Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I wonder why Kucinich continues to poll so poorly. He's one of the most passionate speakers, has been consistently against the war, and would seem to speak the most directly to the core Democratic activists. I guess people just don't think he's electable.

Interesting tidbit that between Sharpton and Braun there are 11% to be eventually distributed among the others. Who do you think will get it?


There is no passion to be found playing small, in settling for a life
that is less than the one you are capable of living. - Mandela
I don't think many Americans are ready to entertain the thought of what real "peace" looks like. They are afraid of Kucinich. He's too liberal for many to embrace. Many do not think that being anti-war is the best thing for us. That's why so many approve of Bush and his handling of the war. Lots of democrats approve of Bush. They think that we have to slap people around in order for them to leave us alone.

I've heard so many democrats-particular african-american democrats for some reason-say that they support democrats on domestic issues but support republicans when it comes to foreign policy. They feel safer with a republican running things oversees.
I think the reaction to Kucinich is as mystifying as that to Clark. Clark has been in the "race" for just over 36 minutes. He has no stated agenda. He has been a Republican of record. He was fired from his last job of consequence to electability.

Kucinich has frequently, and loudly stated agenda. He has performed well for his constituency in Congress. He has a history of success in several elections to public office.

Kucinich is seen however, suffers from the "barking dog" syndrome. His diminutive size on the stage, and his loud (sometines overly loud voice), his openly aggressive posture gives him a "yip, yip" persona. It's like a political curse.

PEACE

Jim Chester

P.S. In taking a second look at the standings, I am reminded of the statistical practice of "averaging." Drop the top (Clark) and the bottom (Kucinich), and deal with what's left.

P.P.S. I was frustrated trying to prepare an example of the result. Low and behold only 85% of the poll is represented. Statistics!!!!!!
Where is the other 15% MBM?????

You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.

[This message was edited by James Wesley Chester on October 15, 2003 at 06:51 AM.]


[This message was edited by James Wesley Chester on October 18, 2003 at 06:16 AM.]
Just for the sake of clarity . . .

quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:

He has been a Republican of record.



He declared as a Democrat just before he started his presidential campaign. He had never aligned himself with any party prior to that.

quote:
He was fired from his last job of consequence to electability.



Not sure exactly what this means, but he was in a political job - running NATO - and was fired because of political differences with Secretary of Defense Cohen. He has never been in an elected office.


There is no passion to be found playing small, in settling for a life
that is less than the one you are capable of living. - Mandela
Just think of how embarrassed and fustrated Clark is making the other candidates feel. They've spent all their lives putzing around in politics, and in walks Bill and Hillarys man Clark to steal the election from them. Fun to watch.

Anyways, All of them are a pipedream. Hillary and Bill cannot allow any democrat victory in 2004, that obviously would be the deathknell of Hillary's aspirations to be queen president. But it sure is fun listening to these pinheads, especially like Gephart and Leiberman who know the game being played and must be besides themselves with anger.
In my opinion a vote for Wesley Clark is a vote for Bush. I wouldn't vote for Clark even if he did win the Democratic nomination. I'll write in my own darned candidate!

Our people have made the mistake of confusing the methods with the objectives. As long as we agree on objectives, we should never fall out with each other just because we believe in different methods, or tactics, or strategy. We have to keep in mind at all times that we are not fighting for separation. We are fighting for recognition as free humans in this society
Malcolm X, 1965
quote:
Originally posted by Yssys:

In my opinion a vote for Wesley Clark is a vote for Bush. I wouldn't vote for Clark even if he did win the Democratic nomination. I'll write in my own darned candidate!



Since IMO the two are diametrically opposed to each other, could you explain your perspective?


There is no passion to be found playing small, in settling for a life
that is less than the one you are capable of living. - Mandela
What about this idea of Sarge's? Of course, it's not Sarge's idea, but there's this notion that Hillary wants the Dems to lose so she can run in 2008. The idea is that 2012 would be too late for her to run. If Wesley is Bill Clinton's guy, then the idea must be that Clark would win the nomination and then intentionally do something late in the campaign to lose the presidential election.

Does anybody other than a right-wing Ditto-head believe this? Is there any news source other than a right-wing one that has any info on this? Is it ridiculous, or is there reason to believe it? And Sarge, since you're the one here posting this idea, do YOU have any sources that provide evidence of it?
Clark won't have to "mess up." He is hopeless from the beginning. As is every other, current, candidate. There does not appear to be a Jimmy Carter in the wings.

I have not yet be able to get my brain around the idea of "Hillary in '08." I think the more exposure Hillary gets the more luster she will lose. I don't have any great rationale. It's just my "take" on Hillary.

If not Hillary, who in 2008?

Now, that's will be a fight.

I think Ford of Tennessee will shake things up.

I think Watts of (is it Oklahoma?) will shake things up.

I think Condoleeza Rice will shale things up.

T think Sharpton will be singing an obbligato from the sidelines.

PEACE

Jim Chester

You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.
I think that most people view democrats as appeasers in foreign affairs but they are wonderful in domestic issues because they make every one feel good. Whether you want to accept it or not we are at war. The enemy is the Muslims terrorists. These terrorist believe that the only good american is a dead american. Black, white, yellow, green or orange if you are not a Muslim you are dead meat. Now based on that who would you prefer to defend this country? Dems or Republicans? As for me give me the Republicans in the time of war.
Now my take on Hillary, She will not run in 04 unless Bush's approval ratings drop below 40%. If the ecomony continues and the jobless rate decreases this will improve Bush's approval ratings. The preferred scenario for the election is for Dean to win the nomination and run against Bush. Bush will clean his clock. Bush will have every thing working for him the economy and the war. Dean will have ? "Can we be friends?"
So in 08 with no incumbent from either party Hillary enters the race, wins the nomination in a cake walk. She will be the only serious contender. I guess Rev Al may run to keep in practice. As for Ford of Tennessee he has had his 15 minutes of fame with his abortive attempt to win the minority leader position. The party had a choice a white woman or a Black man, they chose the white woman. So much for the rising black man in the democratic party. Ford will have to wait until after the 08 elections. If Hillary wins will she offer him a high profile cabinet position? For example Secretary of State or Defense.
Well that is my two cents on the sityation

Anubis98
The plains of hesitation are bleached by the bones of those who hesitated and in hesitating died.
Anibus posted,

I think that most people view democrats as appeasers in foreign affairs but they are wonderful in domestic issues because they make every one feel good. Whether you want to accept it or not we are at war. The enemy is the Muslims terrorists. These terrorist believe that the only good american is a dead american. Black, white, yellow, green or orange if you are not a Muslim you are dead meat. Now based on that who would you prefer to defend this country? Dems or Republicans? As for me give me the Republicans in the time of war.



**I'd prefer Dems myself. I do not think war was the answer, it just lined the pockets of the rich republicans who have defense stock portfolios. I think Gore would have let the UN run its course and then declared war as a last effort with international approval. The basis of the war was a lie, the occupation was unplanned and as people die for nothing...there is no specific timeframe for when they will stop being killed over there. the Iraqi resistance has picked up significantly. That is why I would never let any son or daughter of mine fight for rich people's interests abroad and have to fight for equality here once they get back. One battle is enough IMO......
I don't know why people feel safer with trigger happy republicans in office running our foreign affairs. In my opinion, they're part of the problem. I would take an appeaser over an aggressor any day. We need ot look at win/win situations like we teach our kids. We are intelligent and civilized human beings and should act like it. We need ot accept our differences and learn to negotiate. If you think the best way to protect us is by bombing others then why criticize the gangs in LA?


If you need a good example of aggressors, look at the Israeli/Palistinian conflict. It's a vicious circle of terror that will never end. Israel takes their lead from the US. So far, it's gotten them no where.

Should we beat on people that are less powerful then us and negotiate with those we consider a "real threat"?

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×