Democratic Canddiates debate: Who will win the 2004 Democratic Nomination?

[Sava]

Nah, Kerry would trounce Dubya. Being a vet, he definitely has more credibility in the "patriotism" area.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

McCellan was a vet and a three time amputee and he lost the governorship in georgia.

[Shi Huangdi]

"I really wish Dean would get it"

Well, if Dean plays his cards right he could end up as the McCain of 2004. His solid opposition to the War on Iraq and his support of gay rights could get solid grassroots support from the Dem's leftist base. And unlike McCain, he probably won't have the problem of being seen as too moderate for the party base.

"McCellan was a vet and a three time amputee and he lost the governorship in georgia."

Right, and perhaps more significantly, McCain who was an actual POW lost to Bush in the primary, and that was among Republican voters. Kerry's status as a vet won't put him over the top.

[Guynemer]

Agreed, Shi--to some extent. The Repubs talked a good line about "restoring dignity and honor to the White House," but faced with a choice between a war hero POW and a guy who deserted his National Guard post, they chose the latter. So, internally, within the GOP, there is no reason to believe that a service record means squat.

However, in a general election, Kerry's history may lure independant voters. Bush may have beaten McCain in the primary, but polls showed that in a general election, McCain would have slaughtered Gore, while the then-potential Bush-Gore match-up ran a dead heat...



That said, I too would prefer Dean. Kerry is probably the only other major candidate I could see myself voting for.

[Sava]

Kerry's status as a vet won't put him over the top.

that was 2000, there was a little event known as 9/11 that put such things in perspective... and with the jingoistic attacks on the Dixie Chicks, Susan Sarandon, and everyone else with a backbone speaking their mind, the question of patriotism and sacrifice has become more significant than it was in 2000. Whether it will put Kerry over the top, well, I doubt it. He'd probably beat Bush regardless.

[Ned]

Lieberman was there consistently on the war issue. This will get him a lot of votes. The extremist, anti-war types will vote for a variety of far left, anti-war types. Kerry blew it when he attacked Bush just before the start of the war.

[Sava]

Blew what? He wanted to wait a little longer and see hard evidence that the war was necessary. In fact, I remember one of his press releases, "I'm not saying military action isn't necessary, I just think we should be smart about it."

Lieberman is just a pud. He only says what he thinks people want him to say.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Stefu
What, it's the Democrats' turn this season?

Of course! Haven't you noticed the pattern? First we have the lecherous hillbilly then the Republicans sent out thier comedian. Now it's thier turn to amuse us again.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Sharpton! It's time the Dems gave the voters a laugh.

Haven't we been doing that pretty well for a few decades now?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Haven't we been doing that pretty well for a few decades now?

Yes but I thought Sharpton would make it a more entertaining comedy.

[cinch]

I like Kucinich (quotes and all!), personally, but I could live with Gephardt winning.

Sadly, neither will happen, but still...

[lord of the mark]

kerry waffled - he might win the nomination, but wont win the general.


I like Edwards or Lieberman - a fear Edwards doesnt yet have enough gravitas - and i fear that if the War on Terror is ongoing during a Lieberman admin there will be vicious antisemitism stirred up whenever he makes a hawkish decison - (i mean you think the attacks on Wolfowitz were bad)

Gephardt is interesting - he's been solid on the war, yet his health care plan is bold and outflanks Kerry/Dean on the left. Im not sure its perfect public policy, but it makes me want to take another look at the guy.