"The retention of manufacturing jobs... EEEARGGHHHAAEEE!!!... should remain a top prioritEEEEEEAAAARRREAAAAYYY!!!"

DUMB, DUMB, DUMB

Oh man, where are his campaign advisors?

You scream, I scream...

Rattling off the list of ways they can't attack him like other Democrats, the only thing that came to mind was "well, Joe, you're barely a Democrat."

I was really disappointed in Dean from what I saw - he'd get killed in a one-on-one debate with Bush. He's very rigid and clipped, almost mumbling (too many statistics, Howard!) - when Bush screws up he has folksiness going for him. Kerry looks like a great debater, but I still can't imagine "northeastern liberal machine politician" (but not all that liberal and doesn't really excite the party base, may in fact be pissing some off with his conduct) will be anything but Dukakis Vol. II.

Debate Grades:
Lieberman: A (made his case clearly and was almost likable, wtf)
Kerry: A- (maintains; no bugs on him; still boring though)
Edwards: B+ (besides the flubs, a solid performance)
Dean: B+ (a bit too halting, but serious and effective communication)
Kucinich: B- (again with the charts, but stood up for himself)
Sharpton: D (Slipping into demagoguery, unaware of what the Fed does)
Clark: F (on to Oklahoma)

Sharpton is a mental lightweight and always has been. The further along that Clark goes, the less smart he looks (even though I think he is smart.)

I wish Kerry had a spark to him, something compelling that was telegenic.

What I saw of the debates last night reinforced my disappointment that Kucinich doesn't stand a chance of being elected. I honestly think he's way more charismatic/likable than any of the other candidates, displays more of an aura of actually-having-his-shit-together, not to mention his complete lack of being-full-of-shit.

But back to my main point, I can't see Lieberman or anyone else changing the overall political picture much either, but with tensions being what they are it seems a Jewish president might have a tougher time than a non-Jewish one. This isn't a big elephant in the room that no one's talking about, but it doesn't seem completely irrelevant given US-Middle Easter foreign policy and Lieberman's support of Bush's initiatives.

It's not the leaders of foreign countries that are particularly the problem--it's the rogue states and their fanatics that can make a mountain out of a molehill. To the reasonable, his faith matters not at all. It's the wackos that worry me.

Anyway, got this in my inbox this morning from the Illinois Kucinich guy:

Dear Supporter,

Iowa was a success when you consider that we forced Howard Dean into 3rd place and caused a media uproar.

Because Edwards is so much better, right?

So fuck Kucinich. I know grass roots politics and those people have no right to act as if they invented it, and then hold a grudge against Dean for going grass roots. Also, the Kucinich people threw a tantrum when I told them I wouldn't go to Iowa for them. Even if I hadn't shifted my support, I have a life and work to do, you know. Which 'progressive' types ought to understand.

I'm fuming about this shit. It's pure pettiness is what it is.

http://128.255.244.60/graphs/graph_DConv04.cfm

I don't know how seriously to take these numbers, since there aren't really very large sums of money involved (the maximum account is $500), but they do seem to be a pretty fair reflection of the conventional wisdom. It's interesting to see, for example, that Dean's shares starting falling a couple of days before the Iowa caucuses. Right now, Kerry is looking almost as invincible as Dean was before Iowa, and the IEM rates even Edwards' chances higher than Dean's, but look for the share prices to undergo another jolt after the NH primary.

You should open an account on IEM. At $0.20, Edwards' shares are looking pretty cheap right now. If you put in the maximum ($500), you could make a $2000 profit if you're right.

This afternoon: The market hits a 31-month high, reaching back almost to the beginning of the Bush administration.

Coincidence?

(Gallup also shows that Dean is the choice of a plurality of respondents when asked which candidate is in touch with ordinary Americans, stands up for what he believes in, and has new ideas to help solve the country's problems)

GIVE ANYONE A REASON TO TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY (HINT: THE VITRIOL AIN'T WORKING)

To that end, Suzy and Colin please make sure your absentee ballots are clearly and correctly postmarked. Please.

x-post: the vitriol came from Suzy. What IS with y'all's reading comprehension?

bad way: declare opinion as fact and when others call you on your bullshit say anyone who doesn't agree with you is clearly an idiot/jerk/piece of shit.

"I was going to vote Dem, and then there were all these mean people screaming at each other on some weird internet site, and it turned me into a Republican!"

OK, let's do this again slowly: it is a FACT that "so many" people who agree with Kucinich on the issues will not be voting for him. I've spoken to ten or so and a bunch of folks have said as much on this thread. "So many" is a deliberately vague expression, but that actually ENHANCES the factual basis of the claim.

My OPINION is that this factual situation is symptomatic of the Democratic Party's problems. My sentence has been parsed incorrectly and I have been told to fuck off; I shall valiantly fight for all that is good in English grammar (if not spelling) and hold fast to my sentence.

I am not married to the opinion I expressed in my much maligned sentence, but I can't see that anyone's actually attempted to ask me about it in any coherent way that I could respond to. I think the stuff I wrote later (about Democratic Party contempt for its own left wing) is much closer to the point anyway; I also think that Kucinich's status as an utter non-starter (less impressive candidates have become president) is symptomatic of this contempt.

The fact that so many folks who line up with Kucinich on nearly every issue would never actually vote for him is the reason why the Democratic Party is over and done with.

To say I found this sentiment - and that's all it is - hyperbolic is something of an understatement. As if we should just all roll over and suck up what the GOP are doing to the US. And the sloppy reliance on 'the fact that' is just poor writing; flagging that up wasn't the personal attack Colin took it to be. Too much hubris in Deutschland this AM.

Democrats vote for who they think non-Democrats would vote for...

Again, a matter of opinion, and kind of like saying Dems all have webbed feet or something. I'm a Democrat and in primary season, I vote for the candidate who has the right combination of issues and momentum for me. I'm going to caucus tonight in London and as much as I'm warming to Kerry as a Bush beater, I'm wary because of his position on free trade, but I'm not writing him off totally. Kucinich is like Sharpton to me: someone trying to get his issues on the ticket because the man sure as hell won't be part of it.

Republicans know how to get them to hate "Liberals", real lefties stay home in droves. Will the last American Leftist please bring the flag?

More hyperbole. By staying home on Election Day you leave the nation more open to abuse from the Right (I've started calling them the Wrong) which I see as the Left's dereliction of duty.

Suzy, your suggestion that voting for Kucinich is "roll(ing) over and suck(ing) up what the GOP are doing to the US" makes my brain hurt. Not least because, last I looked, a lot of Democrats voted for some (a lot) of this shit.

We do agree that not voting is dereliction of duty. I also think that holding your nose when you vote and losing one way or the other each time you do (because the candidate loses, or because he wins and the Rightward March continues) is also a deriliction of duty.

However, Kerry's flip on the war will echo the feelings and beliefs of many Americans with moderate beliefs who gave GWB the benefit of the doubt when it came to Iraq but soon came to believe that the doubt outweighed all possible benefits. This is the America that says sorry when it fucks up.

My original reason to post waaay above was to say that people should go back and take that match a candidate test to find the least palatable centrist Democrat and eliminate them from yr own personal 'running'. When I did this I got Edwards, of whom I remain very suspicious.

You know what you got there? You got one of them all-time classic vicious circles! (For Blount: please pretend I wrote "viscous".) And both sides are going to have to move towards the other to make any difference. I don't see that happening anytime soon, and I don't think Kucinich's campaign is making all that much difference -- especially after what happened/what was done to Dean, who isn't all that Leftist any way.

Sym: *I* used to spend all day suing corporations. Do you trust me?

??????????????????????????????????????????

By the way, we should be starting a new primary thread soon. Perhaps when there is a natural break in the discussion.

The problem is that if every progressive or leftist rolls over and votes for whomever the Democrats nominate, then the Democrats have no reason to listen to their issues. By and large, progressives aren't going to have the money to buy a candidate, like the DLC. Their only power is in their numbers and their ability to organize (not that they've demonstrated an ability to organize anytime lately) - their only power is literally their vote. When Democrats can count on that vote without even having to pay lip service to workers' rights, civil rights, reforming trade, real universal healthcare and other progressive causes, then nothing will change.

They have to make the Democrats come to them, rather than propping up whatever status-quo/electable candidate is out there.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think what really needs to happen is for people who consistently vote Democratic to -wake the fuck up- about this and at least make some noise. Which is why I chose to support Dean.

Yeah, but it's a THREAD. Not everything revolves around you.

i still think we can learn a lot from this thread

YAHH!