_kaz]

Nobody who is in the Democrat field would be tough to beat now. Howard Dean is unelectable. He is basically an angry version of Jimmy Carter.

[Rainster]

Originally posted by dakotagopher
Sidenote, off the topic. I think the VP choices will be very interesting this year. Look for Bush to select a minority or female. Dems will have to follow suit to cater to that section of their base. Thus Kerry might not be able to pick Dean (or vice versa), which I think would hurt him. I think a Kerry/Dean team (again, going either way on pres/vp, would be tough for Bush to beat). I've been thinking this for a while now, though i think the Dems hold their convention before the Republicans this year, no? That could be interesting.
Hey, those are some interesting scenarios! ;) Talk about mixing things up! Yeah, you're right, the Dem convention is b/f the Rep --July as opposed to August.

[cheetah]

Bush and Cheney will remain a team in 2004. they have already pretty much announced that. All their mailings say, "Do you want to keep Bush and Cheney as president and vice president?"

I don't think a Dean/Kerry ticket would go. Kerry would be too proud to be VP for Dean, IMHO. Maybe vice versa too. Besides, that's just bad strategy, as they need to have some southern support. Maybe Clark.

I don't think Dean is unelectable, particularly with a southern, military-experienced running mate. If Dean can prevent them from further labelling him as a whacko liberal (play up his NRA rating, fiscal conservatism) he would do a lot better. if not he's toast, because being called a liberal is about as bad as being called a pedophile nowadays. If he can hold onto the democratic moderate base in a way that Gore did not, he can win. All it would take is a 3% shift in the south for him to take Florida, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas and West Virigina. That's not much, but would be big, electorally. Does the South really ONLY care about being pro-life and banning gays from equal rights? I don't know, but I think the economy will affect their vote, too, and if it's still this bad in 14 months, Dubya's in trouble.

[doctor_kaz]

Originally posted by cheetah

I don't think Dean is unelectable, particularly with a southern, military-experienced running mate. If Dean can prevent them from further labelling him as a whacko liberal (play up his NRA rating, fiscal conservatism) he would do a lot better. if not he's toast, because being called a liberal is about as bad as being called a pedophile nowadays. If he can hold onto the democratic moderate base in a way that Gore did not, he can win. All it would take is a 3% shift in the south for him to take Florida, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas and West Virigina. That's not much, but would be big, electorally. Does the South really ONLY care about being pro-life and banning gays from equal rights? I don't know, but I think the economy will affect their vote, too, and if it's still this bad in 14 months, Dubya's in trouble.

Dean doesn't have any fiscal conservatism to play up. He is trying to portray himself as a "Fiscal Conservative" in an attempt to dodge the "Tax and Spend" label, but he's a lot closer to Walter Mondale than he is to Ronald Reagan. The Democratic moderate base that you speak of tends to be Conservative on the issue of national defense, and when it comes to national defense, Howard Dean sounds like a Left Wing European Social Democrat.

Incidentally, George W. Bush isn't a Fiscal Conservative either, in many respects. He gets lots of criticism from talk radio and other Conservative voice outlets because of this. Truth be told, there aren't many true fiscal Conservatives to choose from.

[jku]

Hey Dakota (ohisashiburi!)
You're saying Bush will drop Cheney and go with woman or minority? Interesting.
Cheney can't leave this administration, he has too much control.

YALE WOMEN: I read an article about MS. magazine this past weekend and realized the problem with "girl." Glad you noticed.

In re to RAINSTER's point about describing Dean as "un-intellectual." That wasn't my intention, actually I really like Dean - if he got the nomination over Kerry, I would do everything in my power to support him. But we can all agree that Bush really does push the rhetoric on religion and nationalism, thus creating a non-criticial "un-intellectual" debate environment. The whole concept of "with us or against us" is straight out of the Bible "either with Jesus or without Jesus."
I support democracy, freedom, and the ideals of this country. But a theocracy like Iran is not what America is about, and Ayatolla Bush and Ayatolla Ashcroft have a lot to answer for. This is an America for all people of all beliefs, not just Christians from the "heartland."

I think the end result of this whole thing will be Kerry/Clark 2004. Dean is fun and "fresh," but he'll get nailed in the general election. Every GOP advisor has cited Kerry as their biggest fear, and Dean as the easier one to campaign against.
I think Dems will realize this soon enough and stick with a sure winner instead of taking a gamble on Dean. WIth our country like it is now, it is no time to gamble - why couldn't Dean have run against Gore in 2000 instead of Bradley!?

So its between Kerry and Dean. Let's see what happens. Hope everyone keeps contributing and discussing - this is what Democracy and true Freedom are all about! :)

[Rainster]

Originally posted by doctor_kaz
Dean doesn't have any fiscal conservatism to play up. He is trying to portray himself as a "Fiscal Conservative" in an attempt to dodge the "Tax and Spend" label ,

So here's an article from a Vermont paper on how both a Democratic governor (Dean, since 1991) and a Republican governor (Douglas, who took office in January) both *reduced* spending, and the state ended up with a surplus instead of a deficit. If that's not fiscal conservativism, what is?

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/68442.html

[cheetah]

Originally posted by doctor_kaz

Truth be told, there aren't many true fiscal Conservatives to choose from.

well, then, Dean is probably about as good as you can get. he balanced Vermont's budget and took them from one of the lowest debt ratings in the country (I think they were 49th or 50th) to having the best debt rating in the country of any state (at at least one point, I'm not sure of their current status). AFAIK, that is what fiscal conservatism is all about: balancing budgets, responsible spending (the rating agencies don't give you a good rating for being irresponsible) and putting spending in line with revenues.

[jku]

I support true conservatism versus what Bush has given this great country. Noam Chomsky defined it as "statist reactionary," and it threatens the core of freedom and democracy.

Chomsky said:
Well, those things are taking place but I don't think they
are specifically connected with the Iraq War. The Bush administration,
let me repeat it again, they are not conservatives; they are statist
reactionaries. They want a very powerful state, a huge state in fact, a
violent state and one that enforces obedience on the population. There
is a kind of quasi-fascist spirit there, in the background, and they have
been attempting to undermine civil rights in many ways. That's one of
their long term objectives, and they have to do it quickly because in the
US there is a strong tradition of protection of civil rights. But the kind of
surveillance you are talking about of libraries and so on is a step towards
it. They have also claimed the right to place a person -- even an
American citizen -- in detention without charge, without access to
lawyers and family, and to hold them there indefinitely, and that in fact
has been upheld by the Courts, which is pretty shocking. But they have
a new proposal, sometimes called Patriot Two, a 80 page document
inside the Justice department. Someone leaked it and it reached the
press. There have been some outraged articles by law professors about
it. This is only planned so far, but they would like to implement as
secretly as they can. These plans would permit the Attorney General to
remove citizenship from any individual whom the attorney general
believes is acting in a way harmful to the US interests. I mean, this is
going beyond anything contemplated in any democratic society. One law
professor at New York University has written that this administration
evidently will attempt to take away any civil rights that it can from
citizens and I think it´s basically correct. That fits in with their
reactionary statist policies which have a domestic aspect in the
economy and social life but also in political life.

This is a great article about conservatism:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-04-03.html

True conservatives believe in:
- Limits to the role of government in our lives.
- Personal liberty and freedom, which can be found in the Libertarian party.
- Fiscal Resposibnility

Has Bush shown a shred of true conservatism when put to this standard? And in regards to balancing the Budget for the State of Vermont - no offense, but how is that impressive? Getting Ben and Jerry to pay their fair share is easy - getting General Electric and Disney to do so is a different matter. Dean will be savaged in the general election if the Democrats put him up there. Karl Rove salivates over Dean - kind of like a bunch of Stoners eyeing a 12oz carton of Cherry Garcia.
Kerry is a soldier, anti-war activist, and a Senator - can anyone make a case comparing these two in which Dean is the better guy to go up against Bush?

Either way, in re to Bush - hating gay people, Foreigners, and non-Christians while giving money to rich people isn't Conservative, or even American, is it?

[lostindc]

I think what people forget about taxes is that government spending often goes directly into the pockets of working americans in the form government contracts for defense, roads and transportation, public education etc. Tax cuts are not going to help the teachers who were dismissed because there was not enough money in the budget to pay them.

Why should people who watch stock statements be taxed at 15% while people working 40+ hours/week are taxed around 25% (including payroll taxes)

I think Kerry is probably the best candidate though I am still trying to figure out how he rationalizes his vote for the iraq war. I'd also like to see him be more fired up and add more excitment to his campaign. Something so that the voters don't fall asleep listening to him.

[jku]

Kerry on Iraq is clear to me - having to watch the news so closely during that period, I remember a lot of Dem Pols including Kerry basically saying:
"look, we're just giving the President the THREAT of the use of force. It's a UNIFIED front to the UN and Hussein to let him know that he better take these weapons inspections serious after four years. Do you think the President is just going to go to war without UN approval when 70%+ Americans FAVOR UN support?"

The crazy thing is that Bush went to war by bashing the UN and France, and Hussein turned out 90% likely not to be a threat according to weapons inspectors's reports at that time! Who would have thought a President would be so reckless to go into a war where Americans are paying for 90% of it and no international support! We paid for 10% of the FIRST Gulf War!
This is insane! A billion dollars a week!?

Bush was HELLA desperate to payback his donors and get some good press to cover up the messy economy. "What we need is an old fashioned War boys!" People in their 20s (mostly) died needlessly and our we're going to be paying for this fiasco a long time coming.

We have no one to blame but the Right wing on this mess - anyone who questioned the war was "unpatriotic" - celebrities speaking on politics had no right to speak (but they can run for Governor of California, huh!?)

And the American public was forced to go along with the War by the Spring at the cost of seeming "unpatriotic." Approval ratings went up and Bush looked good for a few months all the way through the head coming off the statue in Baghdad. That was Bush's last "great" day, and the beginning of the end of this Administration.

On Kerry being a little more "entertaining," you are right! But did you watch the debate on PBS tonight? Kerry kicked ASS!
He was smart, funny, and articulate. I think he clearly won, or at least got a lot of converts.

I think the honeymoon is over for Dean. He looked BAD on this debate. Weak, sweaty, nervous. But I still like him regardless.

Kerry is really tall - Dean is SHORT. No one talks about how important this is in politics!
We have never had a President under a certain height. Kucinich has ZERO chance of winning in regards to this criteria.

But I see that GREAT day coming. Kerry standing TALL next to
"bad luck" Bush in those NATIONAL debates; domineering , dashing - slamming him on the mess this country is in on so many fronts. TIME magazine will have a cover "The Rise of the new DEMOCRATIC party: Can Kerry lead them to victory?" People will be laughing at the dog days when people were asking if Bush was "beatable" and wonder what they were thinking.

Bush will lose in 2004. Probably get a job at Carlyle with his Dad and John Major making BILLIONS off the war he created.
Kerry will be left to fix this mess. The GOP will go on the assault again bringing up bullshit issues of "morality" and "integrity" on Kerry (hey, killing young fathers in Iraq for no clear reason? How is that "pro-life?"). I think this nation is wiser. We'll see their lies coming this time.

God Bless John Kerry and this country.

[Rainster]

Dakotagopher mentioned awhile back that he thought Bush would opt for a female or minority VP and that the Dems would have to work to keep that traditional voter base... anyways, I thought it was interesting how the debate was partly in Spanish. The candidates all had prepared Spanish-language statements, and pronounced them very awkwardly. (It was slightly hilarious!) :p

jku -- in regards to the height "requirement," unfortunately it just goes to show that the outcome of the election will probably be decided on more than just "the issues." Dean *did* do badly in the debate last night (at least the first half), but to non-Democrats (who probably weren't watching!) I still he had more appeal that Gephardt and Kerry, who kept harking back to "Now I told the President," "Now under President Clinton..." and "Let me tell you" (very condescending language and interactive skills). If HEIGHT is going to be seen as a factor, then so must tired, traditional perceptions of our political parties. From my POV, Dean and Edwards can draw in the voters that are disillusioned with either the Reps or Dems.

I have no idea what Lieberman or Graham did in the debate, though... whenever they spoke, I took the opportunity to check on my laundry...

[pisces2473]

I didn't watch the debates, just the recap on my local news. From what I've heard thus far, in regular speeches and recaps of the debate...I think the Dems need to stop talking about Clinton so much. A lot of people loved Bill (I'm one of them) but a lot of people got really angry over the lying under oath. They might alienate themselves from these candidates who are Clinton-esque, Kerry being the Alpha. He said on Meet the Press last weekend, "if you like what Bill Clinton did, you're gonna LOVE what John Kerry will do." I like Kerry, but I think people who are still disgruntled about Clinton won't be attracted to Kerry. They'll think he's just a Clinton puppet.

Rainster, I think Lieberman talked a LOT about the war, and how we need to send more troops over there.

[doctor_kaz]

Clinton was a centrist candidate and he won because he distanced himself from some parts of the Liberal agenda. He also had a pretty centrist presidency. Based upon the performance of Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis, I would say that Lieberman is the only guy that could win a national election.

[Benwa]

You know which Dem doesn't have a chance? Lieberman. You know why? Because he's Jewish. He might as well be black or native american. No offense to those jewish folk out there, but its true.

This election marks the first chance for me to exercise my right NOT to vote. Its been said that if voting really changed anything it would be illegal. I'm definitely swimming against the tide on this one and I'm sure many opinions will follow. I think a lifetime of Public Service Announcements has pickled our brains. Why is it my duty to vote? It is my duty as a person to do the right thing whenever possible, so how does choosing the lesser of two evils equal "the right thing". Oh I can feel the big argument being thought, the big comeback. It is "If you don't vote you have no right to complain." How do you figure? Lets say you vote for a guy and he gets elected, he then has the capacity to do horrible things on a grand scale and it isn't too long before he does one of them since not a single person who ever lived has been perfect. You put him in there! Lets say your guy looses, well you bought into the system. A system where the voice of a minority, no matter how logical or reasonable is squashed. So you were in the minority this time. Whine all you want, but it doesn't matter because you bought into a system where you (the current minority) doesn't matter! Besides, more people don't vote than vote for any single candidate, so technically I'm in the majority.

A thinking person argument would be "doesn't that candidate have the same capacity to do good." Since I believe the human nature is innately good, I must say yes. But good is more easily accomplished by the individual. Lets say you want to feed some hungry people. The individual could get some supplies and make some sandwiches and take them down to hungry people. Or the red tape can get involved, where seven cents to the dollar goes to the hungry man about six months after he has moved to greener pastures.

I don't know what I'll do on election day. Probably nothing special. Maybe I'll organize a demonstration advocating not voting. Can you imagine if no one voted, talk about sending a clear social message.

[jku]

Benwa - Not voting is irresponsible. On the contrary, voting is the ONLY power you have.
Our ancestors have died in protest for the right to vote, so keep that in mind next time you stay home on voting day. NOT voting is suicidal for people who believe in progress and democracy. What will happen if we don't vote? Others will; like Dr. James Dobson's cult. And we'll quickly move into a theocracy with Ayatolla Bush and his daughters being heirs to the throne.

KAZ SAID - "Clinton was a centrist candidate and he won because he distanced himself from some parts of the Liberal agenda."

KAZ - What aspects of the "liberal" agenda do people you know disagree with? When I ask people this question, I never get a specific answer. Is it based on rights for all people, social programs, a balanced
budget,or fiscal responsibility? Why was life under Clinton so awful?

If anything, Clinton was strangled by a Republican congress, and capitulated way too much. But in exchange for some giveaways, he got some great things done as well (i.e. increased funding for education, more young people going to college than ever before, etc). Watching the WEST WING, and knowing that it was written by FORMER Clinton staffers, gives us an idea of what went on his administration.

Bush's first action was to cut OSHA rules, now he is trying to kill overtime. Isn't it clear that there is an agenda against working people in this country under Bush? Excellent examples of facist (government & corporation working hand in hand) can be found in "Fast Food Nation."

Lieberman could never win. The term "liberal" has been demonized by the RADIO right. The only TRUE progress in this country has come from the "left" - the Republican party today is made up of the remnants of the Racist Southern Democrats of the 1950s (when Strom Thurmond was a Democrat.)

Kerry/Clark 2004 is the ticket that will win.
How anyone NOT intrinsically part of the corporate agenda paraded by Republicans could vote Bush/Cheney over any of the Dem candidates is beyond me.

Corporations will always NEED resposible, intelligent people willing to work hard; but without Unions and government regulation to make sure working conditions, wages, and health insurance are maintained and FAIR - those people will needlessly suffer.

The sooner working people in this country realize WHY the Republicans have so demonized unions (hint: it means giving a fair amount of money to the people who earned it!), and stop voting to keep people AGAINST their best interests in power, the better off we ALL will be.