If Dean wins New Hampshire stick a fork in John Kerry

I saw another comment that New Hampshire will not be as important this time around due to the compressed primary schedule, and I tend to agree with it.

Actually, voting for the resolution does give him more credibility. It gives him the right to criticize. If someone voted against it and then criticized it-it could be dismissed as "well, he didn't vote for it anyway"

I'm still skeptical that he can build up a big enough head of steam to last, but damn, Dean is coming on like gangbusters, isn't he? I've been thinking all week that the effect of the big march and better-than-expected media all week for dissent on the war meant that someone in the primary, probably Dean, would make it an issue. I didn't expect it to happen that quickly or that sharply.

Dean is clearly intent on not running a Bruce-Babbitt or Paul-Tsongas-like campaign; strong on the issues, impress everyone with his intelligence and decency -- and go home early. He seems to be in it to win.

I'm a Vermonter who has always been a fan of Howard, and will almost surely support him, but it is interesting to me that the only Democratic nominee to come out against the war in Iraq and spoke at the protest last week was Reverend Al.

Dean is a glib, back-bench bomb-thrower who's been angling for the presidency since '97 and who's never had to worry about anything more important than how he can screw over farmers and environmentalists, and best turn his back on corporate fraud happening in his own state.

The truth is that Kerry has remained perfectly consistent since '91. For Kerry the basic principle remains the same: in order for the president to justly use force against another nation, he/she must have the support of the public. The public's support is vital and will only come with proof that there is an immediate need to act to protect american interests.

The Bushies, prior to the resolution had claimed that they needn't show such proof in order to begin the invasion or get approval from anyone or anything with more constitutional standing than Barney the first dog. The resolution forced them to make a legitimate attempt to justify their warlust by requiring them to go get proof of an immediate WMD threat. It also forced them to make a serious attempt at multilateralism (an issue of profound importance Dean and his blind followers conveniently ignore).

Yes the resolution did 'authorize force' however, it merely granted Bush that which he was going to exercise regardless of what the Congress said, only instead with serious strings attached. And if the
Bushies aren't able to demonstrate some kind of legitimate 'proof' then they are clearly going to suffer domestically (not to mention internationally) and even within their own party.

Further the vote was made during the October of a mid-term election, when Dems had hopes of gaining seats in the Senate.
Somewhat influential was the idea that if Dems could simply slow-up the war march to any degree, they would later be able to completely it down, when Bush hopefully having been repudiated by the elections, would be in a much less powerful position.

Unfortunately the Democrats may have lost their strongest candidate--Bob Graham to heart surgery.

His age and health will issues he can't overcome. If Graham doesn't run, I still prefer Kerry.

cratchet the hachet, it's Kerry that's a backbencher. Dean has been a state executive for the past dozen years.

Kerry reminds me of the woman who married the guy who would beat her up on dates, and now is trying to tell him to change, after they tied their vows.

But you explain Kerry's inconsistently well enough, he blows with the wind.

cratchet- good analysis on the Democratic motives for supporting the war resolution last October. The timing was set by General Rove for crass '02 campaign purposes, as Kerry has suggested. Kerry's support of it does give him more credibility to attack Bush's aggression now. Kerry's position is sensible--recognize Saddam as a threat in the region, but do not even consider armed aggression until there's evidence of WMD with delivery capability AND there is clear international support for an attack. It's consistent with the just war theory.

This issue may ultimately isolate Howard Dean by revealing his lack of foreign policy credentials (does tiny Vt. trade with any nation?) and beg his answer as to what DOES pose a threat. When WOULD Dean seek clear multi-lateral support for armed aggression to prevent imminent aggression--just war?

I donna unerstan': How can voting FOR something give one license to criticize it later? This ain't like an election ('don't blame me I voted for the other guy'), this is about WAR! If one votes FOR war then later attack that very same policy, one should be called a hypocrite.

This is nonsense -- If you want utter, complete, total consistency of opinion and action, you're restricting your own choice as a voter. Remember there may be "inconsistencies" in your own favorite's closet. (And I'm a Dean fan)

Purity is a ridiculous criterion -- there's a lot of "Nader-think" among Kerry bashers.

I wish Dean or one of the Dems would stand up to this "class warfare" accusation from the Repugs and say something like "yes their is a class warfare going on, we're just surprised that the Republicans are admitting what they are doing." Dean could then go on to list the things the Republicans are engaging in that defines their "class warfare" against the middle and lower classes. I am waiting for someone to wipe that smerk off GWB's face.

Fo6: Vermont trades with Canada! Especially during the Quebec separatist movement when there was some anti-Ontario sentiment in Quebec, there's a lot of back and forth. Montreal's a great city, the drinking age is low, and the exchange rate is very favorable.

"Dean is a glib, back-bench bomb-thrower who's been angling for the presidency since '97"

Kerry's the back-bencher. Dean's been in command 11 years, and Lt. Gov before that. And there's nothing wrong with planning ahead. Ambitious Democrats should be encouraged. What good is a candidate who only sorta wants to be President?

"and who's never had to worry about anything more important than how he can screw over farmers and environmentalists, and best turn his back on corporate fraud happening in his own state."

I notice you leave out all Dean's accomplishments, like cutting taxes twice and expanding health insurance to cover all children, and neglect explain how Dean is directly responsible for the problems you cite.

"It also forced them to make a serious attempt at multilateralism (an issue of profound importance Dean and his blind followers conveniently ignore)."

If you listen to the Iowa speeches, you'll hear Dean's thoughts on multilateralism.

"Yes the resolution did 'authorize force' however, it merely granted Bush that which he was going to exercise regardless of what the Congress said, only instead with serious strings attached. And if the Bushies aren't able to demonstrate some kind of legitimate 'proof' then they are clearly going to suffer domestically (not to mention internationally) and even within their own party."

That Bush would have gone ahead anyway, or that Republicans and other nations would have stopped him, is not necessarily true (and unsupported in your post) and in any case not a good reason for Kerry to have supported the resolution.

"Further the vote was made during the October of a mid-term election, when Dems had hopes of gaining seats in the Senate."

You really think Kerry's individual vote would have made a difference in the elections in other states?

Sorry cratchet. Your allegations against Dean and excuses for Kerry don't add up to much. And I agree with InMarin: a vote for or against this particular resolution has little or nothing to do with credibility when criticizing the Bush Administration's foreign policy. If anything, it works against Kerry-- he helped give the President a blank check, and can be held accountable for what results.

In one of his speeches Dean said supported Graham's vote against the war resolution based on it not being tough enough. He's hardly a peacenik and he has said Bush needs more evidence. Dean's trying to cover his rear on the issue. As far as Dean criticizing Kerry now - good for him - this is the kind of strategy the Clinton team used - think Gray Davis putting out ads against Riordan. Do you guys want to win against Bush'04 or not ? I want to win so bad I would go in the voting booth and pull the lever for Zell Miller(then run out and retch>)

If Kerry's the nominee and you single-issue "anti war regardless of the conditions" voters stay home or vote green in November 04, you're a bunch of fools. I'm anti-war - but if they found real WMD I'd reconsider. (I doubt that will happen....)

Politics is full of compromises, strategies and tactics which aren't pretty. Get used to it, or get used to losing.

Looking around, I see almost everyone here saying they will vote for any Dem, whoever it is, rather than risk re-electing Bush. So, I don't know who exactly you are lecturing to, bcNY.

To me, this is a fine illustration of why Governors make better Presidential candidates than Senators. Being a legislator is all about compromising among equals while being an executive is about being at the head of the pack leading the way.

Governors seem to be able to take credit for any good thing that happened in their state on their watch. Senators have to spend lots of time explaining why they voted how they voted.

Voters respond positively to candidates who have clear positions which they hold firmly. They respond negatively to candidates who have overly complicated answers to issues and spend too much time explaining their reasoning.

If you want to win against the likes of Bush, you are going to have to make your case as clearly and concisely as you possibly can. Howard Dean may very will be in the best position to do that.

As a side note, but an important one: Do all you Dean supporters have a bumper sticker on your car yet? Let's not forget that Dean, despite all the blog momentum, still lacks name recognition with the average voter. It follows that "the average voter" seeing Dean's name on your bumper during the morning commute will help alleviate this problem. They cost less than $3 bucks at http://www.cafeshops.com/dean2004.

A highly recommended, visible way to show your support at this early stage... I've had one on my truck for less than a week and have already had half a dozen people ask me about Dean.

And no, I'm not associated in any way with cafeshops.

Yes, I have a bumper sticker on my car, and I ordered several of the larger ones today. I also have a t-shirt, ball cap and hooded sweatshirt. Problem is, only a few people have asked me about Dean when I'm wearing one of these items, but I'm not giving up.

Kerry didn't vote for war with Iraq. He voted to authorize the use of force by the President. Some might see the two positions as the same, but they aren't the same. The fact is, there are very good reasons to go into Iraq with force. The only compelling reason to allow Saddam to continue in power is because the administration who will remove him is dramatically irresponsible in its own right. But that is not a solution, it's just an unfortunate fact of life right now. Bush is the only President we have.

Suggesting that the only true Democratic is one that keeps Saddam in power is foolish. The litmus test approach on such a complicated issue is redolent of immature political sentiments out of touch with those of most Americans.

It is most certainly NOT inconsistent for Kerry to vote for the resolution, and yet now criticize Bush as on a rush to war.

Suppose that Kerry believes, as I think he does, that if Saddam were to refuse to disarm, or were to refuse even to allow inspections (which, you may recall, is what EVERYBODY was saying he do), then there is little choice but to go to war to disarm him. Then what should Kerry do? Reject a measure that would enable Bush to carry out such a war if these conditions came about? While the resolution Kerry had to vote up or down was certainly far more of a blank check than he would have liked, it was the only resolution before him upon which he could vote.

It was more than reasonable, then, that Kerry should have voted for it, given his basic views. Yet this vote would surely have been cast with the hope that Bush would exercise this power with the caution which the decision to go to war should always engender.

What has since happened? Saddam has admitted the inspectors. They are, apparently, UNFETTERED inspections. No WMD has been found. The general level of cooperation by Iraq has been, to all appearances, vastly better than anyone has expected.

Yet Bush cannot seem to give up on the idea of war.

It is hardly inconsistent for Kerry to come out and criticize Bush in these circumstances. They reflect exactly the sort of worry he almost certainly had from the moment he voted for a resolution giving Bush authorities with very few constraints. My recollection is that Kerry did indeed express such misgivings at the time (if I'm wrong about this, please point it out).

Given Kerry's basic beliefs about the Iraq situation, it would have been inconsistent for him NOT to have come out in criticism of Bush at this time.

Suggesting that the only true Democratic is one that keeps Saddam in power is foolish. The litmus test approach on such a complicated issue is redolent of immature political sentiments out of touch with those of most Americans.

I agree. Is there anyone here suggesting that? Is anyone here advocating a litmus test? Or is this just a straw man you are arguing against?

(oops. I tired to put the first paragraph of that post in italics. I guess I should have put it in quotes. Please pretend I did so.)

regarding my earlier post, sorry, my "no shades of gray, let's smash the party" alarm goes off (bad dreams of 2000) whenever I start hearing ininformed critisim repeating itself.

The resolution vote was not a blank check, and there must not be a fracture that would condemn the resolution and force Dean and the whole party further left on the issue (i.e. no use of force by US under any circumstances ever - a humanitarian ideal, but a political loser.) I don't think it'll happen, but it's in the back of my head.

Ya Know, I generally like John Kerry but after his vote on the Iraq resolution there's no way I could vote for him or any of the others that voted for it. How could he, being a founding member of Vietnam Veterans against the War have voted for this in good conscience! Talk about a Gulf of Tonkin Resolution reincarnate!!!I think everyone backing Kerry's position on his Iraq resolution vote is missing the point that Dean is making...Kerry and the rest of them abdicated their Constitutional role in a decision for possible war and placed it soley in the hands of Heir Bush! A decision that it looks like will be 4 months from the time of the vote to the time action will be taken on Iraq. His vote did'nt allow for the changing of circunstances like ...god forbid Saddam actually cooperates..or..maybe the inspectors don't find anything... or worse yet that we are losing support for this thing even from our long time allies! Now Kerry is asking for restraint from Bush. Deans point is if you wanted to restrain Bush, when you cast your vote last October...that was the time to ask for restraint. Kerry gave his voice on the matter over to the President and now he'll have to live with it! GO DEAN!!!

MG, So if Kerry gets the nomination you won't vote for him? Do you prefer four more years of W?

Howard Dean is the only Democrat running for President who can appeal to fiscal conservatives, social libertarians and Greens. If the Democratic Party has any chance of winning in 2004, activists need to get behind him.

On a side note, have you noticed that when Dean gives a speech, he smiles! Kerry doesn't. This tells me that Dean truly believes what he is saying. How are the American people going to believe Kerry when it appears (just appears in my opinion) that Kerry is just another "doom and gloom Democrat"?

If Kerry is nominated, the Democratic Party is headed for a big defeat.

The GOP jumps on Kerry to expand on Dean's remarks. That should tell you the GOP does not want to run against Kerry and will aid anyone or anything trying to discredit him. Sorry to break in on the Dean lovefest site but IMHO Dean is nothing but an early asterisk in the political science books for 2004. Dean should remember that the eventual nominee needs a united party to defeat the Chimp and he would do well to criticize Bush and promote himself rather than criticize his rivals because one of them will be the eventual nominee.

"On a side note, have you noticed that when Dean gives a speech, he smiles! Kerry doesn't. This tells me that Dean truly believes what he is saying."

Five words... You can not be serious?

I'm very serious.

Actually, the NARAL speeches made me think a lot about smiling onstage. In Edwards' speech, the crowd applauded one of his lines, and because it was an especially serious line about women's control of their bodies or something, he didn't smile. But he kind of looked like he didn't acknowledge their applause. What's a candidate to do? Is there another way to acknowledge? Some kind of nodding gesture?

Much as I love Dean, I don't think his greater smiling means that much about his sincerity. Rather it means that he is a happy person, or that he is trying to project energy and enthusiasm, rather than gravitas the way Edwards and Kerry are, because Dean needs name recognition first and foremost-- gravitas can come later. That's my interpretation anyway.

If Dean wins the nom, stick a fork in the Dems.

TSE - I'm not that crazy, my credentials are purely Democrat. Kerry is my second choice. But there are no second choices in the primaries - Right????

MyDD:

Let us face it. JFK is next POTUS, with John Lewis as a possible Vice POTUS.

1. Do you actually think anyone can defeat JFK for the nomination? If yes, then think again.

2. Do you actually think that Bush can survive debating JFK? If yes, then I have things I may want to sell you.

3. What do you think will happen if Lewis faces Cheney in debate? Michigan, Affirmative Action, Race, Culture, Liberties, etc.

It is over for GOP. Over. Finito.

AliKarimBey

NebraskaDem:

You said it. GOP is SCARED - VERY, VERY SCARED - of JFK. I can almost see Rove planning his summer 04 quitting of the WH (like Baker did) because of JFK.

JFK-Lewis 2004

AliKarimBey

Kaley, maybe i wasn't so crazy....we've started to get people saying the wouldn't vote for Kerry ever (implying even in the general?) or that he's "terrible" because of that voter's litmus test - the resolution vote. They don't understand what the vote was, and damned if they're gonna try to.

i tell you i can smell the idiocy from hundreds of yards away.......

"Let us face it. JFK is next POTUS"

I'm laughing uproariously at this statement and I'm a Democrat. First of all, stop calling him JFK, cuz the comparison is anything but similar. Second, the only next thing John Kerry is going to be is a losing candidate for the nomination.

Kobe-- you'll get used to him. His is a one-way mind, all out and nothing in. Just let it pass.

Responding to AKB:

"Let us face it. JFK is next POTUS, with John Lewis as a possible Vice POTUS."

An interesting prediction. I was looking at Lewis as a possible candidate for Senator Miller's seat. I don't even think that Lewis would be able to hold the seat. Do you see him being named as the Vice-Presidential candidate to appease the African-American community after a possible rift in South Carolina?

Kerry-Lewis would be an interesting ticket. But how does it win? Is Lewis there to try to build a Southern Strategy based on minority appeal?

<><>
Logan

bcNY: read the post three up from your last one -" Posted by MG at January 26, 2003 01:30 PM" There's still nobody here who has said they wouldn't vote for any Dem but Dean.

"Howard Dean is the only Democrat running for President who can appeal to fiscal conservatives, social libertarians and Greens."

Dean is a fiscal conservative? I guess if you define fiscal conservatism as supporting really high taxes to support your really high spending. By that standard, Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale were fiscal conservatives too.

Are you guys really going to nominate a guy from Ben & Jerry's who is for higher taxes, national health insurance, Saddam Hussein, partial birth abortion, gay marriage etc. etc.. And no foreign policy experience to boot. I hope not, the country could use a serious choice in 2004.

By the way, I am for gay marriage, but I think you guys underestimate how poorly Dean's stridently liberal statements are going to play in many parts of the country, not just the South but places like central and western Pennsylvania. This guy reminds me of Dukakis, really out of touch with middle America.

MG, thought you meant the Nov. election! I am with you on that, even if I don't like the Dem, I am still voting for the Dem candidate... every Dem in the field would be better than Bush.

Tax Cut Mania, your inane post barely merits a response, except to remind you that Dean, despite having inherited a deficit, cut taxes twice during his time as governor. And the question is not the extent of his fiscal conservativism, but his position relative to the other Democratic candidates. Do you find Gephardt, Lieberman, Kerry, Sharpton, or Edwards more fiscally conservative?

Howard Dean - fiscal conservative
Bill Clinton - fiscal conservative
Al Gore - fiscal conservative

Ronald Reagan - never met a deficit he didn't like
Bush #1 - never met a deficit he didn't like
Bush #2 - never met a deficit he didn't like

My point? If you want fiscal conservativism AND social justice vote Democrat. More specifically, vote for Howard Dean.

Would I vote for Kerry if he were the Democratic nominee? Of course.
The question is will Kerry be the nominee? Right now I don't think so.

Right now I'm for Dean. And I think there are quite a few of my southern Democrats who will take a closer look to Dean when the primaries head this way.

All I know is any Democrat (except Al Sharpton) will get my vote. I cannot imagine the mess this Country will be in if the Republicans run this Country for eight years.

90210, my apologies for the hyperbole, just making a point and trying to spark some discussion. Maybe the details of Dean's record can substantiate the fiscal conservative label. However every governor who runs for President trots out the "I know how to balance a budget" line, it's getting kind of old. Even a few tax cuts in the context of the '90s boom puts him on a par with every other governor from both parties.

But frankly he won't get much mileage out of the details of his gubernatorial record. In this campaign he is the guy advocating the repeal of the Bush tax cut and national health insurance. That puts him to the left of Edwards, Kerry, and Lieberman. As to Gephardt, who knows where he stands this week.

It just makes me chuckle when I hear a liberal guy from Vermont try to label himself a "fiscal conservative". I am sure you can give me a long, logical explanation why he is but it is still a tough image to sell nationally. A guy like Kerry understands this from all his experience on the national stage, while Dean strikes me as kind of naive and inexperienced when it comes to national politics. That happens when all your experience is in a state that is much different politically from the rest of the country.

Tax Cut Mania:

Howard Dean inexperienced? Compared to whom? When the current President Bush was running for office he only had 5 years of elected government office under his belt. (Texas constitutionally has a weak governor).

Let's contrast that with the Dean record:
12 years as Governor
balanced budgets
cut taxes and increased spending for public education and cleaner environment
health insurance coverage
Plus, as chairman of the Democratic Governor's Association he has laid the foundation to have 52% of the population residing under a Democratic governor.

Dean vs. Bush. There is no comparison.

What has Bush done for us lately?
Education - underfunded and cut
Suspenion of civil liberties
Enron, Worldcom, Harvey Pitt
Stock Market downfall
6% unemployment
increase in the # of people without health insurance
war
An economy worse than before the Great Depression
eroding the right of private matters between a woman, her doctor, and her conscience.

Give me the Dean presidency as soon as possible.

That's a lot better, TCM. But national health insurance is not all that radical. (I'm told that Bob Dole endorsed it in 1993.) Dean's plan, from deanforamerica.com, is to extend Medicaid to cover more people, a drug benefit for Medicare, and tax credits and subsidies to help more people get employer-based insurance. What's so radical about that? It's just a little more of what we already do, and framed the right way, I think people will go for it.

And even if people don't really believe that Dean is a fiscal conservative, it won't take much to out-fiscal-conservative Mr. Bush. Most families won't even see their taxes drop, in part because the tax cuts for the wealthy preclude any aid to stop states from raising their taxes, so I don't think Bush will get much credit there.

Edwards is, I think, a little young for the job (only one term in the Senate!), Lieberman too far right, Gephardt lacking momentum, Sharpton not a realistic possibility, and Kerry the only man for Dean to beat. He's my second choice, if it makes you feel any better. But, especially because Dean would have less of a 3rd party threat than Kerry, I wouldn't write him off just yet. Much remains to be seen. Listen to some of Dean's speeches-- I think you'll be impressed.

While Dean did, what sounds like a good job in Vermont... it was the "boom" 90s. So he has a great record. But you know that the spin will be that Texas is a huge state while Vermont is not. So much is perception. Hey, doesn't the Lt. Governor in Texas almost have as much power as the Governor? Anyway...

We did a lot better with a small-state Governor in the White House from 1993 to 2001 than with the big state Governor running things now.

Most definately. I am not talking about what I think, but possibly what the spin will be.

Logan,
Notice how when you ask AKB reasonable questions, he disappears? It's because he has this definite idea of the future, and it's all he'll say.

Actually, I kind of like the idea of Lewis as VP, for the reasons you said, Logan. I also think that it would force Cheney to run right on race and isolate the soccer moms (and if he didn't, the Dixiecons would be outraged). Dean-Lewis, I think, would be an excellent ticket.

Logan,

(Pardon to 90210, I deal with the biased individuals every day and you are no better)

(Leftis: I work 3-jobs to support a family. So, sorry for the delay.)

Logan:

Yes, I think Lewis will help JFK get minority votes. You see, JFK once (when he was hoping to be Clinton's VP back in 1992) said something about affirmative action that complicated his life. He is geting better. Also, today, we have post-Michigan, post-Lott eta. Minority are active voters. I think in 2004 the key issues will be liberties, diversity, race, etc. Lewis will be a great assset.

Think about it. JFK a war/peace hero. Lewis a civil rights hero.

What do Bush-Cheney have? Oil, secrets, and hunger for power. (I think the last one is also common to every day people, like the 90201, etc. I think Democratic activists have ego as big as a celebrity brain. They know nothing.)

AliKarimBey

To all my friends here, a Pennsylvania update:

The Circuit Court has declared that Pennsylvania redistricting as redrawn by Republicans was constitutional, meaning that the current lines will hold until redistricting in 2010. Democrats can appeal to the US Supreme Court, but their success is doubtful.

Sorry for being off-topic JB, but I thought this important. For more details, go to polstate.com or politicspa.com.

TSE/TCM

Yu may want to ask Rick Perry what he thinks of the big state guvnah currently in the WH who's left his state in the worst fiscal crisis in a very very long time(maybe ever?)

You may want to ask the liberals in the "Ben and Jerry" state what they thought of their ex-governor and his "liberal" spending ways. For some odd reason they didn't think him so liberal when he forced them to make cuts.

Ask the 40+ million uninsured Americans what they think about single payer. Ask small businesses who lose employees to big biz because they can't find affordable health insurance for their employees.

TSE:

The Lt. governor of TX, arguably, has more power than the governor, who only has a veto power & non-judicial appointments at his/her disposal.

I concur: health insurance will be a major issue in the near future. And Dean's not even advocating single-payer, just a few modifications of our existing system. It's not very radical at all, and it doesn't have to be very costly.

And TSE, you say that Vermont's prosperity under Dean was in the booming 90s, but look at Vermont relative to other states, which also experienced the 90s, right? Many are now facing financial crises or significant shortfalls; Vermont's doing just fine and that's thanks to Dean.

I repeat, that is what some people say about states, and what the spin could be about a small state governor. It is not what I think!

I know, TSE. What I'm saying is, such spin is relatively easy to refute, especially to people whose state taxes are going up while Vermont's stay put. What kind of anti-Kerry spin do you expect?

Weird-looking (Dean's cuter by far)
'Massachusetts Liberal' (worse than New England Liberal, I think)
Lacks energy/charisma
Doesn't have the same experience as a governor does
Voted for the controversial war resolution
what else?

Kerry represents Mass. - a liberal state - has he ever had a close election - has he ever had to really really work for reelection?

Dean's gone up agaiinst liberal and conservative republicans(after the civil unions bill) in a not so necessarily liberal state(they voted in Jeffords) and he's also had to face the Greens.

To AliKarimBey:

I think that Kerry-Lewis would do very well with the minorities. But here is one problem. What do they pick up? Where is minority support enough to put them into the White House? Florida? Jeb Bush's re-election and recent polling seems to put a downer on that hope. Georgia? See the 2002 election for how minorities failed there. What Bush state(s) in 2000 will Kerry-Lewis pick up to win the White House?

<><>
Logan

"Kerry represents Mass. - a liberal state - has he ever had a close election - has he ever had to really really work for reelection?"

Kerry had a very close run in 1996. He then had to run against popular Gov. William Weld and only won by a hair.

Kerry: 1,297,159 / 52 %
Weld: 1,110,284 / 45 %

Those numbers prove Kerry's strength in Mass, since Mass is less liberal and more independent than people think. (Boston is not, though). Weld was super popular, and Kerry ran a tough, great race.

Dean would be fine as the nominee as long as he's prepared to articulate use of force/foreign policy positions. He needs to be viable among non-partisans for general election, so he can't be seen as a "peacenik". I don't want him pushed there.

I'm an independent liberal. If you Dem's want my vote, you'd better nominate Dean. I won't vote for Kerry or any other nominee who supported Bush's warmongering resolution.

Again, "If you Dem's want my vote, you'd better nominate Dean. I won't vote for Kerry or any other nominee who supported Bush's warmongering resolution."

So in other words, you will not vote Dem, securing another 4 years of Bush?
When it is all said and done, I want a Dem candidate that can win nationally, not pass some litmus test.

Forget Florida. If its out of reach, go for Ohio. OH can be won.. If Gore would have won NH, he would have won the election, right?

"I want a Dem candidate that can win nationally..."

If you think you can win nationally without me, you'd better think again. The Dems lost in 2000 and 2002 because they took their base for granted. When will they learn.

If you're looking to cast blame for Bush, look in the mirror.

Logan,
Actually minorities did very well in Georgia. Both african-american statewide candidates; AG Thurbert Baker and Labor Commissioner Mike Thurmond were re-elected as Democrats while Cleland, and Barnes went down. Baker did better than Cleland and Barnes in the northern Atlanta suburbs.

I don't see John Lewis leaving the house even if VP was offered to him. AKB pipe dream.

"I want a Dem candidate that can win nationally..."

My parents are McCain conservatives. They might vote for Dean; they will never vote for an anti-gun, limo-liberal like Kerry. Never, never, never.

What Senators have been able to beat an incumbent President?
How many here rated Clinton's chances as high in 1991?
Americans don't like complex arguments, and IMO Kerry's vote for on the Iraq resolution will make it difficult for him to critique GWB on this. (Remember what BushCo did to Clelend.)
Dean on Face the Nation seemed quite capable on foreign policy -- much more so this far out than GWB was late in 2000. (IMO Dean is better now than GWB is now.)
Kerry's vote on Homeland Security is also deeply troubling to some.
The strength of GWB is his "likeability" not his policies. That's what Rove is taking from the Reagan playbook. Any candidate who scores lower on this factor in comparison to GWB will have trouble beating him. Kerry is way behind on this IMO.

i agree, marie, many discounted clinton in the same way edwards is now discounted; could apply to everyone now.

i still think kerry gets an unfair rap on "likeability". See him in a room sometime; he's also generally regarded as very good on TV, and he's better when pressed hard in a tough campaign. The Dean Kerry rivalry should bring out the best in both and strenthen the winner.

Many people have made fun of Kerry's looks, yet after an event i've heard several women say how attractive they thought he was when i was in NH, so I don't think this hurts him.

don't underestimate the power of his personal story re: credibility with independents. Won't work much in the primaries, but would be an asset in the general.

nevertheless, i'm reassured that many people believe Dean will have crossover appeal without being branded as too far "left".

bcNY, I'm basing my Kerry comments on how I view his TV presence because that is where it will be played out. IMO he comes up short. If his messages are clear, appealing and obviously different from GWB, he can blunt the "likeability" deficit. However, if the differences require the complicated logic some have offered on this thread for his stand on Iraq, he loses.

A problem for Edwards is that he seems to be trying to figure out his position on too many issues. This will easily lead to being labeled "slick," and as popular as WJC was, it will be a tough sell a second time. Whatever one may say about GWB, he knew what he stood for and managed to package it so that a significant number of people who voted for him didn't realize that they didn't agree with him on hardly any issue.

it's super early and only psycho-nerds like us are paying attention.

In 2000 GWB had "change", great message discipline, and a very well crafted message that drew contrast between him and his opponent (who atrociously cooperated in defining himself negatively.) Bush won't have that luxury this time.

Logan and PC:

Good comments. I think Kerry-Lewis 2004 (or John-John 2004) will create a havoc in GOP. People from everywhere will flock to their site. They will say we want liberties. We want diversity. We want civil rights. Etc. Bush-Cheney will have nothing to offer.

The entire country will be a domino effect. GOP will lose across the nation.

GOP RIP!! (due to Kerry-Lewis or John-John)

AliKarimBey

INDinWAstate, you don't know me at all, why should I look in the mirror? I never voted for Bush, or a candidate he backed, and I never stayed home on election day. I don't work for a political party, and i didn't live in a state that will have much effect (if at all) in the primaries. I understand you, I too know several McCain conservatives, so I hear ya (and hoped he would have won their primary). Aren't Kerry and McCain pretty good friends though? However, if I understand you correctly, I don't understand it. You claim to be an independent (as am I) and seem to not want four more years of Mr. Bush, but claim if Kerry wins you won't vote for him, which does nothing but give us 4 more years of Bush... 4 more years of conservative judicial nominees, 4 more years of this foreign policy, 4 more years of defunding gov't, 4 more years of their whole agenda, and not to mention the implications that it could have on the Supreme Court. I would like either Dean or Kerry... but if neither are it, I will still vote Dem in 2004 b/c I know that I don't want 4 more years of Bush. I didn't have strong feelings for Gore at all, but I voted for him for the vary reasons i listed. Its bigger than the personality in the WH.

To TSE: Yes, if Gore had won New Hampshire he would have won the presidential election without Florida. But with the new Census New Hampshire plus the old Gore states would not be enough.

I think it is reasonable to say that any able Democrat in 2004 will be able to win the Gore states of 2000. Bush will try to steal some states, but I don't think it will be very possible unless the economy really picks up. The Gore states in 2000 will be just 10 electoral votes away from victory in 2004.

Any Democrat in 2004 must first be able. I have my doubts about some, but when it comes to the big five I don't. Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, and Dean are able enough to at least keep the Gore core. It's winning that extra 10 or more that is important. Gephardt, Edwards, and Lieberman seem to have obvious strategies to win. I don't see the obvious strategy for Dean and Kerry.

<><>
Logan

TSE;
Democrats will continue to lose elections as long as they believe that they can alienate liberals in order to attract moderates. Gore lost the last election, in part, because he failed to attract Nader voters. And if Bush wins the White House again in '04, it'll be the Democratic candidate's fault, NOT MINE!

Kerry's support for the war resolution and the Homeland Security Bill is appalling, indefensible and unforgivable. (Ditto for Edwards, Lieberman, Gephardt). You can denounce and deride me for my principles, but it won't win your candidate my vote.

Fortunately, Howard Dean seems to understand how to appeal to moderates withOUT alienating liberals, without pandering to or exploiting America's basest fears. Please keep that in mind as you decide which candidate to support.

It's time for the Greens to start thinking about the good of the nation rather than subject the nation to four more years of GWB for the sake of ideological purism.

Howard Dean represents the best chance of uniting liberals, Greens, fiscal conservatives, and gun owning libertarians into a coalition to win the 270 Electoral Votes necessary to have our own regieme change.

"Howard Dean represents the best chance of uniting liberals, Greens, fiscal conservatives, and gun owning libertarians into a coalition to win the 270 Electoral Votes necessary to have our own regieme change."

Exactly. And suburban moderates will be happy to come along for the ride.

INDinWAstate, I can somewhat empathize with your sentiments. However, I differ from you in that I would happily vote for Kerry, Gephardt, or Edwards in order to prevent another 4 years of Bush. The one whom I will unequivocally NOT vote for is Lieberman, due to his cultural conservatism and his lack of authenticity.

If Lieberman is the nominee, I will oppose his candidacy and work on behalf of an Independent candidate. Otherwise, the Democrats will pretty much have my vote locked up.

INDinWAstate, who is my candidate? Please tell me because I certainly don't know. I agree, Gore cost himself votes (which is one of the main reasons why I was not excited about him), but none of this was my point. So in other words, out of principle, you are conciously choosing to have 4 more years of Bush policy (judicial nominations, possibly more conservative supreme court, etc) than a slightly left of center moderate candidate that you don't like for principle? I won't deride you for that. Everyone has to do what they feel is right. But for me, the prospect of giving him another 4 years to do damage is not a voting option to me. I think it will be either Dean or Kerry, and to me, both are better than the alternative in 2004. If you can express your opinion, I certainly can too. They haven't taken that right away yet.

the base of the dems is a lot broader than the base of the repubs. the dems seems to be more of a balancing act, and no one will get everything they want. there will always be alienated groups.

Some may have gotten the mistaken impression that I'm a Green and an ideological purist.

I'm not a Green... and I voted for Gore in 2000 even though I didn't always agree with his positions.

But I now feel that enough is enough is enough. If we reward terrible legislation with our votes, we'll continue to get terrible legislation. I strongly believe that the war resolution and the homeland security bill were needless attacks on the constitution, on liberty, common sense and morality. I cannot bring myself to reward those attacks with my vote, Bush or no Bush.

I cannot choose between theft and assault, between rape and murder. I abstain.

I agree, they have had poor legislation, and I was happy that both both my Rep and Senator at the time voted against it. Now I moved and I have to check. And its been poor, worse than just the resoltion. I applaud you. But I think of all the people that will be negatively affected by another 4 years of Bush, and I can't do that. I would have hoped that after 2000, and especially now that things would change a bit... if that doesn't force the issue, i don't know what will. anyway...

Unfortunately both my Senators and my Representative voted for the authorization.

I'm opposed to military action. The President has yet to make the case why any invasion of a soverign nation is in the best interest of the United States. It is going to be intersting to see the spin from his speechwriters.

ok dokie