Who does everyone like in '04? I think Dennis Kucinich is the only one with anything new to bring to the table. He's the only one to swear off from corporate PAC's, the only one who will repeal the Constitution shredding PATRIOT Act, and only one to support universal, single-payer health care. (We have the most expensive per capita health care, but only the 47th per capita in terms of effectiveness.)

I'm sick of the same old candidate, and Kucinich is the only Dem I would vote for. Otherwise I'm voting for Nader again.

I already know that there's no way in hell I'll vote for Bush, but by the same token, I can't bring myself to vote for any of the people you listed either.

Why are there no decent candidates?

HOWARD DEAN

Why don't you run, Cephus, so that we can all agree NOT to vote for you...

Is it so easy to be against someone, and not be FOR someone.

Of the Dems, I would vote Lieberman. National security will remain the #1 issue for a long time into the future...

Of course, I won't be voting in the Democratic primary...

I figure most republicans that come here will vote for Liberman, whose policies are trying to reflect those of Bush. On this board, I see a close race between the two...

Dean will probably win, based on his growing support. If it continues, a lot of other democratic candidates will drop out.

It is funny that a candidate that is too right (Lieberman) can't win the primary, but a candidate that is too left (Dean, Kucinich) can't win the general election.

So then you have guys like Kerry who are trying to find the middle ground and who are blasted from both sides...

I think Dean is the best candidate to create a populist message that is rational. He is not an ultra liberal lefty, he has some good horse sense and some basic convictions. His role as a physician who has helped implement a system expanded health care in his state is a big plus.

I think his position that we need to be a more cooperative member of the international community will resonate well with a lot of people. I think he will do a good job of attracting the McCain vote.

About Amlord's comment about Kerry, I think the problem with him and his ilk is that they are too-ill defined. They are reasonable candidates but they don't offer a vision to attract to.

Agree 100%. I would have voted for McCain in a HEARTBEAT had he beat Bush (I still am in utter shock that Bush beat him...especially after winning the Iowa primary!) and when someone else here (can't remember who) mentioned that Dean reminded him/her of McCain I realized how true that was!

I like Dean on the issues (don't know much about his education stance, but it's not likely that anyone in the running on any side will share my views), especially his ideas about healthcare and the push to recognize gay marriages...he doesn't seem to be the same "all talk no action" guy that most politicians are and that's a HUGE plus.

I actually think that the only way to win the general election is to bring 3rd party voters like myself in to vote Dem again. Dennis Kucinich is the only one getting support from greens, libertarians, or natural law parties. He's the only one who supports campaign finance reform (Anyone who liked McCain for actual issues would agree). Dean voters have been watching too much TV if they think he's any different from Kerry or Gephardt and the rest of the same tired old idiots. They all just want to pump more money into an insurance-dominated system that still leaves people out and doesn't cover necessary procedures. It's kinda sad how people have stopped looking at the issues anymore and turned our elections into a popularity contest.

(i can't believe i'm saying this but...) if Bush can't get his act together with HealthCare, i'm voting Democrat. And with this poll, to be honest, it was a toss between Dean and Liberman.

I read last week's Newsweek article on Dean and also this site on Dean and his Health Care proposals is okay to me but Liberman, on the other hand, is probably the only one in the whole Mudville 9 of Democrats who is pledging to be tough on Defense

Here's my take on the democrats:
Kerry is robotic and aloof; nobody feels a connection to him.
Dean on the other hand is direct and focused.
Liberman is boring, soft and represents the failure politics of 2002
Kucinich was against the war in Afghanistan, need I say more.
Braun is only running to hurt Sharpton's chances
Edwards smiles a lot and talks about his humble roots. He doesn't seem aggressive and experienced enough
Bob Graham writes down everything he's down to the minute for the last thirty years, I'm serious!
Dick Gephardt
Sharpton is only an unelectable poverty pimp to most of America.


The best ticket would be Dean-Clark or Clark-Dean (Clark probably is running). That way the democrats can look respectable for defense and healthcare/ economy and have two good candidates.

Here's a good article one Dean and Kerry by the author of Primary Colors.

Dean-Clark would be an EXCELLENT ticket! Military folk LOVE Clark. My husband worked directly for Clark's replacement as SACEUR (General Ralston) and the people who had also worked for Clark couldn't say enough nice things about him, both as a person and as a boss/leader. They said Clark was a wonderful boss, not necesarily the kind of guy you'd expect to be a four-star general in that he was very appreciative of the lower enlisted, very accomodating, and just an overall good guy. I hope he does run for VP with whomever gets the Prez nomination becuase it would certainly add to our chances of defeating Bush. I've heard absolutely nothing but good things about Clark from Dems and Reps alike

What are the chances of Clark being a running mate to a dovish Democratic candidate? While it would help the Democrats' chances, would he actually agree? Plus, Clark need not run for President to be considered for the Veep position. If he runs, that tells me that he is unhappy with the stances of the other 9 candidates.

Actually, I think Clark would agree (based upon what my husband has said that his co-workers said about the man). I don't think he'll be running for Prez (just don't see it happening) but I think he would love to run as someone's VP (not sure whose, but I imagine anyone's wouldn't be terrible if he thought it might get him the job, KWIM?). I'm sure most Dems and Reps alike don't just go with who they really like on all the issues as running mates - I'm sure first priority is getting into office and they go with who will be the most likely to get them there...I don't think politicians are that honest And Clark doesn't strike me as your typical four-star general as I said before (based upon everything I've heard about him), so who knows what his ideas about a "dovish" candidate as a runningmate might be?!

EDITED TO ADD THE FOLLOWING:

I just found this at CNN: Gen. Wesley Clark: Iraq War Based on 'Misjudgment' and thought it might be of interest with the questions about a Dean/Clark ticket being something that CLark would want:



Sounds to me like he considers Dean a candidate who is offering the promise of leadership...but maybe that's me reading in to things too much...

But in reference to the war in Iraq, just for clarification about his views about foreign policies when it comes to military action (one of the reasons I don't consider him to be a 'typical' four-star general):



Just saw this and had to add it here

Maybe it's just wishful thinking but I do think Clark will run and if he does I'm voting for him. If he doesn't I'll have to wait and see.

John Edwards because he can communicate with the dead. But seriously folks... I like Sharpton a lot (other than his rampant anti-semetism). His health care plans are very appealing and I'm sure he'll have every racially accepting senior citizen's vote. He also makes some great points regarding Bush's handling of this war on terrorism (or at least he did when he spoke in Iowa). Still, I don't really know, I definitely don't think Dean will carry nearly as much weight within the next few months. As my friend said, "He's just the flavor of the month." He has a lot of good ideas but nothing new to bring to the table and it just seems to me like his timing has been good. I think the Dean frenzy will surely die down come the primary.

I believe it is time the Democratic party quit trying to play the Republican party game. No more pandering to the corprate world. The candidate selected should provide a real alternative with a plan to meet the needs of this country.
Currently 2/3 of the people in this country cannot even name one Democratic candidates. One of these people running must stand out and convince the public that they know what the problems facing the country are and provide real solutions.

Al Sharpton for his Can-Do attitude and No-Nonsense approach to the real world!

johnlocke - please avoid posting one-liners. They are very difficult to debate.

Howard Dean is seriously trying to run away from the rest of the field which explains why Lieberman is attacking him so relentlessly. I think Kerry would be a strong candidate and he's mimicking Dean in stepping up the anti-Bush rhetoric, but he has all the charm and warmth of a cold toilet seat.

Wesley Clark or Bob Graham would make an excellent balancing vice-president for Dean if he wins the nomination. Both are strong in areas Dean is weak in such as national defense and appeal in the South.

While I share sentiments for a more progressive candidate such as Dennis Kucinich, the guy has very little name recognition outside of Ohio and will be pounded into soap by the Republicans as a hopeless "liberal." They'll try that trick on anybody the Dems put forth, but in Kucinich's case it would probably stick.

Between choosing between a Democrat that best reflects my political sentiments and one that can actually win, I'll choose expediency over ego. Bush has gotta go and that's the top priority.

I wanted to see the Democratic candidates debate last night, but none of the networks, not even either C-SPAN channel, covered it. Clearly this provides an unfair advantage to the Republicans, who can answer what the Dems said before their debate is even televised. Does anybody care?

FYI, it's supposed to be televised on the FOX news channel 8 pm EST Tuesday September 9th.

Clark is supposed to make an announcement after Sept. 19th and I'm confident he's going to run. While waiting to find out I've been doing a lot of reading about him. I was concerned that a military general might have credibility, strength, and experience but might also be a little too fond of conflict...I wanted to make sure there would be no more talk of pre-emptive war, global domination, US as the world police, or any other imperialistic garbage that has done us more harm than good. Still, I want someone who will do what's best in the country's interest, especially when we have more enemies now than ever. We need strong AND smart and calm.

So, I have gone through articles as far back as 1998 that cover everything from his military history and outlook, war stories, his view on the global role and responsibility for the US, what his friends said about him, what his enemies said, who in government he aligned with and who his aligned against him. I wanted to know if he was hot headed or calm, if he was compassionate, cruel, or simply indifferent. I was trying to get the whole picture. I have been very impressed.

I believe he is exactly what we need to find a resolution in Iraq that allows us to win the peace, set up the foundation for self governance, hold elections, agree on restitution, and then get out with as much good will and mutual respect as possible. I think he'll be great at repairing relationships with many of our Allies as well. As far as economy it is now directly related to our foreign policy...and I believe any candidate would be able to improve on Bush's economy anyway. If he won the nomination Bush would be toast. He is our best chance...I like Dean...but not for President.

Consider Kosovo
Clark, a four-star general, was the first soldier in NATO's 50-year history to take the military alliance to war.
Length of conflict: 57 days, enemy surrenders
Troops Killed: 0
Troops Wounded: 0
Aircraft Lost to SAM's or AAA: 1 F-117
Mechanical Failure Crashes: 4(F-16, AV-8, and 2 Apaches)

Even though we are still involved in peacekeeping after all these years, it remains an international effort with America making up 20% of the force. While some people complain about the length of commitment it seems like a minor issue since it has not caused an undue burden on our resources or military and we are not the only ones making a sacrifice. I would rather keep them there as long as it takes then lose the peace and have to do it all over again.

Now consider the political constraints Clark faced in leading the mission. The political acrimony that went on between Clinton and his political foes, particularly in Congress, during this period, cannot be stressed enough. With every decision Clinton made regarding war he was badgered, questioned, accused, and defamed by the opposition party and the media reported it all without considering it immoral
or treasonous. No one worried about supporting the troops, even while they were in harms way. The good thing about this was that Clinton had to be extra cautious every move he made, the bad thing is it probably didn't make Clarks job any easier. The consensus of 18 other nations was also required to approve action, and many countries had preconceptions about how to apply force.


"Every single nation had a domestic political constituency, and every single nation had a different set of political problems," Clark explained. "In some there were government coalitions. In others there were historic relationships. Some bore the agony of defeat in a previous conflict and the word 'war' couldn't be mentioned. Others were long-standing partners with American efforts elsewhere in the world."

Despite their political differences, Clark stressed, the allies pulled together and their cohesion and resolution got stronger. "The fundamental lesson of the campaign is that the alliance worked," Clark said. "The procedures that were honed and developed over 50 years, the mechanism of consultation, the trust, the interoperability that we'd exercised time and again in preparation for missions, they all came together."

NATO prevailed despite bad weather, political constraints and the advent of a humanitarian crisis as refugees poured out of Kosovo. Clark stressed NATO's conditions were met -- the cease-fire, the removal of Serb military forces, the placement of a NATO-led peacekeeping force in Kosovo and the return of refugees.

If only we could put him in office immediately, I've never seen one president do so much damage in such a short time as this one. Whoever we choose next will have a tough time cleaning up. Here is a site full of Clark articles that span over a few years.
clark

I do not know at this time who i will vote for. I am thinking about Fernn Penna just because his ideas are different(wants to put a man on Mars). However what i really wanted to stress is that no one should vote for Joe lieberman. The United States is already an Israeli puppet that gives billions of dollars to every year. Under lieberman not only will violent video games be restricted but we will become a country of servitude to the already overly funded israel. As a Jew, one must put his loyalty to Israel before any other country. The U.S. will not be his loyalty. Our already biest Jewish lobby in this country is too powerful. lieberman has already accused the U.S. of turning its back on Israel. Whats next? I do not support guerilla tactics by the Palestinians. However, the israelias just use their Helicopters to blow up the palestnians. I want a presidential candiate that will not have to play into the hands of either country in the Middle East. For Jesus, for Allah, for jehovah. Christians, Jews, and Muslims have been killing their brethren for too long. Especially when they all acknowledge the same divine god! I might for Bush or Fernn Penna, but anyone who would put Lieberman into power is foolish in my mind.

I do not mean to offend anyone by this post, however I am very passionate about this topic! God Bless!

Actually orthodox to Zionist factions of the Jewish religion don’t like each other much based on the land of Israel, orthodox feel its an abomination to their religion as god was to come to earth and give the chosen land to them sometime in the future. The Zionists i guess for many reasons did not feel like waiting for that to happen.
lieberman himself I will never vote for, simply because of his stance against video games, and for some reason he just peels off to me as a nazi, I cant put my finger on what it is, but the man scares me. Also lieberman was excommunicated by a rabbi tribunal for his stance on homosexuality. i would not mind to see him in someone’s cabinet, but for going as a president, i feel his solid lack of ability to really do that will only hurt the democrats by sucking away votes.

Dean scares the crap out of me too. That man makes me think of some serial killer stalking in the woods lying to you about his collection of candy or fine cars.

I think it would be great if Kerry took McCain as v.p and ran for president as he is doing. With the republican McCain as his v.p. I will usually only vote for a moderate. I do prefer just about anything over a republican, no care for environment, Christian right, etc...

Wow, what a field, do you realize that in both debates, the only one to respond directly to questions is...Dennis Kusinich? That's scary. Gephart has yet to respond directly to a question answered him, and Dean is way to generic in what he plans to do "when" he is president, Good Lord what a field. Kusinich is the most genuine of all of them.

CP

Hello,
Alright I'm new here but we all know that Hitlery Clinton is going to toss in her hat to be the savior for the Democrats. It's so painfuly obvious. I liked Clinton as a Pres. but everyone running right now have the worst political Ideas. I will not vote Democrat because I like to keep what I can out of my pay check.
Bush has his thought police but the lesser of the two evils this time around is still Bush. Although I wish we would just take Iraq as one of our colonies to the middle East. Cheaper gas prices then.

I think Dean will get the nod—he's benefitting from the same fawning media action that helped McCain in the early days of the GOP primary—but he's so ANGRY all the time. I think he's going to lose it on the stump; rabid fervor plays well with the angry left, but he's going to turn off the swing voter (if his head doesn't explode first). And while he's making a VERY generous offer to take on Clark as his wing-man, it sounds like Clark would rather run on his own, which IMO is giving Dean the heebie-jeebies. Personally, I doubt Clark will run at all. Meanwhile, Hillary will be holding midnight vigils, praying to Jesus, Allah and Buddha that G.W. wins a second term.

check this out, it may surprise you. It may not be 100% accurate but it is encouraging for us kucinich supporters:



(the pie chart is the amount percentage of visits to their web site, not how many like the candidate)

maybe dennis isn't "unelectable" and such a "fringe" candidate after all

Clark can!
Dubya can't!

etaisback - your post is NOT constructive. We can not debate you when you are shouting one liners at us.

I used that site and I am quite positive that it was pro Kucinich. I am built politically in the mold of Patrick Buchanan, and DK is way to wacky for me, but he was still the top choice that poll gave me. It would be funny if he ran that site.

--Rob

I see Dean getting the Democratic nod and by 2004 even moderates would be willing to vote for anyone as long as it isn't Bush. Personally, I think this is the best time for Democrats to run a really left candidate. That leaves Dean and Kucinich, Any other candidate that runs is going to look to much like bush and that would hurt any democratic candidate.

Monty

I gotta wonder if you guys know what you're talking about if you voted for Sharpton or Kucinich. They are both nuts.

Have you ever noticed that Kucinich looks like Golem from the Lord of The Rings movie?

It was recently reported in the Capital Hill news paper, the Roll Call, that Kucinich had set 'Hail to the Cheif' as his cell phone ringer. Wow. That's the kind of seriousness I want in the White House.

As for Dean, he will likely get the nomination even though he doesnt know Washington at all. I, for one, want a President with some experience in the Federal Government.

what does that have to do with his qualifications? I personally think he looks fine. it is sad that THIS seems to be the best objection people have against him: "he looks like a troll," etc...

(edited to cut out sharpton, who I'm not focusing on)

again, this is all people seem to muster "he's nuts" "he's too left" etc... but every time I have seen this, they never say HOW exactly he is nuts. is he nuts because he wants to force companies to stopping dodging taxes by going to off share havens, or he wants to revive manufacturing and actually FIX our economy, (biggest reason our economy is bad is we have nothing to sell. since NAFTAs creation and implementation, we have had a trade deficit with mexico, which was a trade surplus) and curb unemployment as much as possible (by repealing nafta, countries would have to hire american workers, and it is a FACT that nafta has sucked jobs out of this country.) or how about the fact that he wants to give EVERYBODY access to medical care (he has in fact, introduced legislation for such already) or how about fixing our voting system, from the dinosaur of plural elections to the more reliable, and usually, more accurate instant runoff voting. no more presidents with less then a majority if voters. or how about the fact he wants to repair our crumbling infrastructure, and in the process, create jobs. or how about wanting to cut pentagon pork, and make them accountable for losing nearly a trillion dollars. or how about creating a department that will deal with problems PEACEFULLY. yeah, he nut's all right

he is the ONLY chance america has to fix itself at this point, short of violent revolution.



again this has NOTHING to do with his qualifications. so he has a sense of humor and doesn't have a stick up his butt. I would actually PREFER someone that wasn't serious 100% of the time. they can relate to the people far more easily. when he needs to be serious, he is. when he didn't go to the NACCP event, he was in washington voting on an important issue (medicare, I believe) and you know what, they understood.



and what do you base this on? it is still 3 months til the first primaries. I would suggest you watch how the crowds react when dennis speaks, compared to dean. (especially in the CSPAN events) kucinich has more support then the media likes to admit,(of course they ignore him. they are corporate run, and kucinich is the only non-corporate friendly candidate (with a chance) heck, he is even coming in on the public "opinion" polls, which are designed to manufacture opinion, (via herd mentality) not measure it, sort of like the 4-5 dentist recommend this toothpaste thing)

he is the second candidate on the meetup.com page, meaning he has the next largest amount of supporters, and placed second in the move on primary, just behind dean. and everyday dean shows his true colors. it is still early, and anything can happen.

personally, I think kucinich could surprise many people. his support base is largely un-reported, (I have seen crowds and people react to him) he is the only one with a real plan to get america back on it's economic feet, and is the only one that can rebuild america's damaged image.

Dick Gephardt is the one I'm hoping will get the nomination because I think he has the best game plan for getting our fiscal house in order. He was there when the Budget was balanced in the 90s and knows exactly how to get the job done. Im a little concerned that he might have a little trouble adjusting to the fact he wont be on any of the committees.

He is critical of Bush on the Homeland security effort saying that not one cargo container has been searched. Now while I realize that searching every cargo container that comes into our country would require millions of Customs Inspectors but security in this area is lax.

I think he has the best agenda but can he do the job? He'll get my vote for the nomination but I think Dean has the skills. The important thing is to stop Bush from running up bills to pursue an agenda that had us on the brink of bankruptcy in the 80s and the states at the brink now. I think Dick Gephardt is the best man for the right idea but might be better suited to faciliting a Democratic agenda from Capitol Hill.

Honestly, you're kidding yourself if you think Kucinich has a chance. He is NOT even leading reputable polls in Ohio. I'm sure that if you poll Kucinich supporters, he's in the lead, but not in unbaised polling.

I have learned that the canidates are generally divided into four groups at this point. Those are:

Dean/Leiberman/Clark
Kerry/Gephardt
Edwards/Graham/Sharpton
Moslet-Braun/Kucinich

I asked a friend who works for one of the canidates and he tells me that this is how they see things on a national level. You can believe that Kucinich is a great leader all you want, but he's not going to win unless something on the order of hell freezing over happens.

As far as Gephardt goes, we already saw that type of election in 2000. The Dems better hope that Gephardt doesnt get the nomination because if he does, Bush wins the White House for another turn.

Dennis Kucinich will get my vote.

He is the only one I can in good conscience vote for. As to the "Hail to the chief" on his cell phone note, I am encouraged that Kucinich has the assertiveness to know that he is "the man" for the job. I strongly believe that it is CRIMINAL that the media has not covered this candidate fairly with most of his support largely unregistered in the media.

This guy has a lifetime of experience and everything on his site appears to be the right stuff.
Let's "give peace a chance" lol.

He's "green" he's "Peaceful", he's constructive and will give direct answers to your questions. In short, he is what this country needs now.

I have to go with Howard Dean. While I like Kucinich's policies, let's just face the fact that he's not electable. I like Dean because he seems the most progressive of the candidates. Lieberman, Kerry, and Gephardt are too stuffy for the general electorate...and Moseley-Braun and Sharpton are also unelectable. I don't trust Wesley Clark's intentions in this race. He seems to have been a life long Republican and keeps flip flopping his position on the war every day. While he may appeal to some of the swing voters, I just can't bring myself to trust him.

I would like to point out to the dean supporters that the DLC doesn't support him and karl rove (bush's brain) does. does this seem like a good thing? ( http://www.mydd.com/archives/000666.html - http://www.hermes-press.com/HDean/dean_republican.htm (if last link doesn't work, here is a link to the site) Dean Would Rather Execute an Innocent Man, Than Let a Guilty One Walk Free (Howard Dean's constitutional hang up) he lies about tax cuts (Dean caught in blatant tax-cut lies by Tim Russert) he takes responsibility for things he had nothing to really do with (such as vermonts balanced budget, and their health care system, which vermont's legislature is actually responsible for, after all they passed the bill, dean just signed them) howard dean says that those that say anything to get elected won't win, and then says anything to win! only 32% percent of vermonters will vote for him as president! and you have to figure that they would know (they did live under him for about 8 years)(Poll: Vermonters Won't Vote Dean President)

oh, by the way, dean isn't that progressive, Howard Dean: left wing imposter. Kucinich v. Dean, issue by issue



If you like kucinich's policies, VOTE FOR HIM!!! he is only un-electable if people like you say "well, I like kucinich and his policies, but he is un-electable, so I'll vote for dean." dean can't draw the voters kucinich can. dennis can pull in new voters, (in 2000, most people that didn't vote that could didn't because there was no real choice between the two candidates. kucinich is that choice.) he can get greens, reds, feminists, gay/lesbians, and many other "fringe" groups (when we are seperate, we are small, but when you combine all fringe groups you have a large group) he can draw in labor votes, because he wants to withdraw (slowly) from NAFTA and the WTO, and he can draw many moderate dems, and left republicans. (his district is mostly reagen dems, and he won last election with 74% of the vote)

I have to applaud you, unabomber. I suppose I stand corrected...tbe links you posted were eye-opening. I want to support Kucinich, but how do you think this will be at all different than Nader in 2000?

...After all, if you read it on the internet, it has to be true.

Kucinich won't win and is not the best canidate. Sorry folks.

First off, I'm not a Dean supporter. He's kind of a third choice or so for me (that's not meant as an insult to him, I actually like the candidates). That being said, I think the first link has Rove's comments interpreted correctly. If Karl Rove says something about a Dem while standing near a reporter, I'm thinking a literal interpretation of his words is a little soft-headed. As for the DLC, they're not exactly the progressive wing, now are they? So yes, I consider these pluses to Howard.

I believe grillo7 is addressing his chances of winning the general election. Aside from his home district, all the reasons why Kucinich could have a chance were true of Nader in 2000 (stronger labor policies, pro-fringe groups, etc.), when he netted 3%. I doubt even the Democratic nod would bring him up to 40%. His appeal to moderates and Independents is not only counter-intuitive, it's not backed by the polls where he registers at the absolute bottom of the Dem pack (at 2% among Dems, last I saw). I just don't find an incumbent Congressman's re-election in a moderate/left district that persuasive, especially since that vote may have been before he flip-flopped on abortion.

what about his initial election? the incumbant he beat was seen as unbeatable, yet kucinich managed to pull about 60% of the the initial vote (his district is full of "regean democrats" and left leaning republicans) in 2002 he increased that number to 74%. he could win ohio (provided diebold doesn't "deliver ohio to bush" (diebold's CEO's own words were diebold is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year")

oh, by the way, he didn't "flip-flop" on the abortion issue, he changed his mind from anti-choice to pro-choice ONCE. clark has flip-flopped (saying he didn't support the war, then would have supported it, then not supporting it again) kucinich decided (for whatever reason) that he was wrong on the abortion issue, and changed his mind. (I suppose people should just make decision and never change their minds, right )



as was mentioned, he won with a clear majority in a district that is highly moderate/right democrat. he could win ohio, and as they say, "as ohio goes, so goes the nation" as to his poll numbers, he registers 2% with a focus group, perhaps the most powerful groups in america (as they influence policy) most polls tend to poll 1000 people. in the "moveon.org primary" he was the second place finisher, and on select smarts "presidential race" kucinich is the top matching candidate. (meaning a majority of people that take the select smart survey have him as a top match) he can appeal to unemployed, workers, "fringe groups" and people that will vote for ANYONE but bush (and there are alot of them) among many others. kucinich is stands in stark opposition of corporate america, which owns our media, of course kucinich will measure low in their polls. "public opinion polls are designed to manufactur public opinion, not measure it" as mike rivero of what really happened dot com says.



yeah, and the mainstream media NEVER lies

most of my links were from RELIABLE CREDIBLE newsites;
the story about his constitutional hangup: counterpunch. (a left leaning site slamming dean? but isn't dean liberal?( )

the tax cut story was originally on MSNBC, but has been expired since or before I posted that link ( http://www.msnbc.com/site_elements/404_pag...news/912159.asp )

the rove statement regarding dean was originally from washingtonpost.com. I assume the washington post isn't credible though.

the poll about vermonters (while likely somewhat skewed (as most polls are) says only 32% of vermonters would vote dean for prez. if a likely skewed poll says that that few people would vote for him you have to figure, the highest number couldn't be above 50%.) is from the champlain channel's (which I assume is a news station in vermont) website. if there a major verment newssource, they are likely SOMEWHAT credible.

only the hermes-press site could be considered "whacko" though in my opinion, they are credible.



I have a business proposition for you. I mean you OBVIOUSLY have psychic powers if you know how the future will turn out, so how's about we open a psychic phone line!


that is a personel opinion. some people think bush is the best person to be president again. I don't. everyone is entitled to their opinion, and as for mine, kucinich is the best candidate. I like his ideas for policies (he is currently trying to introduce legislation for some of his proposed policies NOW, such as the department of peace, and medicare for all)



I think it will be different because kucinich can draw all the left "fringe" groups to vote for him. socialists and communists (that vote and use the system) will like his views on labor and healthcare, pacifists will like him for his dept. of peace, greens will like his views on the environment as well as social programs, and he can easily draw labor, most of whom see nafta as a major cause of america's job losses (looks like perot was right) other groups will support him for various reasons of their own. he has shown he can win the maderate/right democrat vote, and he could likely get new voters to come out and vote. most people that didn't vote in 2000 didn't do so because they saw no real difference between the two candidates. (not so with kucinich vs bush) and he will get the votes of those that will vote for ANYONE besides shrubya.(and there are a LOT of them) if kucinich wins, there will be no way for bush to win short of vote fraud (which may happen where ever dibold has their machines (diebold's CEO (walden o'dell) says he is a bush "pioneer" though he isn't officiall listed as one. pioneers have donated at least 100,000 dollars to shrub)

I really feel this election will be weird for many reasons. In the last election, in which Clinton could not run for office, America was at an ease almost, and doing ok. There was not really anything major to paint the news channels barring sexual activity by the president. This election has a slightly different reality to it.

Americans are becoming aware of the outsourcing problem we face in this global economy. America in its war on terror is operating its forces in many areas around the world. The u.n is rather beat up, and i guess kind of damaged for a long time. The economy stinks, religion in America if not the world seems to be emanating things and going about in some manner not usually known. Basically today is volatile like it has never been in what i can remember. I don’t really see any democrats that are talking about what i want to hear. I like bush bashing, but i wish it was the right kind. For the most part its the bad kind, like character bashing, or Iraq bush bashing. I want bush admin bashing to tell the truth. I have not heard anything about democrats and what they think about pnac and neocons. Not any of the runners at any rate.

I also dont like how senator McCain took a stance against what is happening with the republican party, and no good dems or what not came in to see what he was making a fuss about. I also wish a dem would take him as v.p.

Environmental issues like usually have been delegated to the back burner in the American mainstream. Are current president says nothing on pollution, and basically is trying to open everything to development of some kind. I hear not strong words from any of the dems.

To my amazement, i really do not like any of the current dems at all. I will use my vote against this admin of course, but i feel it is sad that seems to be my only motivation for a vote. I think i selected Al Sharpton, i know he has no chance and i would not want for him to win anyways, not that he could not do an equal job to our current president, he just seems to much like a social project like our current city cowboy.

That about sums up my opinion of this batch. To add who i would vote for in all reality is rather hard, i find my ideals mostly align with the green party, which i guess is much closer to democrat, but i would most likely give my vote for McCain, , what a weird world we live in

I think Wesly Clark is going to mop the floor with all of them. He has the general thing going on, which makes it much easier for him to defeat bush, everyone else does not inspire voters for change IMO

Ok. If all I have to do is make prediction like this then I'm in. Here are some other ones:

1) The Communist party will still be in power in China on January 1, 2004.
2) The conflict between Israel and Palestine will continue at least until Palestinians get some of Israel's land.
3) Bush will not withdraw from Iraq by Christmas.
4) North Korea will continue to be a problem until the Kim Jongs are out of power, and perhaps beyond that.
5) Democratic presidential candidates will still talk like Presidents are in control of the economy, as long as there is not a sudden boom, which there won't be.
6) Hispanics in California, Texas, and Florida will NOT vote for a candidate that apposes NAFTA (Kucinich).

That last one is one of the reasons Kucinich will not win. Another reason is that he is short. Another reason is that he does not smile except when he is laughing at someone else’s ideas.




As for Clark, his campaign is in shambles, he has only recently claimed to be a democrat, and he is being quoted all over the news as speaking in support of Bush. He won't win either.

That's the funny thing about the primaries: to win the nomination, you cant be seen as centerist, but to win the general election, you need to position yourself near the middle.

Edited to Include:

"As Mayor Of Cleveland, Kucinich Took The City Into 'Largest Municipal Default Since The Great Depression.'" From the AP in 1978. Wow! And the Dems talk about balancing the national budget.

you seem to leave out that quite a few bank board members were also on CEI's boards. that kucinich made a PROMISE in his campaign NOT to sell muny electric. that by NOT selling muny electric, saved the citizens of cleveland huge amounts of money (hundreds of millions) on their electricity bills.



in other words: there was a HUGE conflict of interest between the banks and CEI, and it was THEIR fault cleveland went into default. kucinich KEPT HIS WORD not to sell muny. he was punished for having princibles.



and how do you know this? since it's creation, NAFTA has increased poverty in mexico. from what I can tell, mexicans and mexican-american's oppose it.











wow, he's short. woopty doo. if THAT is all people can come up with that is sad. as for him not smiling, that simple isnt true. I have seen just about EVERY bit of footage I can of him, and yes, in debate, he has a bit of seriousness to him, but when he is addressing a crowd alone, he smiles alot. besides, what does smiling have to do with how he would do as prez? if THOSE are the best people can bring against the man, then he should easily win. (I already dealt with cleveland's default, which happened because he had integrity, and the bank board members (some of whom were also CEI board members) refused to roll over the depts (even though Kucinich had another way to pay the debt he INHERITED!)

I'm going to hold off on comments about his electability for a second b/c I honestly think you'd argue that biting the head off a kitten on national television could it only increase his chances to win. Time will tell on his vote-getting abilities. It says something that there's a thread under the Dem Party area asking "why don't you like Kucinich?" However, you keep indicating that this or that shouldn't matter in picking a Pres. or diminish his ability as President. But do you think his policies would really stand much a chance of being enacted? There's only so much one can executive order.

I think you're asking us to suspend a lot of disbelief on Kucinich while buying every attack about the other Dems. I'm sick of both Lieberman and Kucinich demonizing more successful candidates for not being equally on the fringe of the party. I do think it's for their own political gain and I do question Kucinich's integrity on the abortion issue. I'm fine with candidates "changing their minds" during their careers but it seems very convenient that such a change came right when he started eying a presidential run. His excuse was that he changed his mind after speaking to women on the issue; it seems to me that in 20+ years in politics he would have had a chat earlier. I doubt that you'd extend the same trust that this was in good faith to the other candidates. Do you think his pro-life stance might have been part of his appeal in a moderate district?

Oh, and campbejm:

That might work for Kucinich, but I'd like to remind everyone here that it's our current Pres. who has returned us to debt levels unseen since the last time we had a Republican President. Sure, the Clinton era balancing was a combination of factors, but with the Repubs having the triple crown, it's hard to make the argument that the Dems could do any worse- even Kucinich.

Regarding Democrats balancing the budget, all the candidates are pushing a prescription drug benefit plan. If left alone (without changing the size of the budget relative to GDP) social security and Medicare will represent 80% of our budget by 2040 according to the Congressional Budget Office. A prescription drug benefit will push this number even higher.

Also note, Clinton balanced the budget, not the current candidates.

Dean himself even makes statements that imply a return to prosperity would balance the budget. His stance on social security reform is: Leave it the same, and help the economy because if the economy is good tax revenue is sufficient for the program. That implies an economic turn around would balance the budget.

As for the short, not smiling at debates thing: This has everything to do with becoming president in today's world. I'm not debating if this is a good or bad thing, I'm just stating a fact. Image is critical in a campaign.

Jimmy Carter is the shortest president in recent history at 5'10".

How did keeping the municipal electric save money for Cleveland’s citizens? Smaller electric utilities do not enjoy the economies of scale that larger utilities do. Besides the retail sales made by utilities are regulated by Ohio's state government and the wholesale electric sales made by utilities are regulated by the Federal Government. Rates are closely watched.

Are you saying that Kucinich would be willing to default on American Treasury Bond and Bills based on a principal resulting from an irrational fear of large corporations, which is not shared by all Americans? Do you now how serious a default on these promissory notes would be? Not just here, but around the world?

I don't think I'm voting for a candidate who is a Democrat, but if Bush fails with the U.S. economy and healthcare, then probably I will vote for Howard Dean for some reasons.

What happened to Wesley Clark in here?