New Kerry Convert...

Okay, so I'm 90% of the way there. Here's my argument that Kerry is both the strongest and the best candidate. First, I think the 2004 election is going to be about security and Kerry is the only candidate (I think) who has actual military experience and is one of the few who was really handled foreign policy issues. Democrats are going to need a tough candidate who can reassure voters that someone responsible and knowledgable is in charge. Kerry hasn't proved that he can do this yet but no other Democrat has the bona fides (and that's a bad sign).

Dean's consistent opposition to the war against Iraq might help him a lot in the short term but if he wins the nomination he'll have to go into the general election defending a position which only a third of voters seem to agree with (and that's with no military or foreign policy experience to back up his judgement). I just don't think this is going to play well. Voters in November, 2004, I think, will size up both candidates and go with the one whom they think has the better grasp of what is going on. Kerry, I think, would have a much easier time winning this contest.

It's a sure bet that Kerry supports all of the standard Democratic issues when it comes to taxation, the courts, affirmation action, abortion rights, etc. Dean, I think, is going to run into problems for his support of universal health care. There's no issue in American politics which tags you as a "lefty" more than this one. I can understand how those who support this are in a quandry. If they're mystified about why Dean is getting pegged as some "far lefty", though, wonder no more: it's this. And because this is a position on public policy I don't see how Dean can get out from under this (he can't, in order to win he'd have to change people's minds, think ahead to just how difficult this will be during the general election).

To be frank there's a lot about Kerry which I find underwhelming. He doesn't have this air of instant likability to him. I don't think it's possible to predict how he might come across on a national stage. When primary season starts if it becomes clear that many voters don't just like him, react negatively to his personality, Democrats should ditch him quickly. Same with Dean.

Both candidates are completely untested in this all-important arena. I can easily imagine voters concluding that Dean is a little too sanctimonious, intemperate, and smug for their tastes. Or that Kerry is broodish and too withdrawn. Or both. We have no idea what both might look like six months from now.

But if this is just about issues I think Kerry is the better bet. He's also spent so much time in the senate he's probably developed the toughness a Democrat will need to take on Bush. Imagine it's the night of the debates, Bush is matched against Kerry, and he trots out the "Massachusetts liberal" line (which he will, this is inevitable).

I think Kerry has the skills to trump this (eg. "I'm proud of my state, Massachusetts liberals fought the battles of Lexington and Concorde, we're a tough bunch, same was true in Vietnam, what was your military service again?").

Now imagine Dean faced with a similar barb about universal health care (which, again, is inevitable). I have a hard time imagining him coming out on top. What I can see is him doing the Al Gore, "Oh yeah? Well I'm smarter and more compassionate than you" two-step, which, against Bush, just doesn't seem to work.

We'll find out.

to find a lot of democrats just not voting.
period.

particularly one that doesn't have 'Howard Dean' in every sentence.

Emphasizing Kerry's outstanding record in the Senate would be a refreshing change. Get back on message, guys. Run an active, not a reactive campaign, and your numbers will go up.

I also would consider
Kerry/Harkin

From Wisconsin - used to be a Russ fan, but no more. He has turned into a showboat and little substance. Just exactly wht did he do to get his name on the campaign finance reform bill? Not much - just tagged along after McCain bobbing his head and trying to get in the picture frame. Also his smarmy questioning of Ashcroft during confirmation hearings trying to show he was bipartisan - and then voting FOR ashcroft with a stupid grin on his face made me sick. He can sometimes talk a good game, but when it comes to practical concrete work - I find him woefully lacking.

But since two bashers got here first, you know those Dean people who never bash other candidates... never mind.

(Oh I'll be nice, Dean's really not proposing a single-payer style universal health care program, that tends to be what freaks people out)

Kerry should not emphasize his outstanding record in the Senate, and should focus on attacking Howard Dean every sentence.

Happy now? :evilgrin:

and what Dean supporters never do.

Okay, we got it all cleared up now.

If these votes don't represent him then I don't know what would.
I personally can't support him.

about the role of the media and WMDs. Ambassador Wilson, who blew the whistle on the SOTU claim about the Niger yellowcake connection, remarked that it was the lack of input, discussion, honest questioning or debate from the Democrats that contributed to this runaway train. It has been revealed that Congress had complete access to the dubious intelligence, so there is no excuse for them to have relinquished their responsibility, especially in matters as serious as war risking national security and draining economic resources. It was a rash and poorly calculated political ploy, demonstrating lack of courage, conviction and wisdom.

Why should any candidate who demonstrated such a lack of leadership--putting the interests of the country behind political calculations, be rewarded with the presidency?

He also said intelligence people gave up talking about anything they knew because they were intimidated and called unpatriotic. And he put the blame squarely on the Administration for that. And it seems the point was that the responsibility for that atmosphere arising fell on the entire country, not just the Democratic Party.

. . . Kerry wasn't among them

Dean can't do it - and he looks terrible on tv.

No, actually the bit about the availability of intelligence was reported by a journalist for the Washington Post on one of those Sunday morning talking heads debates. The one pundit from cable, can't recall her name, sat with her mouth hanging open, probably not because she didn't know, but from the shock that anyone would actually say it. And that is the thing---so many are not disposed to say it--whether due to fear or intimidation or unpopularity. The question is do you want a leader that also is afraid to say it? Not me if I have a choice.

One could argue that what seems like a disasterously miscalculated Democratic strategy in 2002 -- give unto Caesar what is Caesar's so we can stab him in the back with domestic issues -- may have turned out to be an ironic double cross. Iraq, which Bush thought was his heroic claim to glory, has turned into an embarrassing debacle, and the Democrats can now claim that, when the trumpet was sounded, they did their duty and fell into line, but where duped and mislead by an incompetent and Napoleanic commander in chief. That is, they can claim the best of both sides.

I am crazy about Howie, but if the primary vote were today, would probably go with Kerry, despite the same drawbacks you mention.

My tipping point last week was the New Yorker article by Judith Mayer about bin Laden. Much of her material seemed to come from Rand Beers, an intelligence expert who had served with all presidents from Reagan til recently when he quit in disgust over how Chimpy is screwing up security. He then signed on with Kerry. Since he could have picked anyone, I find his choice instructive.

However, I think Dean just may get the nomination due to strong grass roots passion and the fact that there is no repug primary, leaving them free to do crossover mischief, hoping they can nail Dean on inexperience, security and "costly" UHC. (Even tho those views are bogus, they could be sold to the sheeple.)

He has Gen. William Perry and Gary Hart on his team, too. There is NO way BushInc will get by on their trumped up national security credentials. Kerry was a debate champ at Yale AND a prosecutor. He can make the case against Bush on 9-11 and Iraq with the insider info he is getting.

Watch and you will see that Kerry excels in this setting. I have seen him with a group of veterans and at Harkins's Hear It from the Heartland Townhall, both on C-Span.

Kerry connected with both groups; he was warm, articulate and responsive; the audiences, in both forums, responded positively and enthusiastically in both settings.

I was particularly impressed by the patience he showed to a somewhat distraught veteran who followed him around after the TownHall meeting in Iowa. Kerry showed unfailing sensitivity and grace to this poor man.

:dem:

And of course I'll be watching for Edwards tonight.

We're glad to have you! And good post!

Kerry '04

:thumbsup: