Kerry wins again
 

So I guess this means we can take New Hampshire out of the Dean rant.

Clark did pretty damn poorly, I thought he was supposed to pick it up some in New Hampshire. Leibermann may do a little better in SC, but he pretty much needs to abandon ship now.

Clark is finished. I think Drudge is saying Lieberman will stop.

I don't think it's necessarily "the end" for Clark. It's not a great showing, either. He's got his work cut out for him, but I think it's viable for him to continue in the race. Lieberman, as nice a guy as he is, seems out after this.

And has anyone told Kucinich that he has no chance?

Lieberman needs to hang on until next week. I have him on my show Thursday morning.

Nice! He seems like a pretty good guy (and I've heard a number of people - Dole tonight on Larry King, for instance- attest to that). I kinda wish he resonated with people, more. He seems like he would have lots of appeal in a general election.

dola-

maybe if he bows out, you'll get the Dole Phenomenon, whereby Dole was all-of-a-sudden a really funny interview, once he lost the election...

Dole was funny before the election, just not during it. The joys of advisors...

maybe he forgot his viagra

Dole was great on all those interviews via satellite on Conan.

Next Tuesday should narrow the field down to three. Primaries will be held in seven states; South Carolina, Arizona, Delaware, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Oklahoma. My guess is that Kerry, Edwards and Clark will emerge as the top three candidates, distancing themselves from the rest of the field.

In recent polling, John Edwards is leading in South Carolina, with Al Sharpton and John Kerry battling it out for second place. Sharpton has a very strong organization in the state. In Oklahoma, Wesley Clark is leading, with Edwards a close second. In Arizona, Kerry has a slight lead over Clark. I'm not aware of any recent polling (post Iowa) in any of the other states. It appears as if Howard Dean is going to have a lot of ground to make up, and his support is very soft in the south right now.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pri...misc/more.html

Can someone try to figure out these delegates? Dean is ahead right now due to committed delegates still. This stuff is screwy.

Sen. Lieberman is a pretty good interview already. He's not afraid to speak his mind, he's pretty good with one liners, and he's either truly a nice guy or a very very good actor.

It also looks like he's going to be on tomorrow morning, which is kind of a bummer. I was actually going to have my wife (registered Democrat) interview him instead of me. I thought it would be a better interview if someone who's actually looking for a candidate was asking the questions.

dola: Lieberman's not dropping out. He's going to stick around at least through next Tuesday, in my opinion.

He should do alright in SC, he's run a good campaign here.

It was around this time when I started to notice that Bill Clinton would be an interesting candidate afterall and that lead him to 8 years. I get that feeling here for Kerry.

1. John Kerry - I have to admit the poll numbers are helping me form my opinion, but he sure seems to be the most "presidential" of the runners now. And he didn't fall down playing hockey, a big plus.

2. Wesley Clark - I thought Clark had a chance, but he's too wishy washy, I doubt the report about the "Undecided for Clark" sign. He's a great speaker when he's in control. He tends to give the appearance of not really caring about campaigning, and this is kind of a trial rehersal of how hard are you willing to work....he seems very disinterested in proving himself and wants to go the distance on his reputation alone. His reputation is shaky.

3. Howard Dean - Dean is a liberal, and thankfully there aren't enough of them in the news media and hollywood to overrule the moderates who were frightened off by his, "I have a scream" speech (that FoxNews so gratefully coined it).

4. Joe Lieberman - Lieberman just isn't presidential quality, he's too wrinkly and it's the wrong time for a Jewish President as far as our foreign affairs policy goes right now. The Middle East would never accept a peace plan written up by Joe. I personally agree with many of his centrist ideas and he is a strong willed individual with a genuine sincerity about him. But, timing is everything and this wasn't his time.

5. John Edwards, he's alright, but again, Presidential quality is lacking. Is that a growth on the side of his lip? Dude, you wanna be Prez, you need to get that lasered off. But he does have a lot of quality energy and seems to answer to the critical press well (O'Reilly No Spin Zone was a success).

6. Al Sharpton - He's no Jesse Jackson when Jesse was cool. He good for some interesting sound bites, but is he really interested in what's best for the USA? Who knows, and that's why he's just a also ran contender.

Do any of these guys really have what it takes to be successful in 2004 with the challenges that will undoubtedly be facing us in the later half of the decade?

I pretty much agree with all your assessments.

I think the Ho Dean "speech" would have turned anyone off, regardless of whether he was a liberal, conservative or middler... it was just an insanely stupid thing for a person to do. If Clark even showed 1/100th of Dean's insanity, he could get elected.

Liebermann turns me off because he is out of touch with the younger generation and what our "values" are (even though older people feel we have none, we do). His crusades against video games and music make him a poor Democratic nominee.

I get the feeling Kerry can challenge, but I'm not sure if he'll beat Bush and his money. Edwards is a good smooth talker, but I think he's playing the card about 4 years too soon to get elected... though I think his charisma and Kerry's campaining skills would be pretty good.

Lieberman's problem is that the same as Dick Gephardt's - they are just too bland to win a national election.

I voted for Clark today, so if he's finished, it ain't my fault.

Not to belabor an already horribly belaboured point, but my perception of the Dean speech was changed completely by this crowd video:

http://www.webmastersforamerica.com/...dio/video2.htm

I like Dean a lot, but thought he had made an ass of himself before seeing that... It makes a lot more sense in context that the audience went nuts when he went into the list of states, and he raised his voice to be heard. The infamous holler was almost inaudible. Unfortunately I don't see anyone in a rush to broadcast this version, so the damage will stick. There's the power of the media to decontextualize for ya...

I admire Leiberman's character, and his willingness to take a stand, but...regardless of your views on the Israeli-Palestinian brouhaha, and the War in Iraq, Leiberman committed suicide with rank and file Democrats by not only voting for the War in Iraq, but vocally siding with the Israelis and Bush on these issues. If he supported the war, he'd have been much better off from a Presidential race standpoint to do like Kerry, and vote for the resolution, quietly.

Leiberman might as well have not wasted his supporters money. He had a snowball's chance in hell after that.

Actually, I think Dean started to implode a few weeks prior. The Confederate flag remark (out of context again, admittedly), a few other bizarre things. I don't know that any one thing cooked him, but they just led a lot of folks to see this guy as not really projecting that "Presidential" image enough to seriously challenge Bush. The rebel yell bit was just the last nail in the coffin.

I have some updated numbers on state polling within the last few days.

South Carolina - Edwards large lead
Arizona - Kerry leading
Oklahoma - Clark leading
Michigan - Kerry large lead
California - Kerry leading
Florida - Kerry large lead

Definitely would have been better off from a Democratic Primary standpoint, but not so for the Presidential race. It's gonna be hard to get any Republicans to cross-over for someone who has waffled constantly on the war (and everything else, but that's a different matter) than someone who consistently came out in favor of it. If Lieberman was the nominee and you then remove the War on Terror, all Bush is left with is a recovering economy and poor domestic policies, and the majority of Democrats despise him enough they would vote for Dick Armey over Bush.

Just figured I'd link to this web page again if you're interested in up to date polling data. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Pre..._Polls_04.html

The more I think about it, the more I'm beginning to believe that the Bush team is going to have some problems with a Kerry matchup. Their standard playbook line, "he is your typical elitist, out-of-touch Massachusetts liberal" isn't going to play very effectively, and I'll tell you why.

Kerry has a very effective campaign weapon working in his favor right now -- a group of very loyal veterans who served with him in Vietnam. These veterans are going on the attack, saying things that Kerry himself won't even say. Here's an example from Richard Cooper, a former sergent: "Senator, both of us served in Vietnam in a very unpopular war and the record shows that George Bush avoided the draft like the plague. The thing that bothered me the most as a veteran was when he played Steve Canyon coming out on the aircraft carrier."

The vets who gather for Kerry regularly remind anyone who will listen of inconvenient facts confronting the Bush administration — not only the president's own choices during the Vietnam years but also the five draft deferments Vice President Cheney received during the 1960s.

A "liberal" with a uniform, a war record and a regiment of veterans marching with him is not what the GOP ordered up from central casting.

If Kerry is indeed the dem nominee, I'll be very interested in how the campaign strategy plays out.

The only problem with this is that it's an insinuation that goes against the facts. George Bush volunteered to serve in the National Guard, so if spreading falsehoods (or allowing his cronies to do it for him) is what Kerry believes will help him win the election....

Besides, he's not your typical Vietnam Vet. There are some that love him for what he did, and some that hate him. In the end, it seems he was playing both sides, as he seems to do consistently in his political career.

Actually, I think he benefits here because he later opposed the war — AFTER he went and fought. Antiwar Democrats admire the first while veterans know that Kerry appreciates "what it means to serve."

You're partially right here. George Bush did join the Texas Air National Guard, and got some strings pulled with the help of his father. He trained for two years on the F-102 "Delta Dagger" fighter jet. Sadly, the Pentagon declared this aircraft obsolete before Bush's training concluded, thereby eliminating any possibility that the brave young pilot might put his newfound militarism to good use in the jungles of Southeast Asia. Shortly thereafter, Bush would take an extended A.W.O.L. vacation from the Guard before receiving an early honorable discharge in October of 1973.

Hi,
First off, to use the word "volunteered" for "GW" hiding out I mean...entering the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War is an amusing choice of words.Now serving in the ANG during 'Nam', though not without honor ,could not be portrayed(except on Fox News I suppose) as charging into the fray of battle.And I am in the "active" duty Air Force as a captain serving with the 36th Fighter Squadron at Osan AB, SOUTH KOREA(going on four years in KOREA/JAPAN).I thought the landing on the aircraft carrier to ridiculous.JUST MY 2 CENTS WORTH. :rolleyes:

What show is that? (seroiusly, i would like to know. do you have a radio show?)

The whole "Bush went AWOL" thing has been found to be without merit, which is why mainstream media doesn't talk about it anymore. I myself find it funny that the party that nominated and elected Bill Clinton for two terms now is going ga-ga over a candidate with a war record.

Kerry is ranked as more liberal than Ted Kennedy by a liberal watchdog group (I'll try and provide a link after I get off the air) and has been for years. I think the reason why his poll numbers are so high right now is because the negative stories haven't hit yet.

And Kerry is ranked twice more conservative than Kennedy by a conservative watchdog group, the American Conservative Union. A lot of these "watchdog" groups use subjective analysis in ranking particular votes, and they frequently have wide discrepancies in their assessments of candidates.

All I'm saying is that the Bush campaign strategy is going to use the tired old, worn out strategy of casting the opponent as "a tax and spend liberal", "the second coming of Walter Mondale", etc. I think they're going to have a tough time making a strong enough case, especially in light of Bush running the national debt through the roof the past three years.

If that's how they spin it, you're right. They'll have a hard time with it. But I think Rove is [s]more diabolical[/s] smarter than that.

I've been keeping an open mind about the race, and I was really hoping that Lieberman would do well so I would have a real choice to make come November. John Kerry hasn't shown me anything that would make me want to vote for him.

By the way, Big John, yes I do have a local morning show in Oklahoma City.

I don't know if Kerry can win, but he'll put up one hell of a fight. He has Chris Lehane on his team, and he's every bit as meanspirited as Rove. My biggest problem with Kerry v. Bush is that it will be a really ugle campaign. Kerry won Iowa in part due to some of Lehane's work and we all ready know Rove and his dirty tricks.

Lieberman is a good guy and a solid Dem, but he just can't win. That debate with Cheney in 2000 sealed it for me. He's such a nice guy and so polite that he couldn't fight. I dreaded the idea of a campaign full of "I agree with Bush" debates. I'd love to have the guy over for dinner, and he might make a good President, but he could never beat Bush in an election.

Cam: As to Bush's Vietnam record, I agree that it gets overplayed by some, but we do know for a fact that Bush missed scheduled callup times when he was in the Guard. My guess is if Kerry did the same thing a lot of Bush defenders would be all over it.

Kerry vs. Dubya would be a gold mine for the political cartoonists. With Dubya's ears and Kerry's chin and nose, they'll have lots with which to work. :D

The funniest thing I saw was that "other" was leading Al Sharpton.

That means Spongebob Squarepants or Mickey Mouse beat Al Sharpton...

Kucinich is a scary-looking dude. He's so white, he's almost transparent. As is his position on a number of issues, come to think of it.

I was lumping all the "others" together.

Bush has so much money . . . so much money. . . we have not even begun to see his political machine in action.

He managed to beat Al Gore in Electoral Votes with nothing like the war chest that he has now. The Dems could put up JFK and I still think that they will get trounced like Mondale on a bad day. Maybe I am overstating the issue, but nothing that I have seen leads me to think that money does not drive politics.

You pretty much covered my train of thought about the current status of the various opposition candidates -- they haven't been exposed to any serious campaigning by the incumbent yet.

www.opensecrets.org is a good site to find data about this. One problem I have with your position here is that we have seen W's money/machinery in action. See the 2000 election where he set the records for funds raised, and hit the ground running with much of the political connections built by H.W. still in place.

So we have seen Bush with money and machinery, and he did just well enough to get less than a plurality of votes. He isn't Reagan.

I clicked on the link for opensecrets.com and I got a message saying that "The page cannot be displayed."

It's all a big conspiracy I tell 'ya.

The Dems key to victory will be putting together a centrist ticket of Kerry/Edwards. I don't see how any other combination would stand a chance against the machine...

Oops! www.opensecrets.org

Org, com, whatever. :redface:

Interesting. Treat your engineer good, I push the buttons for a few shows in NYC. One happens to be pollitically oriented. I won't say who, but "Let's Be Heard!" :D

You think the way you do because you either a.) Don't like Bush or b.) Are a Democrat.

I like George Bush, I am a moderate Republican, and don't see a problem with him joining the National Guard, I don't think FoxNews ever portays him joining the National Guard as a battle hero, and thought the landing on the aircraft carrier was a big morale boost to the men and women who bust their ass for him. But sometimes officers don't really give a fuck about the morale of their troops so I know where you're coming from. ;)

First, off no disrespect you entitled to your opinion and I will give mine.So from your response I can gather you obviously you served I am curious where and when?BTW .Yes I am a Democrat(when did that become such a bad word?GEEZ) and yes I don't like GW.As far as a huge morale boost sure but as to officers don't give a F about their troops well isn't The President the Commander and Chief of the military and therefore it would also be true he doesn't care so much about what happens to the troops .Also, I am an F-16 Pilot at Osan AB and I consider one of my main responsibilities in combat to help i the troops down below with air support whren appropriate.When troops in IRAQ were asked about there support for the president officially total support was given since they are in the military.However, most also said they don't support Bush or even want to stay in the military.

Fair enough.

First of all, I mentioned you were either a Democrat or anti-Bush because you were willing to push a monumental gesture for the troops out the back window like it was a gimic that our commander in chief is not allowed to do. I personally have no beef with anyone who chooses to vote Democratic or doesn't care for GW Bush.

However, as a member of the military, scoffing at the President for doing his job because you aren't a Republican is BS. I never considered a trip by President Clinton to the troops BS. While I did consider his failure to render a return salute to his Marine Corp Guard a little disrespectful, it wasn't because he was a Democrat!

When I was serving in Turkey (at a geographically seperated site), our small contingent was routinely visited by our commanding officer who was stationed in Germany. Did it serve any physical tangent purpose? No. Did it make us feel a little better about what we were doing to know the boss gave a damn about us to come and visit us for Thanksgiving or for Christmas? Of course it did. When Colin Powell would visit, he made sure to gather the American government community together just to say, "Thanks." Is that some bullshit show also?

My boss now puts a lot of time in spending the holidays with his troops. Is it required? No. Is it a nice gesture to let us know he cares? I think so.

President Bush made a huge decision to put hundreds of thousands of troops in harms way. Hundreds have died, and more will die. Would we all feel better if, at the end of the day, he didn't stop by and show his gratitude?

I'd be pissed, and I don't care what Michael Moore says.

Thanks
 

Thanks Dutch for explaining your point more I agree with most of what you are saying.I also think that the things Clinton did or rather didn't do were wrong as well.Anyways I agree if a leader shows genuine concern for his troops whether military or civilian it is useful and can serve to boost morale.I was just wondering on the true motive of the actions as I did at the time of Clinton's gestures.I think it is the duty of all those wearing the uniform to try to remain neutral or at least fair when it comes to these types of political discussions.I apologize if my comments were disrespectful or inappropriate to you.Have a good one .Thanks.