|
because I think this election, moreso than any other in our history, demands proponents of clean elections observe the process -- as opposed to allowing political passion color our perspective of the larger picture. I have been a political junkie for 30 years, but since my horse is not in the race (Al Gore), I am uncommitted. Election experts predicted two years ago 2004 would be the dirtiest election in our history, worse than 2000, and that is exactly why I am suppressing my political passion to allow my objectively to watch every single move I can the Republicans make. Here are a few of my observations thus far:
The Republicans have decided in the event they cannot win this election legitimately, as they did not the last one, they will do whatever it takes to retain control of the White House. There's too much money and power involved for ultra-conservatives to allow 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to slip through their fingers simply over a few million votes not falling their way. Votes are not dollars, and it's the dollars that COUNT (to them). So whatever they have to do to control the process they will do.
DEAN
I was sure, this summer, that Dean would come out big (right when he was making Times Magazine front cover) He will not win the nomination. He blew it and he got blown away by powerful people in the Dem party... that's my opinion. He should of kept his cool, he didn't. Not very presidential.
Dean, I believe, is the best literal politician among the group. He sprang out of nowhere and drew national attention to himself by giving a political voice to what many anti-Bush*, anti-war Americans were thinking. His early piercing criticisms of Bush* have changed the election debate. Whether one is a Dean proponent, or one is not, the anti-Bush* and the anti-War voters owe a huge debt of gratitute to Dean. His early-diagnosed problem was that he would not be able to raise the money. I am sure you are aware how he negated that concern. I have watched him for some time, and unlike the other current candidates, his political moves are so subtle, they almost cannot be detected. I do believe he is a lot more conservative than most people realize, but he has modeled his campaign after that of Bill Clinton. I also believe if elected he will champion more conservative positions on issues than the average DU'er will like. However, I do feel, as the most gifted politician of the group he has the best chance of defeating Bush.* And this is exactly why the Stop-Dean conglomerate arose -- there are many interests that would not be served by the inauguration of Howard Dean, and these interest are acting beneath the surface to protect their own turf. Among those interests are the corporate media. They helped destroy the image of Al Gore, one of the most decent people in politics -- remember the Al Gore is a liar" refrain? -- and they built up Dean to take him out but in a cleaner quicker political kill than the one they conspired to commit against Gore. The only question remaining at this point is will the Dean support group remain as loyal to their candidate as has the Gore proponents. If they do, he can still win. If they don't, he's history.
CLARK
He looks presidential. He made stupid, conflicting statements about the war right at the start of his race. I think he blew it too. But he has strong support from the old guard...so...
I believe that Clark is the Clinton-endorsed candidate slid in by the New Dems to Stop Dean. I have nothing personal against him, and I do understand why his admirers champion him. The entry of General Clark into the race at the late date he announced was a shot fired by the DLC/Clinton component of the party to maintain its grip on this party and its message.
When Dean goes down, and a DLC'er (and/or Clark surges) I see it as the Clinton-element spiking. When Dean surges and Kerry/Edwards flounder, the Gore-influenced, anti-war, populists surge. It's an interesting seesaw to watch. In the meantime, however, it's killing our party and definitely threatening our chance to take the election in 2004.
EDWARDS
Since I saw his prime time interview I saw him as the next electable candidate. He will appeal to a lot of folks. Call me crazy but there is something "Kennedy like" in him.
It's no coincidence you think of Kennedy when you see Edwards. Take for example that very specific picture an ardent Edwards' fan has in his signature line. That picture is a direct takeoff on a very famous picture of our beloved President John F. Kennedy, though he is looking out a window. Many people said, probably with Edwards' campaign encouragement, that he (Edwards) reminded many people of John Kennedy -- young, clean-cut, charismatic. Then the picture hit. I think Edwards is pretty okay, but not as politically gifted as Dean. I question whether he can win, and I suspect Rove would actually much prefer Bush* run against him. Overall, I am not adverse to Edwards, but I think he's literally less electable than Dean.
KERRY
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..... But if he wins and beats the crap out of Bush I don't mind the Zzzzzzzzzz..... Frustrated politician who thought his chance at the presidency should have been 2000 -- actually considered challenging Gore for the nomination. On Gore's short list for the #2 spot; elimated from consideration due to a "hint" of scandal in his background (I personally think it wasn't a real scandal, but thinking about that time, Gore couldn't stand even a hint of scandal on the ticket; thus, Kerry didn't make the final cut. Bitter, he made some rather inappropriate remarks that Gore proponents will not forgive him for; nor will some African-Americans. Kerry is all about Kerry. He has almost zero chance of uniting the party. Many anti-war Dems will not vote for anyone who voted yes to the Iraq resolution, so once again, his odds of uniting the party are extremely suspect.
The most likely person to have defeated Bush* -- Al Gore -- was publicly asked by many DLC'ers not to run, and he lost some large financial backing when he came out against the war on Iraq. He knew that position would hurt his chances, but he put the message above the campaign donations, a rare quality for any politican today. Like Dean, Gore's public statements against the war and against Bush* have given a real voice to positions and issues many Dems fervently care about.
Anything can happen in politics at any time; that is why it breaks me up when the so-called political pundits look into the camera and tell the voting public who will win and will get pushed off the political survivor's island. Politics, like gambling, does have a lot to do with the caliber of one's poker face and the luck of the draw, and I don't count any of our Dems out. I do think whoever gets the nomination will have to have a political advisor who can repel the dirty tactics of Karl Rove, et al., in order to win the general election. To date, I have been unable to spot that candidate.
PS Lieberman: left the aftermath of the 2000 election criticising his running mate Al Gore for running a populist campaign. Bet the political farm on a Bush-lite approach, abandoned that recently for a populist campaign. Stock slightly rising but political ship already sunk. Can't be salvaged, even with an overabundance of overseas military ballots posted after the election....
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
