So how does Dean move up? Adding up the numbers, does this mean that 17% are undecided? Is it easier for Dean to go after this group or target the supporters of specific candidates? How firm is Kerry's or Lieberman's 16%?

what happens when iraq is over? does dean stand out from other liberals on other issues? please educate me, seriously
will hoolywood support him?

Dean's support in Hollywood is, I believe, relatively strong. Once people make commitments, they're unlikely to back off. In Reiner and Streisand, he has strong Hollywood connections. Particularly with Reiner, his connection goes beyond war. Reiner is a hard-core advocate of health care for children, Dean has promised universal health care for people under the age of 23. Reiner's with him for the long haul, along with all of the contacts he can muster.

Looks like Bush is gaining:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44887-2003Mar18.html

However, this is from a paper that is part of the VRWC, so it may be a lie.

More proof that France is the roadblock (from www.andrewsullivan.com):

BLAIR ON THE NEGOTIATIONS: I hope the editors of the New York Times absorb Tony Blair's speech to the House of Commons this afternoon. It outlines in excruciating detail exactly what happened in the last couple of weeks. There is no question that it was France that scuppered any deal, any ultimatum, any attempt to get U.N. support for final pressure on Saddam. Not Cheney. Not Wolfowitz. Not Bush. France:
(From Blair's speech):
We then worked on a further compromise. We consulted the inspectors and drew up five tests based on the document they published on 7 March. Tests like interviews with 30 scientists outside of Iraq; production of the anthrax or documentation showing its destruction. The inspectors added another test: that Saddam should publicly call on Iraqis to cooperate with them. So we constructed this framework: that Saddam should be given a specified time to fulfil all six tests to show full cooperation; that if he did so the inspectors could then set out a forward work programme and that if he failed to do so, action would follow.
So clear benchmarks; plus a clear ultimatum. I defy anyone to describe that as an unreasonable position.
Last Monday, we were getting somewhere with it. We very nearly had majority agreement and I thank the Chilean President particularly for the constructive way he approached the issue.
There were debates about the length of the ultimatum. But the basic construct was gathering support.
Then, on Monday night, France said it would veto a second resolution whatever the circumstances. Then France denounced the six tests. Later that day, Iraq rejected them. Still, we continued to negotiate.
Last Friday, France said they could not accept any ultimatum. On Monday, we made final efforts to secure agreement. But they remain utterly opposed to anything which lays down an ultimatum authorising action in the event of non-compliance by Saddam.
Just consider the position we are asked to adopt. Those on the security council opposed to us say they want Saddam to disarm but will not countenance any new resolution that authorises force in the event of non-compliance.
That is their position. No to any ultimatum; no to any resolution that stipulates that failure to comply will lead to military action. (end Blair's speech)

The failure of diplomacy is not the Bush administration's fault. And the attempt to make that argument must deal with Blair's chronology. The people of this country see it. It's the partisan elites who are still blind to reality.

Thoughts on the poll that Mike the Troll so thoughtfully provided for us:

--natural bounce from right after Bush's speech. Remember how they got a bounce after Powell's UN presentation, and how that bounce went away when we found out that Powell was basically making stuff up.

--Americans always have rallied to support their troops in time of war. That's what we're doing now.

--The article states that the upswing in support comes mostly from Democrats. Does anybody think that Democrats are really more likely to vote for President Dubya than they were a couple of weeks ago?

And here's a riddle for you, Mike: How is France the roadblock when France AND Russia AND China were ALL going to veto the resolution? And how is France the roadblock when the Blair/Dubya war resolution was going to lose on an up/down vote? Remember when President Dubya said "no matter what the whip count is, we're calling for a vote?" Didn't happen, because he was going to LOSE that vote, veto or no veto.

Wait until the war is over. If it's quick amd the stock market rallies, Bush will have the political capital to push his silly tax cut.

This may turn out different from '91-92.
Hoping it doesn't, though.

Blair is fighting for votes in a Commons debate: I'm sure that encouraged him to give a totally honest depiction of last week's negotiations. Why do people give Blair any more credit for telling the truth than Bush or Powell? His own minister states as fact that Saddam has no WMDs, and he's seen all the proper intelligence reports, not the ones cut and pasted from term papers.

Blair's depiction of the French position is pure nonsense: they didn't sign up to the 'six tests' ultimatum because if they had, the UK and US would just have declared the tests failed (including the unpassable 'full declaration' test), and launched an invasion with apparent UN support. That's why the French, Russians, Chinese and the rest wouldn't touch the ultimatum with a bargepole, no doubt in the hope that Bush and Blair wouldn't have the brazen disregard for world opinion to go ahead regardless. No-one will ever be surprised again: 'Senor Chavez, you and your sons have 48 hours to leave Venezuela'...

Why is it when a person says something that some of you disagree with, they are automatically lying? Can't others just have a different point of view?

Also, as I have said before, polls are worthless until this war is over.

President Bush is vulnerable to defeat in his 2004 Presidential re-election Bid. Poor economy and US is about to go to war with Iraq. Which Democratic candidate stands a chance of Defeating President BUsh in 2004.

The Candidates in Alphabetical Order
1) Howard Dean (Vermont)
2) John Edwards (North Carolina)
3) Dick Gephardt (Missouri)
4) Bob Graham ( Florida)
5) John Kerry (Massachusetts)
6 Dennis Kucinich (Ohio)
7 Joe Lieberman (Connecticut)
8 Carol Moseley Braun (Illinios)
9 Al Sharpton (New York)

Democrats need to nominate a candidate that was elected to Statewide Office such as US Senator of Governor

1 Howard Dean - Governor (Vermont)
2 John Edwards Senator (North Carolina)
3 Bob Graham -Senator (Florida)
4 John Kerry- Senator (Massachusetts)
5 Joe Lieberman- Senator (Connecticut)
6 Carol Moseley Braun Senator (Illinios)

NOt only the Democrats need to nominate a candidate who was elected to State wide OFfice. They also have to be elected and re-elected to state office multiple times.

1) Howard Dean - Governor -Vermont elected in 1992, relected in 1994,1996,1998,and 2000. retired in 2002.
2 Bob Graham - Senator - Florida
elected in 1986, re-elected in 1992 and 1998.
3 JOhn Kerry- Senator -MAssachusetts
elected in 1984,and re-elected in 1990,1996 and 2002.
4 Joe Liebermsn- Senator- Connecticut- elected in 1988, re-elected in 1994 and 2000.

Democrats need to nominate a candidate who has a lot on experience on national and international security matters.

1) Bob Graham- (Florida) Intellegence- former member
2) John Kerry (Massachusetts) Foriegn Relations commitee- current member
3) Joe Lieberman (Connectict) Armed Services Commitee- Current member

John Kerry is a Liberal Democrat from Massachusetts. Ted Kennedy's Partner and Michael Dukakis Under Study. He will Be taken off the List.

The competetion is between Joe Lieberman and Bob Graham.

Lieberman is a conservative Democrat from Connecticut a Democratic leaning state in The New england Region. He is a Pro George W Bush Democrat. especially for his strong Support for the Iraq Resolution. Lieberman is un-electable because of that

Bob Graham is the Strongest Democratic candidate to Defeat George W BUsh in 2004. Graham is a former Governor and Current US Senator of Florida, a largest state in the Southern region. Most Recent Presidents were former Governors. Carter,Reagan,Clinton and Bush were former Governors. Most recent Democratic Presidents were from the South
JOhnson-Texas,Carter-Georgia,Clinton-Arkansas

Graham is a former Chairman of the Senate Intellegence Commitee. Has alot of Experience on national and international security matters. Voted against the Iraq resolution. Believes the US should focus their attention on International terrorist organizations like Alqueada,HAmas,and Hezbollah which post a serouis threat to the United States than Iraq. Graham is considered a squeeky clean Democratic Candidate. The elderstatesman

Graham will help Democrats win Florida in 2004 without a recount and counting Dimple and Pregnent Chads.

A Bob Graham/Wesley Clark Ticket is a huge nightmare for George W Bush and the Republican Party. BOth men are Southern Democrats and Both men have experience on International and NAtional Security MAtters. Wesley Clark is a perfect VP running mate for Bob Graham . While he has not held any elected Office- Unlike Bob Graham, Clark gives the Democratic Party credibility on Economic and National security matters being a former Military General and a Investment Banker. Clark can be President if Graham can't complete his Presidential Term.

Graham-Clark ticket will recieve 298 ev
Gore States = 260 ev
Florida- 27 ev
Arkansas 6 ev
West Virginia 5 ev

Give the media a break, it's hard to reach the keyboard when you're on your knees all the time.

And sheesh, why is it sooooo astounding that the "popular" "president" is tied/losing to an unnamed candidate? He might be dumber than spit, but golly, Americans just like the guy, don't they?

Mike the Troll (quoting Andrew Sullivan): "The failure of diplomacy is not the Bush administration's fault."

Yes it is. The U.S. (with the U.K.) are the ones walking away from the Security Council.

The failure has to be shared by the U.S. and the U.K. for ending the discussions (diplomacy).

Sullivan: And the attempt to make that argument must deal with Blair's chronology.

The chronology is not the issue - that's a smokescreen Sullivan is throwing up. Everyone agrees on the chronology.

Blair: "Last Friday, France said they could not accept any ultimatum. On Monday, we made final efforts to secure agreement. But they remain utterly opposed to anything which lays down an ultimatum authorising action in the event of non-compliance by Saddam."

Look at what he's saying. France is opposed to an ultimatum authorising action [military force] in the event of non-compliance by Saddam.

Just in case his Parliament doesn't get it, Blair repeats it.

Blair: "Just consider the position we are asked to adopt. Those on the security council opposed to us say they want Saddam to disarm but will not countenance any new resolution that authorises force in the event of non-compliance."

In other words, the rest of the Council (except Spain and Bulgaria) told Blair and Dubya to think of another way to get Saddam to disarm without militarily invading Iraq.

But this is beyond their capabilities, for Blair whines: "That is their position. No to any ultimatum; no to any resolution that stipulates that failure to comply will lead to military action."

Of course, this is nothing we haven't heard already. Sullivan salivates that "This speech is one of the finest any prime minister has given in the House of Commons. Period."

Yet Blair's speech is merely a summary of the past two months of Security Council negotiations. It has not added one shred of evidence that Hussein has WMD.

Sullivan: "The people of this country see it. It's the partisan elites who are still blind to reality."

The people of this country (I assume he's referring the 7 in 10 who are for an invasion of Iraq - and that from a poll of 510 Americans) do indeed see the failure of diplomacy as not the fault of the Bush administration.

Sullivan: "It's the partisan elites who are still blind to reality."

Well, I guess I'm a partisan elite. I choose the reality of peace, negotiation, and direct evidence. It sure as hell beats the Bush administration reality - the one Sullivan and the 70% of the 510 Americans polled last night chose - of war, bullying tactics followed by incredulity when they don't work, and propaganda.

IMHO the important thing is not the latest numbers, but the trends. For example, I think Lieberman's dropping, and I can't think of a reason why that trend would reverse. A graph of poll results over time would be very revealing.

Brad:

I agree with your assessment.

The war party scapegoats France (always a popular thing to go), but the bottom line is that the war resolution failed miserably. The vote was 4 in favor and 11 opposed. No amount of propaganda can erase that fact.

Yes, now that there is no turning back from war, the poll numbers have bumped up a bit. Still, the only solid support for the war is from the GOP right wing base of 25-35% of the voters. A similar percentage on the left remain steadfastly opposed, and those in the middle, if they support it at all, do so with deep reservations.

Thats really shameless. Quoting Andrew Sullivan as proof of anything. he's a guy who makes Bob Novak seem well-sourced and Pat Buchanon seem modest. And, what precisely, does his opinion prove? That conservative Brits don't like France? this is news.

Shouldn't you pro-war chickenhawks be signing up to engage in hand to hand combat right about now? Or can "freedom"
only be protected by an army made up of predominantly minorities from the working poor?

Good assessment Neal. But regarding Kerry, I'm so tired of people assuming that a "liberal from Mass" is unelectable. If you're looking for historical precedent, how about Kennedy. Or FDR, from New York, a wealthy east coast elite who "got it" and stood up for the common man even though he was unlikely to toss back a beer and go bowling with joe six pack.

If Gore had won just NH, not tough to do, he would have won. Period. Or Nevada. The south could be, and maybe it should be, written off, if a candidate has to be from there and has to appeal to the Nascar crowd. White guys with gun racks from Dixie will stick with Bush until he drives them into hell.

Also, Dukakis lost for a variety of reasons, mainly because he let himself be slimed by Bush I and his Lee Atwater machine (Willie Horton, stupid helmet, the flag issue etc). People didn't walk into the voting booth and say, "Man I hate that horrible horrible Boston. Screw them and their old cobblestone streets."

Most important, it's time to take back the word liberal.

"The south could be, and maybe it should be, written off, if a candidate has to be from there and has to appeal to the Nascar crowd."

We aren't trying to win a regional battle here. If that's the case, then California, Oregon, and Washington should become its own Democratic country, the Northeast should become its own Democratic country, and the South should become its own Republican country. Our candidate should make every effort possible to appeal and reach out to all parts of the country. That's what he's there to do, represent the interests of everyone. At least Dean's making an effort. Kerry, for crying out loud, is talking about how he'd "write off the South".

I realize we don't need the South to win. But it becomes much more difficult, and its not nice to know that the person who has been elected President doesn't care about your region of the country.

SHARPTON HAS FINALLY HIT 6% NATIONALLY!

Kerry is looking very strong, He seems to be just right on the political spectrum and with his veteran status he can do better among white males than Gore did. If he gets a minority vp he can then take women and hispanic/black voters too.

Everybody Cheer up about the iraq thing. Bush will pay for this huge mistake, not directly but indirectly similiar to how his Father did. I sense something in these polls, that there is a growing unease about this president. It won't go away, and it will return after a month or so of civilian killing in Iraq.

For anyone interested:

Gary Hart TV appearances in the next two days -

March 19, 2003: CNN - American Morning with Paula Zahn, 8:00 AM EST

March 20, 2003: PBS - The Charlie Rose Show (check local listings for
channel and time.)

Two great articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/19/politics/19DEMS.html?pagewanted=print&position=top

Mr. Wolfson recalled that his committee's polls charted rapid drops in public support for Democrats when the debate on the Iraq resolution began last fall. "This is a threshold issue," he said. "It's possible that it goes away, but I wouldn't bet on it."

Most Democratic presidential contenders said they would refrain from criticizing Mr. Bush while troops were heading into battle. But Howard Dean, a former governor of Vermont who is running as an antiwar candidate declared he would continue his attacks, war or no war.

Dr. Dean's position prompted concern among aides to his rivals, who suggested today that it was playing into the White House's hands. "If Howard Dean didn't exist, Karl Rove would have to invent him," said a senior adviser to one of Mr. Dean's rivals, in a reference to Mr. Bush's senior political adviser.

One of the Democratic candidates who was booed in California last week, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, said today: "In the first few days, America needs to band together and be supportive of the troops. This is not going to take very long, and if Howard — I think anybody who knows anything about this knows there will be plenty of time to be critical."

And Roger Simon, which I've commented upon the blog entry:
http://www.rogersimon.com/archive/000297.html#000297

"Our candidate should make every effort possible to appeal and reach out to all parts of the country. That's what he's there to do, represent the interests of everyone. At least Dean's making an effort. Kerry, for crying out loud, is talking about how he'd "write off the South". "

Well I think it's the other way around. The South has written off the democrats, at least in Pres elections. It looks pretty hopeless. But caring about all parts of the country is great. Going against your principles and moving to the right just to appease one region that doesn't like you anyway, doesn't seem like a good electoral strategey.

I have heard Dean is bashing the other Dem candidates-by name in some instances. I hope this is not true. We don't need a Dem candidate doing the GOP's dirty work for them.

As far as this war, it could have been handled so much better. I believe a coercive inspections program with threats of force if interfered with could have been a doable and effective alternative. Have troops with the inspectors. Good diplomacy could have gotten all parties in the UN on board for this.
But everyone should be glad Saddam is going to be gone. I didn't realize that he is said to have killed MILLIONS of Iraqis-that is genocide and that has to be stopped anyplace it happens, if possible. Just like we should have helped Rwanda. I just hope things go well and there is a minimum of civilian and U.S. casualties.

In a Zogby poll conducted the same time as the Gallup "unnamed Democrat" poll you proudly heralded here are the results:

Bush leads Hillary: 53%-39%

Bush leads Lieberman: 50%-38%

Bush lead Gephardt: 50%-38%

Bush leads Kerry: 49%-36%

Bush leads Graham: 50%-32%

Bush leads Edwards: 51%-32%

Bush leads your beloved Howard Dean: 52%-31%

Bush leads Gary Hart: 54%-31%

Bush leads Mosely-Braun: 54%-30%

Bush leads Wesley Clark 52%-28%

Bush leads Kucinich: 52%-27%

Bush leads Sharpton: 58%-25%

Who is the famous "unnamed Democrat"? I really hope that you were planning to publish this poll, Mydd, for credibility's sake.

Tomtom said: I have heard Dean is bashing the other Dem candidates-by name in some instances. I hope this is not true. We don't need a Dem candidate doing the GOP's dirty work for them.

Well, Dean did say that he didn't think Kerry and Edwards were doing the right things to defeat Bush (skipping abortion votes, voting to give Bush power to go to war, supporting the president's unfunded education bill). But he also praised them and said that if either of them were nominated that he would do everything in his power to make sure they got elected. All in all, it seemed more like he was highlighting a difference of opinion and strategy than "bashing" his opponents. But you may be talking about something other than his speech at the CA Democratic convention.

By the way, if you want to see that speech -- I though it was really good, and most other people seem to think so too -- you can view it as a RealMovie at http://www.cspan.org.

Just passing:

Hart isn't even running, yet! I'd love to see the contest between him and Bush, who, by the time of the campaign, will have so many lies to explain he'll only be able to smirk.

Both the Zogby poll and the Gallup poll are here:
http://pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

One reason that no specific Democrat is faring as well against Bush as the "hypothetical nominated Democrat" is that none of them have the weight of the nomination behind them yet.

Let's take Dean, for instance. He loses 52% to 31% to Bush in the Zogby poll. But if he's nominated, he'll suddenly have tons of exposure, higher name recognition and the legitimacy that comes with being the party favorite. Whole new story. It would be ridiculous for him not to make a jump in the head to head poll, considering that most people don't even know who he is right now.

It's also interesting to note that, barring the unlikelies (Sharpton, Moseley-Braun, Kucinich) and those not running yet (Clark, Hart), the head-to-head poll is basically a name recognition poll. Bush scores between 49% and 53% against each of these opponents (and the MoE is +/-3%). "Other" gets 3% or 4% every time. Now look at the proportion of "Not Sure":

Hillary Clinton - 6
Joe Lieberman - 9
Dick Gephardt - 9
John Kerry - 13
Bob Graham - 14
John Edwards - 14
Howard Dean - 15

Even if you keep everyone but Sharpton in the poll, the trend is still pretty obvious. Sharpton has high name recognition but is not generally well liked.

-"Who is the famous "unnamed Democrat"? I really hope that you were planning to publish this poll, Mydd, for credibility's sake."-

-"Posted by Just passing by at March 18, 2003 11:09 PM"-

Some of the polling outlets have left out the question that drafGore contracted with Zogby namely how would Al Gore fare? In this case its Gore 42% to Bush 51% with the remainder no opinion or undecided. {:-)

Gores numbers have climbed a bit since he pulled out last Dec. 15th. Sure it might be because so many people are turning against Bush but it also involves the fact that he has bungled getting Iraq to disarm and has hurt US standing in the world and people are starting to muse as to what things would be like if those VOtes had been counted and Gore had to deal with Hussein.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=688

John Jimenez

http://www.draftgore.com

Just Passing By:

On May 25, 1992, President Bush was ahead of candidate Clinton by 15. On July 31, Clinton was ahead by 18. How did that happen? Perhaps this fact can answer your question. It is still "the economy, stupid."

A Democrat must be at least marginally competitive in the south. Sure, Texas, N.C., S.C., Alabama,and Mississippi haven't voted for a Dem. pres. nominee since 1976. But Clinton DID carry his homestate of Ark., and La., and Tenn. twice; and Georgia and Fla. once each.

A Democratic nominee should put Ark., La., Tenn., and Georgia in play in '04. Heck, the Dem. should actively campaign in Texas (yes, Texas), where Bush received only 5% of the black vote. Do it just to give Bush and Rove the jitters. Bush will literally claim ownership of Texas (as he has with Iraq) and exclaim "trespasser!--what's he doin' in Texas?!"

The south isn't just white rednecks with pick-up trucks and confederate flags. The white population isn't growing in the south. True, white rednecks or their close cohorts now control the southern governors' mansions.

But to portray the south as a white GOP monolith is like dismissing Iraq as just a bunch of militant thugs. In fact, 17 million of Iraq's 24 million people are women, children, and people over 70 years of age.

Let's take Dean, for instance. He loses 52% to 31% to Bush in the Zogby poll. But if he's nominated, he'll suddenly have tons of exposure, higher name recognition and the legitimacy that comes with being the party favorite. Whole new story. It would be ridiculous for him not to make a jump in the head to head poll, considering that most people don't even know who he is right now."

Yes and no. Virtually everybody has heard of Lieberman, but he still trails in the double digits. The truth is that the Democrats lack any great candidates. The unnamed Democrat allows people to imagine the best. It's actually a faulty type of question. Early polls are essentially meaningless, but this crop of candidates are underwhelming to say the least.

Just passing by has a great point, if a snide one. The Democrats wouldn't win right now, and if they don't present a credible alternate message to the American public on national security, it will be very difficult for them to win without manifold disasters that we hope will not happen.

This is my problem with Dean. His position on the war isn't that different than Kerry's; he hasn't disavowed the use of force, or non-UN sanctioned actions. It's just that he or his supporters have simplified the debate into a 'pro-war' or 'anti-war' false dichotomy rather than a 'remove Saddam with allies' versus 'Go it alone' debate. By doing this, he's tapping into a sort of liberal rage at the status quo, but he's not building a broad platform of support.

All of this has to do with the message, not the specifics of his policies. Even if his supporters are the ones creating the 'McGovern' pacifist liberal image, that image is highly problematic.

Tom Delay endorsed Dean for the Dem nomination and no I am not kidding read below:
http://www.thehill.com/news/031903/dean.aspx

Just passing by,

I've also heard the commentary that the current crop of Dem. candidates are underwhelming. I've heard it expressed that the group lacks a "political heavyweight" like Clinton. I've yet to hear the dismissive phrase "seven dwarfs" like in '88.

A strong candidate has yet to emerge from the field. In mid-'91, the crop of Democratic candidates were considered underwhelming against then-President Bush.

Senator Bob Kerrey and Governor Clinton were considered probable front-runners, with Tsongas, Sen. Tom Harkin, and former Gov. Jerry Brown considered longer shots. They were all credible candidates. But at that time, none were considered "heavyweights" with a real chance to win.

The most likely front-runners now are Kerry, Lieberman, and Gephardt. Any one of them could emerge as a heavyweight--probably Kerry, with his presidential demeaner and national network. Gephardt also has a real chance. Dean is still a longshot despite all the enthusiasm on this board.

We'll see what happens. The Iraqi aftermath will have more impact than the fact we won the war in 8.5 days.

'04, no doubt, is Bush's to lose. Odds are he'll get re-elected. But I predict a pretty close race with a chance of a Democratic victory.

The Democrats unnamed candidate is ‘SuperDemocratClone.’ The Clone is named Bill Kennovelt because DNA was taken from all three Democratic power houses of the 20th Century. Sources say that Bill would not submit a sample of his DNA but they were able to find some anyways.
This just in, the Republicans are countering the Dem Clone with another Clone, no it is not GW JR nor is it not by naming the same presidential cabinet for the last 30 years, it is a Clone named Dwight Millhouse Reagan. The Republican Presidents used for this experiment shall be named later….Developing….

"Virtually everybody has heard of Lieberman, but he still trails in the double digits."

This is because Joe Lieberman sucks. I think we can reach a broad consensus on this point.

Folks like us who devour political news forget that 95% of the public isn't even remotely concerned with the 2004 election at this stage. And except for Lieberman, that 95% has little knowledge or interest in the Democratic hopefuls at this point. Really, how many people would be able to pick Dennis Kucinich out of a lineup? My father, a loyal Democrat who is generally well informed, had never heard of Howard Dean when I mentioned Dean's name to him.

The generic polls clearly indicate that the public is, as of this time, unsatisfied with Bush and open to voting for someone else. The specific polls indicate that when you match up Bush with a Democrat that they don't know well (or at all), Bush wins. By the summer of 2004, the public will know the Democratic nominee very well, and then we'll have an idea of Candidate X's chances.

I think it is quite obvious why Dean is the favorite of DeLay. It is the same reason I endorse Dean for the nomination. He would be the easiest to beat. He is already bashing preachers. That quote will be distributed in every rural chuch in America the Sunday before the election in 04.

Yes, AC, and all the fundamentalist congregations that were going to vote Democratic will suddenly change their minds and vote Republican.

::rolls eyes::

First, it will boost turnout. One rule in politics is to never tick off the other parties base. Second, this will go farther than fundamentalist churches. It will go to all churches.

"Second, this will go farther than fundamentalist churches. It will go to all churches."

Dean said, and I quote, "I don't want to listen to FUNDAMENTALIST preachers anymore." Note the word in that sentence that I have capitalized, the one that starts with the letter F. So your statement that Dean is "bashing preachers" is totally false. I suspect that mainstream Christians are as sick of listening to fundamentalist preachers as the rest of us. Yeah, your party will probably try and spin that into "Dean hates Christians", but if I were him I'd go around speaking to Christian groups, and speaking in churches, to make sure that people understand that such is not the case.

Relating to your other point of boosting turnout, the fundamentalists already basically view Bush as Christ's vicar on Earth, so I think they'll be turning out for him no matter what.

I agree KevinA. The religious right is not going to vote for the Democrats and will be solidly behind Bush. They strive on the "us vs them" dynamic kinda like good vs evil. I should know I used to be one of them.

Dean will catch on as more people hear him because of his ability to fearlessly voice what many Democrats feel. When he talks about wanting his country back many can relate.

What is wrong with Dean said ("I don't want to listen to FUNDAMENTALIST preachers anymore.") is that he should be running to be President of ALL Americans. To "write off" people, and say "well, they won't vote for me" shows a lack of statesmanship that is troubling to say the least.

Although YOU may THINK they think this, you'll never hear Bush or other Republican leaders say "I don't want to listen to .... gays.... Union workers .... Latinos ....women..." You pooh-pooh Bush campaigning in California and New York saying they're "unwinnable" - that's not the point. You may not like this fact but, Bush understands it: Bush is the President of California and New York and the other 48 states.

<< Dean said, and I quote, "I don't want to listen to FUNDAMENTALIST preachers anymore." >>

I will file that along with the "the President's unilateral invasion of Iraq" quote in my "What is Howard Dean talking about" folder. Yeah I don't much like listening to fundamentalist preachers either. That's why I don't go to fundamentalist churches, watch the 700 Club etc.. Does somebody periodically lock Howard Dean in a room and force him to listen to fundamentalist preachers on cable TV? He is getting mileage out of it now, but this these type of comments are going to catch up with him.

I agree, Dean should not have made that remark about Fundamentalist preachers. It was a tad bit reckless.

However, I don't think that will hurt his chances with mainstream theists, who know the difference between their beliefs and Fundamentalist beliefs and are wary and ashamed of the latter.

In addition, Republican leaders have frequently and publicly written off atheists and those of non-Judeo/Christian faith. President Bush (the father, not the son) went so far as to state that atheists shouldn't even be considered citizens.

In general, I tend to like Dean, but has anyone considered a Kerry and Landrieu ticket? Just curious. All Kerry would really need to counteract his 'liberal yankee' handicap would be a strong, charismatic southerner, and Kerry doesn't need further military or foreign policy credentials with his committee relations and military experience. Any thoughts...?

"To "write off" people, and say "well, they won't vote for me" shows a lack of statesmanship that is troubling to say the least."

Well, I guess in Fantasyland, you're right. Unfortunately, we live in the real world. Dubya has never said something like that in such a straightforward manner, because he's a lying scumbag, but he can and does write off certain groups to motivate others. Witness the U. of Michigan "quota" nonsense, which was nothing more than Dubya writing off Afro-Americans to attract white suburbanites.

"You pooh-pooh Bush campaigning in California and New York saying they're "unwinnable" - that's not the point. You may not like this fact but, Bush understands it: Bush is the President of California and New York and the other 48 states."

Mike, you are totally delusional on this. Bush has screwed California to the wall repeatedly, from the energy crisis, to medical marijuana (Ashcroft's Justice Department spitting on CA state law), to fuel efficiency standards (Ashcroft again, filing suit to force California to reduce its efficiency standards to the federal limit). Bush is the president of Red America and everybody knows it.

Also, I personally do not "pooh-pooh" Bush's campaigning in California. It almost cost him the 2000 election. Vanity campaign visits to California, over and over again, while Repub governors in states like PA, WI, MI, and FL were urging him to visit them instead, nearly threw the race to Gore. I devoutly hope he criss-crosses CA again in 2004. Hope he makes another all-out effort. He'll lose here by double digits, and maybe it will cost him somewhere else again.

shawn,

I think Kerry-Landrieu could be an attractive ticket. I think the following questions will be asked regarding Landrieu:

#1 can she carry Louisiana - Bush won there by a decent margin in 2000
#2 how important is Louisiana relative to other states (i.e. - Florida) in the electoral strategy
#3 are there any distracting skeletons in her closet
#4 how likely are Democrats to lose her Senate seat or elect/appoint a very conservative Democrat

I can see her making the short list, but would guess someone like Graham or Gephardt would be the more likely VP nominee. Graham would probably have to pass up trying for Senate reelection to have a shot at VP.

Oh, I forgot the recent story over gun purchasing databases, the one the feds use for background checks per the Brady Law? It seems that CA law enforcement organizations had been using the database to catch criminals here--until the Bush administration stopped them. Yay Bush! California loves you!

KevinA-
Supporting certain policies that you think are good for the country as a whole isn't directly disavowing certain groups. You may interpret them as such, but you would have to admit that means both sides do it. (Dean's pro-abortion policy doesn't "write off" pro-lifers??)

Frankly I'm dying to hear what OTHER groups Howard Dean is sick of. I hope he lists them on his next appearance on Meet the Press.

Regarding Landrieu...

"#1 can she carry Louisiana"

Maybe. LA went for Clinton twice and was closer than the rest of the Deep South in 2000.

"#2 how important is Louisiana relative to other states (i.e. - Florida) in the electoral strategy"

Well, it's nine electoral votes we didn't get the last time. A prominent Floridian (Graham if he's not the nominee?) might be a better choice but LA's votes certainly wouldn't hurt. I think Landrieu would be more about appealing to women nationally than winning Louisiana, though.

"#3 are there any distracting skeletons in her closet"

Who knows? This question will be asked of every possible candidate.

"#4 how likely are Democrats to lose her Senate seat"

It's a southern state, so we could well lose it, although LA still hasn't elected a GOP senator since Reconstruction.

"or elect/appoint a very conservative Democrat"

Would depend on which party takes the LA governor election this fall.

A factor regarding Landrieu might be the potential problem of having TWO senators on the ticket. The presidential field now is essentially Gephardt, Dean, and a bunch of senators.

"Supporting certain policies that you think are good for the country as a whole isn't directly disavowing certain groups."

Seriously splitting hairs here. You may believe that Dubya wasn't writing off the black vote in the Michigan case, and you may believe that he isn't writing off California and paying off his oil buddies with the fuel efficiency thing. I strongly disagree.

"You may interpret them as such, but you would have to admit that means both sides do it."

I freely admit that both sides do it. Dean just wrote off fundamentalists. Bush has written off African-Americans. Politics 101.

shawn,

I'd support Kerry-Landrieu in a heartbeat.

Because she's a woman, Landrieu would be a semi-bold choice. Unfortunately, women candidates for national office need to "prove" their credibility in a different way than men--just ask Ferraro or E. Dole.

Still, Landrieu defeated Bush surrogate Susan Terrell in the La. run-off last December, after Bush/Rove trashed her voting record and Catholic faith. She's a tough campaigner. At 47-years old, she has a lot of experience. Landrieu is an LSU grad., a former State Treasurer, and second term U.S. Senator. She has a common touch, centrist voting record, and a straight-talking style.

I can easily picture Mary Landrieu as Vice President of the United States.

Writing off constituencies is the name of the game in electoral politics (I didn't see any Bush or Gore ads here in MA); anyone who argues differently has an ax to grind or is hopelessly naive.

My problem isn't that Dean is writing off fundamentalist preachers, it's that he's angrily and explicitly doing so. The Democratic leadership needs to project anger at injustice, not at domestic groups fostering the injustice. Blame will happen naturally, if it needs to.

For example, you can say the following:

"I don't listen to those who pollute our educational system with creationism or threaten good doctors who follow the law with murder."

You cannot say:

"I don't want to listen to fundamentalist preachers anymore".

One sounds like apple pie, the other sounds angry and only appeals to those who base their political opinions off of a deap-seated need to identify with a party or cause, ie. not most Americans.

Regardin the Zogby poll, I think swing voters may be unwilling to hand the "keys" over to a Democrat because of the perception of indifference to national security.

Even with a bad economy, that may be too much to overcome.

mikeel,

I agree that national security credentials will be important in '04 because of 9/11/01 and its aftermath.
I wish it weren't so, because I'd rather focus on social welfare and environmental issues.

But, let's face it, national security is a BIG concern, like it or not. That's the way it is.

In '92, Clinton had no national security credentials and hadn't even served in the military. But after two "national security presidencies" of Reagan and Bush, voters were ready for a change.

In '76, Carter had no national security credentials, but voters were oh so ready to put Vietnam and Watergate behind them and focus on domestic issues.

'04 won't be like '92 or '76. Voters will value national security credentials. Voters will not be ready to put aside national security credentials in favor of a more domestic focus. They won't.

That's why Kerry has the best chance of being nominated, and maybe Graham. They're the only "national security" Democrats running. The others don't have a national security background.

That's why I seriously question Dean's chances, despite all the enthusiasm on this board.

That's why I am a Kerry supporter.
An excellent post

Much too early to predict what issues will be defining a year and a half from now.
Reagan ran and won on the economy not defense. BushI ran on "Willie Horton" (domestic fear). Clinton economy. GWB "not WJC." Domestic issues usually trump national issues in presidential elections.

My presumption with Dean is that he would have a VP with unquestioned national security credentials like Graham or Hart. Kerry is my number 2 choice, but I'm not convinced he can control the debate in a campaign against Bush. No Democrat will beat Bush if the campaign is about Bush's issues.

Mike the Troll/Corporista!-

The Washington Post part of the VRWC? Doubtful.., Remember that this is the paper that employs EJ Dionne, and was the place where two of the men that I repect most: Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, wrote from. Perhaps the Wash Times is part of the VRWC, (did you get the two mixed up?) but there is no way that Post is.

However, I did from Reuters the same thing. Bush is gaining in a new poll, and no one can accuse Reuters of being controlled by the political right. (remember that it is German!)

This is only the rally effect of the call for an invasion. It will fade as soon as body bags start coming home. Remember, the only reason that no one minded about the casualties during the war in Afghanstan was due to the fact that Americans personally felt the 9-11 attacks, and would have supported military action whether or not the president wanted it. However, Americans would not support this war unless their president was pushing for it, so public opinion will turn wildly against it as soon as a human toll is put on the war.

John F. Kerry- For his service during the Vietnam War, he received: a Silver Star, Bronze Star, 3 Purple Hearts, 2 Presidential Unit Citations and a National Defense Medal. He is also a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

George W. Bush- Cowboy and expert draft-dodger who couldn't even name the Prime Minister of India during the 2000 campaign.

*cough

Yesterday, one of the smartest men I know told me that one of the most effective ways of persuasion was to let the facts do the debating. Any Bushies want to take me up on this?

Out of the nine Democratic Candidates running for President in 2004.
1) Howard Dean- Vermont
2) John Edwards- North Carolina
3) Dick Gephardt- Missouri
4) Bob Graham- Florida
5) John Kerry- Massachusetts
6) Dennis Kucinich- Ohio
7) Joe Lieberman- Connecticut
8) Carol Mosley Braun- Illinios
9) Al Sharpton- New York

Dick Gephardt(D-MO) and Joe Lieberman(D-CT) have high national exposure and both ran for national office. Gephardt ran for President in 1988 and was a former Democratic Leader of the US House of Representative. Joe Lieberman(D-CT) was the 2000 Democratic nominee for Vice President.

Bob Graham(D-FL),John Kerry(D-MA)and John Edwards(D-NC) are fresh candidates that will help Democrats overcome a problem they have in winning the Presidency in 2004. Graham and Kerry both have a strong record on National and International security issues. Graham was a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence commitee, His commitee investigated intelligence failures of the BUsh adminstration prior and after 9/11. Kerry is a member of the Senate Foriegn Relations Commitee and he served in the military Combat during the Vietnam war despite protesting against it after. Graham and Edwards are both Southern Democrats. Most recent Democratic President's were Southerners. Johnson-TX,Carter-GA,and Clinton-AR. Democrats need to nominate a Candidate who has a strong record on National and International Security matters and comes from a the South or the Midwest to win the Presidency in 2004. According this Standard

1) John Edwards-NC
2) Dick Gephardt-MO
3) Bob Graham-FL
4) John Kerry-MA
5) Dennis Kucinich-OH
6) Joe Lieberman-CT

are the most credible candidates running for President in 2004.

1 Edwards,Gephardt,Graham, and Kucinich come from the South or Midwest. Key regions Democrats need to win the Presidency in 2004.

1) Gephardt,Graham,Kerry,and Lieberman have a strong record on National and International Security issues.

The other candidates Dean(VT) Moseley Braun(IL) and Sharpton(NY) are running to send the Democratic Party a Message.

Braun and Sharpton will both energize the African American Constituency to vote for the Democratic Primary Candidates. Democratic Candidates like John Edwards and Bob Graham come from States that have a large African American Constituency. Gephardt and Kucinich represent Congressional Districts have a decent number of African American voters and Joe Lieberman is very popular with the African American Community.

The Democratic Candidates who are rated from the Strongest to the weakest in numerical order. 1 being the strongest and 2 being the weakest.

1) Bob Graham (D-FL), a Southern Democrat, Strong record on National and International Security issues. comes from a state that has a large African american population.

2) Dick Gephardt(D-MO) Midwestern Democrat, Strong record on National and International Security issues. Comes from a district that has a large African American Population.

3) John Edwards(D-NC) Southern Democrat, Comes from a state that has a large African American Population.

4) Carol Moseley Braun (D-IL) Midwestern Democrat, comes from a state that has a large African American Population.

5) Dennis Kucinich(D-OH) Midwestern Democrat, comes from a District that has a large African American Constituency.

6) Joe Lieberman-(D-CT) Has a strong record on National and International Security Matters.

7) John Kerry (D-MA) HAs a strong record on National and International Security Matters.

8) Al Sharpton (D-NY) comes from a District that has a strong African American Population

9) Howard Dean (D-VT) None of the Above.

Dean and Sharpton should both Drop out of the race, NEither of these men stand a chance of winning the Presidency in 2004. Both lack experience on National and International Security issues. Both represent Regions outside the South and Midwest.

This should leave us

John Edwards- NC
Dick Gephardt- MO
Bob Graham- FL
John Kerry- MA
Dennis Kucinich-OH
Joe Lieberman-CT
Carol Mosely Braun-IL

The next two candidates to withdrew from the race is John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich. Democrats have plenty of candidates that come from the South and Midwest region( Gephardt,Graham and Moseley BRaun) They have a candidate who is handsome/Charismatic a la Edwards (Kerry) and appeals to the liberal Base a la Kucinch (Kerry and Moseley Braun)

The remaining Candidates are
1) Dick Gephardt (MO)
2) Bob Graham (FL)
3) John Kerry (MA)
4) Joe Lieberman (CT)
5) Carol Moseley Braun (IL)

Carol Mosely Braun (IL) should be the next candidate to Drop out Democrats have a Midwestern Candidate ( Gephardt) and a candidate who appeals to the Liberal BASe ( Kerry) and a candidate who voted against the Iraq resolution (Graham) and an ethnic minority candidate (Lieberman)

The Democratic nomination is between

1) Dick Gephardt (MO)
2) Bob Graham (FL)
3) John Kerry (MA)
4) Joe Lieberman (CT)

Most Democratic primary voters opposed the potential war against Iraq. Gephardt,Lieberman and Kerry voted for the Iraq resolution last OCtober. Graham opposed the Iraq resolution. Of the Candidates who supported the resolution, Kerry is popular with the Liberal BAse. Lieberman is out of touch with the Liberal BAse. This takes Joe Lieberman out of Consideration. He is too conservative and He represents Connecticut which is outside the Southern and Midwestern Region.

The top three Democratic Presidential Candidates
1) Bob Graham (D-FL) wins the Gold
2) Dick Gephardt (D-MO)wins the Silver
3) John Kerry (D-MA) wins the Bronze

The Other Democratic Candiates
4) Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
5) Carol Mosely BRaun (D-IL)
6) John Edwards (D-NC)
7) Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
8) Al Sharpton (D-NY
9 Howard Dean (D-VT

If we look at the top three Democratic Presidential Candidates on the list.

Graham and Gephardt both can win the Democratic Primary and the General Election. Kerry will be able to win the Democratic Primary but he will have a problem winning the General Election.

The election is between Bob Graham and Dick Gephardt. Bob Graham is the winner because of his opposition to the Iraq resolution relating to the potential war with Iraq. While Graham beleives Saddam is an evil Threat, Terrorist Organization like AlQueda,HAmas and Hezbollah and Countries like SuadiArabia,Syria,and Sudan,and North Korea and Iran pose a seroiuis threat according to Graham. Graham is a former Governor, most recent Presidents were former Governors, Carter,Reagan,Clinton and Bush.

Graham (D-FL)gives Democrats credibility on National and International Security matters. HE is a Southern Democrat and a former Governor. Graham needs to Vice Presidential Running mate who is immedieatly qualified to be President and will energize The Liberal Base, without alienatinating Moderates.
The VP running mate must come from the Midwestern Region, Assuming that the Democrats win the NorthEast and West

Graham should pick Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) as his Vice Presidential Running mate. Graham an Feingold have a lot in Common.

Graham was elected to the Florida State legislature,his first political office in 1966 at the age 29. Feingold was elected to the Wisconsin State legislature,His first political office in 1982 at the age 29. Graham served 12 years in the Florida state legislature before being elected Governor in 1978. Feingold served 10 years in the state legislature before being elected to the US Senate in 1992. Feingold was elected to the US Senate in 1992 by unseating a Republican incumbent. Graham was elected to the US Senate in 1986 by defeating a Republican incumbent.

Assuming that Graham wins the 2004 Presidential election and is re-elected in 2008 and completes that term.

Graham will be in politics for exactlly 46 years 1967-2013

If Feingold wins the 2012 PResidential Election and is re-elected in 2016 and completes two terms.
Feingold will be in politics from 1983-2021, 38 years.

Gore is back in the polls at pollingreport.com

We contacted them and had them put the FULL results of Zogby latest presidential poll for 2004.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

Even after being out of therace for 3 1/2 months his numbers are actually growing.

John Jimenez

http://www.draftgore.com

I can't take seriously any analysis which considers Kucinich a real contender while dismissing Dean as a stunt candidate.

Also, it completely ignores what is probably the most important factor, for better or worse: personality. People don't vote by these criteria. Gore was a Southerner and a veteran with extensive foreign policy experience and he still nearly lost to a governor with no foreign experience of any kind other than Bolivian. If you get what I mean.

Paras Bhayani,

You must have missed the news item that said there will be no body bags. Everyone will be cremated in-country "to avoid a risk of biological contamination". More likely so there can be no photographs of returning body bags and the only casualty numbers will be the official ones.

Paras, "let the facts do the debating?" I don't think so. With 24/7 Bush-vision, do you really think the facts will be heard/seen?

And if the facts do the debating, why didn't Gore win in a cakewalk against someone with no cred except one term as governor and a pledge to not get an oval office blowjob or go driving while drunk.

"Kerry is looking very strong, He seems to be just right on the political spectrum and with his veteran status he can do better among white males than Gore did. If he gets a minority vp he can then take women and hispanic/black voters too."

I think Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs-Jones would be an awesome choice!

Kerry/Tubbs-Jones would be a ticket truly representative of America.

Tubbs-Jones would put Ohio in play for the Dems, and could also energize black voters in the South to make southern states competitive.

Of course, the best choice for Kerry's running mate would probably be U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, but Lincoln also has a Senate seat to defend in 2004.