Gephardt announces candidacy

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But if we define the debate to this universe and dimension,

Gee, what an amazing concept!

[MBD]

I suspect Gephardt is doing this for any of a number of reasons:
1) He's not getting any younger.
2) He's tired of being in the minority, and doesn't think there's a reasonable chance the Democrats will retake the majority any time soon.
3) Maybe he's just tired, and this gives him a graceful way to get out of the House "on top".

With Kucinich, Moseley-Braun, and every other Democrat jumping into the race, I wonder if the fractionalization of the vote helps Gephardt, cause he has higher name recognition, or hurts him, because it splits his base and makes him look too much like just another candidate in the pack.

It's also interesting that there's no Democratic governors in the race except Dean.

EDIT: forgot about Dean, as most votes will do as soon as the primaries start...

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think it might hurt him, MBD, because Kerrey and Liebermann have much better name recognition. Without the crowd, Gephardt might have been able to stand out on some issues.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MBD
EDIT: forgot about Dean, as most votes will do as soon as the primaries start...

Don't be so sure. Clinton was a small-state governor with little name recognition in 1992. Dean is an appealing candidate for moderate Dems, because he was a popular governor, is sensibly liberal and has more charisma than most of the other contenders.

[MBD]

I concede that Lieberman has better name recognition, but Kerry's been in the Senate since '84 I think, and has very little name recognition to show for it -- the only thing he's known for is marrying into money.

[MBD]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Don't be so sure. Clinton was a small-state governor with little name recognition in 1992. Dean is an appealing candidate for moderate Dems, because he was a popular governor, is sensibly liberal and has more charisma than most of the other contenders.

Which is it -- moderate or liberal, or like Clinton, both?
And I agree there's a charisma shortage.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Clinton was a small-state governor with little name recognition in 1992. Dean is an appealing candidate for moderate Dems, because he was a popular governor, is sensibly liberal and has more charisma than most of the other contenders.

Different times, Boris. No one of substance was running against Clinton. His biggest opponent in the primaries was Gore, IIRC.

This time it is different, the big Senators are coming out.

Kerry's been in the Senate since '84 I think, and has very little name recognition to show for it -- the only thing he's known for is marrying into money.

The media have announced him as the front runner, which goes a long way.

[MBD]

Also, Clinton had been governor of Arkansas from 1979-81, and 1983- and had given that long-winded nomination speech at the 1988 convention, so was known within the party as an up-and-comer. I think the original speculation on him was that he was going to wait until 1996, but he got lucky on the timing of Bush Sr's drop in popularity.

And as for Kerry and the media, I agree the media seem to have annointed him as the front runner, but it's almost meaningless at this point, a year before the first primary. In fact, it may even be a handicap, cause it might raise expectations too much.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Clinton was a small-state governor with little name recognition in 1992. Dean is an appealing candidate for moderate Dems, because he was a popular governor, is sensibly liberal and has more charisma than most of the other contenders.

Different times, Boris. No one of substance was running against Clinton. His biggest opponent in the primaries was Gore, IIRC.

Wrong-o. Gore ran in 1988, not 1992.

Clinton's main opponent was Paul Tsongas, who was certainly a man of substance, as well as a popular senator. Tsongas was also dubbed the front-runner early on by the media.

MDB, Clinton's long-winded speech at the convention hardly gave him any serious name recognition for the rank-and-file in the party. Clinton earned the nomination by fighting for it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ooops, on the Gore.

Oh, and you are wrong on the nomination speech. It was considered as making him a viable candidate after Dukakis lost.

Dean has just about NO name recognition, against someone that was one state short of vice-president, and the Senator that seems to be the standard bearer of principled opposition to the President. Does not bode well at all for Dean. I expect him to be one of the first to drop out of the race.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, and you remember Tsongas' legacy wrong:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/remember/1997/tsong_1-20.html

Paul Tsongas, the former Massachusetts Senator, in 1992 presidential candidate, died over the weekend from liver failure and pneumonia. He was 55 years old. Tsongas served two terms in the House and then was elected to the Senate in 1978. In 1984, after only one term, he was diagnosed with cancer of the lymph nodes. He decided not to seek re-election so he could undergo aggressive treatment and be with his wife and three daughters. After a bone marrow transplant from his twin sister, his health improved, and he resumed his law practice in Boston. In 1992, he sought the Democratic presidential nomination, running second and went to the primary season behind then Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas, who, of course, went on to win the presidency.

He was a one-term Senator, how exactly does he compared with Kerrey and Lieberman who have won big re-elections?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ooops, on the Gore.

Oh, and you are wrong on the nomination speech. It was considered as making him a viable candidate after Dukakis lost.

No, it didn't. He was certainly on a looooooong list of possible Dem contenders once Dukakis bombed, but he wasn't any more recognizable than others in the field. He certainly had less so than Jerry Brown, Tom Harkin and Bob Kerry, who were also in the race.

I remember quite well when the primaries began that we had no clue who Bill Clinton was or any inkling that he would win. Most of the early money was Kerry and Tsongas.

It wasn't until Clinton came in 2nd in NH that he separated himself from the rest of the pack.

Dean has just about NO name recognition, against someone that was one state short of vice-president, and the Senator that seems to be the standard bearer of principled opposition to the President. Does not bode well at all for Dean. I expect him to be one of the first to drop out of the race.

I don't doubt that Dean has an uphill battle, but I would not write him off so easily. He is the only candidate I've see other Democrats actually get excited about.

[MBD]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov MDB, Clinton's long-winded speech at the convention hardly gave him any serious name recognition for the rank-and-file in the party. Clinton earned the nomination by fighting for it.

The only recognition the speech gave him was that in some situations he could give a long boring speech. The fact that he was chosen to give a nominating speech at all was a sign that he was considered an up-and-comer in the Democratic party.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

He was a one-term Senator, how exactly does he compared with Kerrey and Lieberman who have won big re-elections?

He had been in the House, and was very popular in his state. He was also the early front-runner. It came down to a battle between him and Clinton.