Democratic Caucuses

[dreamboy]

John Kerry, rather than Howard Dean, just won in the Iowa caucuses. I don't know exactly what that means. Is that reason to feel more comfortable???

 

[Krokus]

Yes, anyone is better than Dean, they guy is a moron with no respect for anyone. In all honesty I don't think any of these guys stand a chance in 04' against Bush unfortunately....throw the white flag, and hope for a real democrat to step up in 08'.

 

[Ticklish9's]

Honestly - and I hate to say it - whoever wins, I'm voting for.

Bush has set the peace process back 50 years or more, and done it all with the very best of intentions (we all know they can use more pavement down thataway... )

Whatever it takes to get the man out of office is enough for me.

Honestly, the Democratic party is just a slightly slower version of the Republican party anyway, I've found. Dean, properly spoken, is a populist, not a Democrat. Populism requires a bit of anger, and given Bush's mishandling of... damn near everything (the economy a notable exception, I think he knew exactly what he was doing with his tax cuts, even if I remain a socialist at heart), there's a lot of anger to be tapped. Dean's misteps, coupled with some truly belligerent Fox News reports ("fair and balanced" is the funniest phrase I've heard in years), may well have cost him the ability to properly channel that.

Either way, '04 for me is a choice between two candidates:

A) A Democrat
B) Canada

😉

 

[Mitchell]

My viewpoints on this subject are as follows.

I was disappointed that Kerry won the Iowa caucus. I believe that the Democrats need a candidate who will represent change, and I think that Kerry is a bit too political and too much of a "Me, too" in order to be that proper candidate.
As for Dean, I think he is capable of being a decent president. My problem with him is that he is a bit too outspoken, and may offend people. From what I have seen, he is also more of a liberal who is out of the old Democratic mold. With the party moving more to the middle of the road in recent years, I dont know if he would be a good choice to represent them.
My personal choice for the Democratic candidate, and maybe some will think I'm crazy, due to the fact that he has no political experience, is Wesley Clark. I dont know if he stands a chance to be the nominee or to win the election, but he is an extremely intelligent, knowledgable, and "Presidential looking" type of guy. What I mean by that is that he gets his points across eloquently without being too outspoken or offending others. Considering the climate of terrorism in the world, Iam also in favor of his military background, as he would be an appropriate candidate and President to have in the always dangerous post 9-11 world. He knows how to organize military issues, and how to properly run strategic issues in the military. As for the no political experience, Iam reminded that two war Generals, General Ulysses S Grant, and General Dwight David Eisenhower, were more than capable presidents, and had no political experience. I dont feel that a man has neccassarially have political inside expereience to be an effective leader.
This brings me to Joe Liberman. Liberman has been a capable senator and I believe would have been a fine vice preisdent had Al Gore come out on top in 2000. However, my problem with Liberman is that I do not feel he is a true Democrat. His policies on both the war and other political issues lean too far to the right and to the Republicans for my liking. I dont believe he will be the nominee, and for the reasons I just stated, I hope he is not.
All this being said, Iam a life long Democrat, and will vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is, as I strongly oppose Bush's policies. I feel that Mr Bush is too in favor of wealthy Americans, and does not consider the needs or concerns of the lower and middle classes. Everything from his tax cut, which benefits the wealthiest Americans most, to his private investment plan to take away social security, which suggests that our government should not take care of its elderly, to his opposition to overtime pay, which suggests that workers should put in extra hours and not be compensated, just simply offends me and my values. I do not know if any of these men can beat George Bush in Nov, as the economy seems to be on the rebound, and the financial markets are up. One last fact on Mr Bush. This country has lost 2.3 million jobs in the three years of his term, with a high point of 3 million at one point, the worst job creation record since Herbert Hoover in the depression. Although the economy may continue to rebound, I highly doubt that we will recover 2.3 million jobs by election day. These in addition to other reasons, which I hope I have supported with fact, are reasons I hope a Democrat beats George W Bush in 2004. My personal choice is Wesley Clark, but I will support and vote for any candidate who is Democrat.

Mitch