Woooo. Things are really getting exciting in the Democratic primaries!

It looks like Dean is losing steam pretty fast, and I'm sure that as more people see his seemingly drunken ranting speech in which he yells in Spanish that was aired live on CNN, his support will erode further. It actually makes me feel a bit bad for the guy, because I think he really thought he could win against Bush. He signed that civil unions bill and is a friend of Ann Richards, so he’s still a good guy in my book. His tactics also inspired other leading Democrats to take on Bush, and to stop being such candy asses. Lieberman doesn't have much of a chance at the nomination at all, as he could easily be a moderate Republican. Sharpton is doing his best to get out the African American vote, and that’s why he’s running.

So, it's down to a three-way battle between Clark, Edwards, and Kerry for the Presidential nomination.

In National polls, Dean is still ahead by a slim margin over Clark, but I suspect Dean will continue to slip in polls Nationwide. It remains to be seen what the fallout of Iowa will be, and in a week, there’s New Hampshire. Since John McCain beat Bush in New Hampshire in 2000, I think Clark has an excellent chance as long as he erodes some more of Dean’s numbers. Kerry is going to put on a tough fight in New Hampshire though I’m sure.


The most significant reservation I have about Clark is that he lacks political experience, and thus a voting record.

I can look at the voting records of John Kerry, John Edwards, and I can see if their words match their true actions. They do. They stand up for what they say they do, and I respect them for that.

With Clark I have no way of knowing if he believes what he’s saying on some issues that are important to me in order to win over some of the more left-wing voters. Thus, I'm starting to lean towards John Kerry and hoping that the General will take a VP slot on a Kerry/Clark ticket in the event he doesn’t win the nomination. As VP, we can know where he’d really stand on the issues by the actions he'd take, and Kerry could also override him as well in the strange event Clark turns into Richard Perle hehe. Clark could still be a great leader and travel to other countries, negotiate peace settlements, etc. as Vice President. He’d also have a vote in the closely divided Senate. It seems obvious now that the General really loves campaigning, and he’s said it’s the most fun he’s ever had in his life. Because of this I think he might jump at the chance for VP if it were offered to him, despite what he’s said earlier. Gore initially said he would not take a VP position in 1992, but Clinton offered and he did take it.


The combination of the two war heroes (Kerry & Clark) on the same ticket would be an unbeatable dream ticket for the Democrats in my opinion, and it would put to rest any bullshit about how Democrats are weak on National Security. In fact, it would be the strongest ticket that the Democrats have had since perhaps John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson in 1960. It would also garner a significant portion of the military vote, and especially the vote of those veterans who’ve had their benefits cut or proposed to be cut by the Bush Administration. Kerry and Clark aren’t the kind of leaders who’d send our soldiers off to die for an unjust war, and then cut their benefits when they get home! That’s fucking outrageous! Unlike Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld, these guys aren’t chicken-hawks.

They’re real men.

Moral men.

All Bush has against the Democrats is “National Security.” Bush certainly can’t talk about all the many jobs that have been created under his leadership; he can’t talk about how all the Nation’s children have health coverage like all other Western Nations; he can’t talk about how his tax breaks have helped ordinary people; he can’t talk about how poor parents are able to send their children to college with his cutting of Federal Pell grants; he can’t talk about how clean our air, water, and environment is; he can’t talk about how well respected our country is in the world as a “beacon of freedom” with his unilateralist, preemptive wars, and 13 y/o children locked up in Guantanamo Bay without being able to see their families for over a year without trial…

He’s really got nothing.

All he and Rove have is the hope of going against Howard Dean, and asking the country if they’d trust Dean with national security. Well, the Democrats aren’t going to fall into that trap I can tell you that!


I know Michael Moore endorsed Clark, but Moore’s opinion doesn't matter to me at all and I don't think it's necessarily indicative of how Clark will govern as President. Furthermore, some voters might actually hold his lack of political experience against Clark in the general election. I am however concerned with winning some of the Southern and Midwestern states that are crucial to victory. In reality though, Clark doesn’t even talk with a strong, folksy, Southern accent like Clinton or Jimmy Carter did, and John Edwards clearly does. Clark’s home state of Arkansas is a key state however, and the vast majority of people from that state are Independents. Perhaps the Democrats should concentrate more on the Southwest states of Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona where the vote is very close, instead of the South (except Florida).

But, let’s not forget that the country as a whole still gave a left-wing mandate for as weak a candidate as Gore in 2000. If you add Nader’s votes onto that, Florida also gave a left-wing mandate. The United States is really a left-leaning country in terms of Presidential elections, and has been since 1992. It’s just a matter of getting people out to the polls, and since (according to the latest New York Times/CBS poll) Bush has the highest disapproval rating of any President at this time in his term in modern history, that shouldn’t be too hard as long as we don’t see deliberate disenfranchisement of poor and minority voters as we did in 2000. Kerry’s record is very pro- environment and pro-public health, and he led the fight in the Senate against Bush and his oil buddies’ plan to drill for oil in America’s Serengeti: The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So, with Kerry’s strong environmental record, and his endorsement by Robert F. Kennedy Jr, head of the Natural Resources Defense Council, I know we can win Florida and many other swing-states with enough Green Party and veteran’s support with Kerry at the top of the ticket; Clark as VP.

Anyways, I was thinking of going to volunteer for Clark, but now I am reconsidering Kerry. I had counted him out, and hadn’t counted on Dean’s campaign dieing. Well, I didn’t give the Democratic voters of Iowa enough credit I guess. And neither did the media.

Kerry and Clark: I can only dream.


Check out Kerry's site, and tell me what you think:

http://www.johnkerry.com/


Cool Electoral College Map on John Edwards' site:

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/

(You can see what the key states are, and why the Republicans are trying so hard to hold the House in the event of a tie)


Robert F. Kennedy Jr. endorses Kerry:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/...2003_0917a.html

Now on the other hand, with John Edwards we could win N. Carolina and maybe some other Southern states.


P.S. I was watching CNN the other night, and a former Republican Senator from Wyoming was squirming in his chair when he saw all those VFW hats at John Kerry's campaign ralley. Bob Dole also lashed out and insulted Clark live on the air.

They're scared of those two guys. Hehe.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Last edited by DaveSZ on Jan-20-2004 at 14:46