Kerry/Dean. I have to admit I'm scared to death...

I've been supporting Howard Dean since the California speech where he went after the dems for supporting the war. I consider myself some kind of blend of progressive, populist and socialist. Regardless, I pretty much agree with Dean across the board, death penalty included. I'd rather this thread not deteriorate into a criticism of my opinions. I'm obviously very happy that the Governor is doing as well as he is. That said, I am of the firm opinion that B*sh is the most dangerous man on the earth and he simply cannot be elected. We can't let it happen. I am in the ABB camp but will not vote for Lieberman. He's just too conservative for me. I also like John Kerry. I cannot excuse him for supporting the war but if I had to pick a 2nd favorite it's John Kerry.

Depending on how things go from now until next year either may have a chance against the shrub but, as I mentioned, I feel we NEED to win. I find myself torn and anxious. Getting Dean the nomination would feel great but what if americans don't want to hear how they were wrong about the war? Conversely, what if someone who stood up to B**h and everyone else (except Kucinich, etc) on the war is just what we need? Dean comes off as more blunt and honest to me but Kerry is a better speaker and, yes, tall.:eyes: Right now I feel like I don't want to second guess myself (like going with your gut on a test) and I will support whoever gets the nom. I wonder if anyone else is going through this kind of doubt and fear. We cannot take another 4 years of these people.

if we wake uo to headlines like - "CNN can now project George W. Bush as the winner of a second four year term over his opponent, Democratic challenger Howard Dean..."
...
(heart pounding)
...
just imagine what the next four years will be like.
...
now go and do something about it.

imagine the same thing about Kerry. Hell, if Kerry or Clark or Edwards gets the nom I'll send any of them the fattest check I can (not saying much). I think there's fear either way unless one of them sprouts weeping sores on his face.

Howard Dean gets the nomination and democrats refuse to get behind him and allow this 'leadership' to go undefeated .. there would remain very little reason for hope ..

I pray that we'll win and it will be minor, like, "well, it's good that we won, but we would have won by even MORE if the candidate I supported in the primaries had been nominated!"

If, God forbid, we lose, that's all you'll hear. But, you'll hear it no matter who is nominated. It isn't something you can worry about. The only sensible course is to pick the candidate that you think has the best chance and work like hell to get him or her elected.

rather than whose positions and backgrounds match up well against Bush.

Once the election begins, the Dem candidate will have to go head-to-head with Bush and all forces at his disposal. It will depend on resiliency and the ability to frame the debate rather than letting your opponent define you. As Ken Kesey said: "Don't become part of their movie. Make them part of your movie."

This is why I think Dean will fare better than other candidates against Bush. But because he can fight, get attention, attack and draw blood, excite the base and appeal to crossover voters. I don't think Clark, Kerry, or Gephardt will fare as well in the heat of political combat. They might all make good presidents, but I think they will fade when matched against a sitting president with a $200M war chest and compliant media.

that will only reach 38% of the voters. That's enough to get WJC elected with 19% going to Perot but will not cut it in 2004. A lot of broken glass pukes invested it all in * and can't so easily admit they were so wrong. They need someone who speaks to them, changes their minds, and makes them still feel good about being an american while not losing the labor, down-and-out, and crazed rabble (us) vote.

That Bush LOST the 2000 election.

You don't need to shift many voters to guarantee that he will lose the 2004 election, and the more non-voters come in, the better the chances for a candidate like Dean (or any Democrat).

All this is IRRELEVANT if one cannot guarantee the integrity of the voting process.

All this is also irrelevant (and this is an unpopular opinion around here I know) if the candidate is simply the choice of the same elites who gave you Bush in the first place, as the right man to STAY in Iraq and keep the Homeland Hysteria going, but on a more even, friendly keel.

But let that fear motivate you to volunteer some time and contribute some money to the Democratic organization of your choice. You and I and millions of others must all do the same. It's the only way to ensure the election of a Democratic president.

I know exactly how you feel. I am trying hard to like all our candidates and I do like Kerry, Edwards, Clark but I am having a hard time liking Dean or Gep. I will vote for whomever wins but if my head rules .... then I think something like Kerry/Clark or Kerry/Edwards (with Clark running around as a supporter and the future Sec of Defense) might be the best ticket. I think my distaste for Dean may have to do more with his holier than thou supporters so I am trying to seek out his speeches and TV appearances to judge him. I thought he came off as quite sympathetic in the Rather interview so maybe this is something he can work on.

I don't pick or support candidates based on personality - but I am aware that alot of Americans do. And I am not one of those who think Bush is going to be in so much trouble a trained monkey could beat him.

Dean has been striking a chord with disenchanted Repugs because he addresses all aspects of their lives and is not just harping on how wrong the war is. I'd relax and see how it shakes out in the next few weeks. I can't stand Kerry and just see him sliding further and further down; Dean seems to be keeping his momentum and continually coming up with new and innovative angles. He has tapped into "people power" and it is something real and indeed powerful.

Got to keep all the numbers in the equation to get a correct result, don't forget. The ECONOMY will still be off next year, many jobs lost will never return, Enron, WorldCom, Halliburton, Bechtel, the CIA probe and THE COST IN LIVES AND TREASURE LOST IN IRAQ.

Saw an interview with Dean, he was asked about why he'd changed his position on something and he answered that because he's a doctor, when something new or better comes along he's open to considering it, etc etc. He's direct and uses words the average voter can understand.

Clark might come along, somehow, but I don't see anyone else getting a handle on things the way Dean is doing.

Democrats want a candidate that will fight back, which is what Clinton did, first Democratic president to be re-elected since FDR.

Are you better off today than you were four years ago? Is your country?

n/t

have access to his military records containing huge amounts of personal and professional information.

It's working for me. The thought of 4 more years of Bush is so horrible that I have to be involved.

If Bush wins, it won't be because he's the better man or better candidate for president (please!), it will be because enough people didn't know or didn't care. It's up to US to get the word out and get people educated, or at least get them to care enough to educate themselves.

This is why I think Dean has the best chance against Bush, because he has the personal power, mojo Trippi, right-message-at-the-right-time, or whatever to get people to donate and work for him. There is no denying that he fires people up. And without a fired up electorate, we are going to get killed in 2004.

(That being said, I will certainly be fired up for whichever candidate gets the nom -- I just don't think the average Dem voter will share my sense of urgency.)

They've both been around for a long time and people already know them.

... if what you say is true, Al Gore should be president, having been around a while, a safe bet.

<<I am in the ABB camp but will not vote for Lieberman. He's just too conservative for me.>>

And Bush ISN'T too conservative for you? With all due respect, if you can't tell the difference between Lieberman and Bush, you must be trying awfully hard to avoid looking at their records on the issues. Do yourself a favor and visit the Project Vote Smart web site. You'll find that Lieberman received solid marks from Democratic/liberal interest groups like NARAL, NAACP, AFL-CIO, LCV, and HRC.

The fact is, we wouldn't be in this mess if tens of thousands of Floridians hadn't decided that Gore was simply too conservative for them. I'd hate to think that many of these same people stand ready to repeat their mistake in 2004.

why should anyone give a bug's ass what the cumulative rating of a brand-name group says? All that counts is specific votes on specific items, and I don't check whether I agree with any given group before I form my opinion. Lieberman voted for USA PATRIOT, Homeland and Iraq.

More unforgivably, Lieberman has been prominent and unapologetic in the role of Bush's head Democratic cheerleader, and that's enough to discredit him forever and a day.

Luckily, Lieberman also has zero chance of winning the nomination and would therefore be entirely irrelevant, except for his constant effort to poison the political atmosphere within the party and thus sabotage the anti-Bush effort.

I went through the same thing. I was a big Dean fan due to his opposition to the war and civil unions but always worried about his electability on the natinoal level. Kerry was my second and seemed to have a beefier resume so I thought and still think he would naturally do better against Bush.

BUT even though I've since switched support to Kerry and Dean has dropped a few notches for some of his more conservative views I sometimes think if America would elect a loud, honest (sometimes wrong) man, over a smart and sophisticated type. Sort of like Bush v Gore. But Dean is by far not as loud and stupid as Bush so I think he's got a good chance.

And even though other campaigns have tried to adopt Dean's fundraising strategies, they haven't been able to meet or beat him. Dean is quite obviously doing something *correctly*.

Everyone will know, we won't even have to bring it up. It will be all about the economy and the BFEE neocon fucked up plan to take over the world.

Bottom line, everyone votes their pocket book.

It's in the bag, as long as you don't let Rove define the conversation.

I'm going to get real drunk. Mind you, I'm not a drinker. The hast time I set out to drink was 1994. (College)

I know I'm going to be a bundle of nerves that day.

There is a paranoid part of my brain that says that it's to late. The election has been chosen for us already, that the problem of Peak Oil is such a threat that the elites of this nation would never allow a Kucinich, Dean or Kerry to get the whitehouse.

Then I take my tinfoil hat off, enjoy a sunset, take a walk, sleep with my gf and everything is okay again.

What's that all about?