Might the Democrats have messed up in their choice of presidential candidate?

[Mitchell]

I just heard a new CNN poll today, which claims that Bush is now ahead by 6 points. Although it is likely that the election should be close, and polls tend to flucuate, it's beginning to make me wonder if the Democrats really messed up with their choice of candidates.
John Kerry is no doubt an experienced and capable individual when it comes to matters of politics, and I believe he would make a more than capable Chief Executive. However, I think he has a couple of things working against him. The first one is his personality. He is not really engaging, or a "likable" candidate. Second, while some may dispute me, I think that come crunch time, Bush will have an easy time labeling him a "Mass. Liberal". When Bill Clinton was president , whether we agreed with him or not, he presented himself as a very affiable, and engaging, individual who could get his message across clearly. Bush, despite his obvious flaws and distortion of facts at times, also has the ability to "engage" his audience into what he is trying to get them to believe.
I believe that for many reasons, John Edwards would have been a much better choice for a candidate. He is younger, passionate, idealistic, a "fresh face" for the party. Also, he would have had a much easier time picking up votes in key southern states, that might otherwise go to Bush, with Kerry being the Democratic candidate. I think it is almost imperative that Kerry selects Edwards as his running mate, and to do so early. By doing this, and campaigning with Edwards, he may have an easier time gathering the southern and indepedent or undecided voters early. If Kerry does not pick Edwards, I think it would be a huge mistake, and may cost him in a close election. What is so unfortunate about this whole thing is that even with the claim that the economy is getting "better", it doesnt seem like Bush is going to be held accountable for the money he spent, or the lives he lost due to his mistakes with the war. If this turns out to be so, then why even have a system of checks and balances, why not just give the president the power of a king? Iam hoping that Kerry makes the right choice for a VP, and that he gets his message across, and Bush doesnt succeed in accomplishing what he wants to by making the voters believe his distorted spin. This is a most important election, and I shudder to think what the country will look like in 2009 if we have four more years of Bush, who would be in his second term, and would have absolutely nothing to lose politically by putting through very damaging and radical decisions that could be brutally counterproductive to the freedoms of so many Americans.

Mitch

 

[MrMacphisto]

I agree with you Mitchell, but this really is a case of "save yourself." If America elects (notice that I didn't say re-elect, since the process of election was debatable in 2000) Bush this year, then this country will have screwed itself beyond belief. Then again, all good things must come to an end. As globalization begins to take effect in the leveling off of the world's standard of living, America is sliding past its prime. I don't think even Kerry can stop this; in the world's current economic situation, the Third World has everything to gain, and the First World has everything to lose. However, it's about time that the Third World is seeing a rise in standard of living. (Granted, most of Africa isn't.) The world can only sustain the First World's decadence for so long, and as the populations of Third World nations continue to rise (and most First World ones either stabilize or shrink), resources will have to be distributed more to the Third World than before. Perhaps, this really is what the Buddhists mean by karma....

In short, Kerry might slow this process down enough in the U.S. that those of us in our 20s don't have to see a fall in our standard of living until our senior citizenship, and those of us that are middle-aged will pass away before the true fall occurs. Due to this very expensive process of nation-building that we must commit to for, at least, several decades, we have only expedited our own economic downfall. If we're lucky, Kerry can also make this less expensive as well by bringing the U.N. in to help us....

 

[venray]

Best thing the Democrats could have done would have been to show a little more support to John Edwards. Even I would have given him a chance to show what he could do at the helm. Just cant see voting for Kerry. He changes his POV faster than the wind direction changes.


Ray