Lieberman dropped.

[Demrepdan]

I'm sure you've all heard this by now. Joe Lieberman is out of the race....bringing it down to John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Al Sharpton, and Dennis Kuchinich.

[Dave from Michigan]

about time but when are No chance Sharpton and Kuchinich going to drop out

[YRABNNRM]

Their heads are too big to drop out. I see them staying the whole way.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

His concession speech is putting his own family to sleep

[Dave from Michigan]

 

His concession speech is putting his own family to sleep

HA HA
 
 
 
 

[NHPolitico]

I'm sure you've all heard this by now. Joe Lieberman is out of the race....bringing it down to John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Al Sharpton, and Dennis Kuchinich.

Clark is on the clock...

[ilikeverin]

I'm sure you've all heard this by now. Joe Lieberman is out of the race....bringing it down to John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Al Sharpton, and Dennis Kuchinich.

Clark is on the clock...

I'm hoping he'll pull out an OK win

I thought Lieberman's speech was good, but that's just me  Pretty durn graceful for a total loser.

[12th Doctor]

Clark will be the next to go.  Then Dean.  Then Kusinich.


The race will be Kerry, Edwards and Sharpton by Super Tuesday II.

[Mr. Fresh]

Clark will be the next to go.  Then Dean.  Then Kusinich.


The race will be Kerry, Edwards and Sharpton by Super Tuesday II.

ugh.....Sharpton needs to walk as well.

[M]

I, for one, am very sorry about that. Lieberman was something very rare in this country, a candidate who really works for America and not his respective party. Also a very classy fellow, specifically mentioning all of his fellow candidates (in sharp cntrast to Dean) and congratulating the winner. Except for the one line about denying Bush a second term, I agreed and was deeply moved by everything he said. He will never be president, but I think dems and GOPers alike should salute the continuing service of a great, bipartisan, and I belive, a truly good man.

[MAS117]

3 words: its about time

[12th Doctor]

The "old liberal" wing of the Democrat Party, the wing of H.H. Humphry and Scoop Jackson died at 9 o'clock tonight with Liebermann's announcement.

[M]

Not quite. They have one more champion, Sen. Evan Bayh, who will likely run for president in 2008. But the party's mood is very mucj against him. Ponder this, democrats:

Any true liberal by any definition would support a war whose effect was to expand democracy, whatever they believed its purpose. Franklin, Jefferson, etc, supported shedding a lot of blood to espouse the cause of freedom. So did the European heroes of 1848, Lincoln, FDR, Churchill. A left whose defining feature is oppostion to any war under any circumstances is a tragedy.

Fortunately it doesn't win elections. Since 68, democrats have not been able to win elections w/o national security being a virtual nonissue in the context of the times. (76 outweighed by other factors like watergate and frst unelected president, as well as height of detente. 90s post Cold War dream world in which the public refused to confront WMD proliferation and terrorism as a significant and potentially devastating threat).

If Kerry makes the War on Terror an issue ("hope not fear", "Bush has exagerated the threat of terrorism"), a GOP landslide will be unavoidable. He may and should focus on other issues like the economy, the budget, healthcare, education, etc. But if he dares to cross the line into effectively aiding and abetting the enemy, he will reap the whirlwind.

[Beet]

WMD proliferation and terrorism were much bigger concerns in the 90s than in any other decade, by far.

Kerry should emphasize that he is just as concerned about preventing terrorism, maybe even more, than Bush. Fighting the war on terrorism effectively will require American leadership and credibility abroad, and focused American resources on preventing port vulnerability. His criticisms on foreign policy should be narrowly tailored towards Bush's Iraq intelligence on WMD and Bush's handling of relations with our civilized partners.

[Gustaf]

I agree with both sides here. A bit sad to see Lieberman go, but it was about time for it. ANother nail in Dean's coffin...

[Taft]

Question: Who gets Lieberman's supporters if they stick around?  I can't see them going to Kerry or Dean, really.  Edwards and Clark, perhaps?

[Gustaf]

Question: Who gets Lieberman's supporters if they stick around?  I can't see them going to Kerry or Dean, really.  Edwards and Clark, perhaps?

I agree with that in the general sense, his southen supporters will almost certainly go for one of these two. But the northeasterners might not want southerners.

[Mort from NewYawk]

I, for one, am very sorry about that. Lieberman was something very rare in this country, a candidate who really works for America and not his respective party. Also a very classy fellow, specifically mentioning all of his fellow candidates (in sharp cntrast to Dean) and congratulating the winner. Except for the one line about denying Bush a second term, I agreed and was deeply moved by everything he said. He will never be president, but I think dems and GOPers alike should salute the continuing service of a great, bipartisan, and I belive, a truly good man.

Very well stated.

It's startling how much the Democrats are in disarray only a single term after they held a two-term presidency.

Clinton himself threw away much of what he had brilliantly accomplished for the party through his personal flaws (not only his sex addiction, but his unfathomable inability to work things out with Gore and campaign for him in some mutually agreed capacity).

All this leaves the Democratic party so disaffected by Clinton-Gore that they have totally rejected that part of the party's winning formula: the moderate, third way political philosophy that is so appealing to middle class and working Americans.

Democrats do not understand that it's been 40 years since a Democrat has been elected with a political philosophy resembling the current remaining candidates. Those elections in which they've run someone like any of the remaining candidates (72, 84 and 88) have resulted in crushing landslides for them.

I'll wait until the Democratic convention, but my color is likely to change to blue for this cycle. I'm sure I'm not the only Lieberman supporter that the Democrats may lose this year.

[Beet]

You know what though, of the people who said choosing someone who could beat Bush was the most important factor, about 70% chose Kerry. This leaves me pretty confused. I don't know if people are just being stupid or not, or if they just read what the media tells them and vote what the media tells them. One has to look back to '72, '84 and '88 and ask, why are we going through this again, we've already been through it during the LAST generation (our parents, for those of us born in the '80s). Don't people (especially older ones) remember?

Plus, all this gay marriage stuff in Massachusetts is going to make Kerry look worse. As for the issue itself, I don't know where I stand, see my comments on the general discussion. But it just contributes to the demonization of Massachusetts.

[Sibboleth]

Neither Kerry or Edwards has any of the huge problems that McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis did.
For a start they can actually run a good campaign...

A Kerry-Edwards or Edwards-Kerry ticked would be formindible.

And Carter is no more right wing than either of 'em.

[Beet]

Carter did get elected, beating an incumbent, under normal times, and was defeated in the wake of the Iranian revolution. I don't think Kerry will be defeated as badly as McGovern or Mondale, losing all but one state, but I have doubts as to whether he'll be able to overcome his Massachusetts stigma and voting record. None of these things should actually matter (the government won't pass unpopular legislation and the Congress makes the laws, the President only proposals), but they'll be powerful tools against him in the campaigns.

The VP is not a huge deal, he's only important in how he compliments the Presidential candidate, and if it's a close election.

[Nym90]

I agree completely, Realpolitik. Big difference between Kerry and those past liberal candidates. Kerry is a fighter, he won't just sit back and take attacks from the GOP without responding like McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis did. Can you imagine any of them saying "Bring it on!" to their GOP opponent? Especially Dukakis, to whom Kerry is drawing the most comparisons these days. He always gave intellectual, logical, boring responses to everything. I like that kind of person, but I'm able to see the reality of politics, that someone with that type of personality has a hard time winning. They were nice mushy liberals, not tough enough to be President. It's way too simplistic to suggest that a northern liberal can't win. I'll agree that it is more difficult for a northern liberal to win than it is for a southern moderate, since there are fewer states in play and thus they have to run a better campaign with less margin for error. But the individual strengths of the candidate can more than make up for their ideology and region.

I think that was Lieberman's problem too--although he was centrist, he was too nice of a guy to get elected. The guy just seemed to be too much of an accomodator and not willing to try to draw clear distinctions with his opponents. I agree that it is a sad commentary on America that truly nice people can't get elected President and that you have to be willing to attack your opponent and not just run a purely positive campaign.

[Beet]

Kerry's weakness is the war issue. Did he support it or didn't he? (I guess he didn't). But he did vote to authorize the use of force. In that case, what exactly does he think should have been done, and why? If he doesn't make that clear, his opponents (and voters) are going to just assume things.

[Sibboleth]

I don't think that the War will be a huge issue...
Certainly Kerry isn't vunerable on the War in the way that Dean was/is...
I think that the War has only been a polarising thing amoung political activists and journo's.

If the Dems play on the Economy (especially jobs) they can hurt Bush in places he seemed impregnable in just a few months back (just compare the political situation now to just after Saddam was caught)

[Mort from NewYawk]

It's startling how much the Democrats are in disarray only a single term after they held a two-term presidency.

Clinton himself threw away much of what he had brilliantly accomplished for the party through his personal flaws (not only his sex addiction, but his unfathomable inability to work things out with Gore and campaign for him in some mutually agreed capacity).

All this leaves the Democratic party so disaffected by Clinton-Gore that they have totally rejected that part of the party's winning formula: the moderate, third way political philosophy that is so appealing to middle class and working Americans.

Democrats do not understand that it's been 40 years since a Democrat has been elected with a political philosophy resembling the current remaining candidates. Those elections in which they've run someone like any of the remaining candidates (72, 84 and 88) have resulted in crushing landslides for them.

I'll wait until the Democratic convention, but my color is likely to change to blue for this cycle. I'm sure I'm not the only Lieberman supporter that the Democrats may lose this year.

Neither Kerry or Edwards has any of the huge problems that McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis did.
For a start they can actually run a good campaign...

A Kerry-Edwards or Edwards-Kerry ticked would be formindible.

And Carter is no more right wing than either of 'em.

McGovern and Mondale were not mushy, they were great campaigners. They both gave energetic, rousing speeches, neither had character issues or any taint of scandal. Mondale was a former VP who was the heir apparant of the liberal wing of the Democratic party (although he would have lost the nomination to pre-DLCer Gary Hart except for the Donna Rice scandal - what is it with these Democratic centrists?).

The problem with McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis was that they failed to bring out more than the Democratic left, because they were successfully and accurately labeled by the GOP as too left for the American people in foreign affairs (McGovern), domestically (Mondale), or both (Dukakis).

I see Kerry-whoever fighting the same philosophic and electoral battle as any of them.

As far as Carter's political philosophy, his appeal in 1976 was similar to Clinton's in 1992: after devastating losses with liberals, the Dems successfully went with the governor of a Southern state, a church-going Southern Baptist seen as "progressive" on civil rights, but with moderate fiscal views.