Who SHOULD win the Dem nomination...even though they probably won't!

[afleitch]

Sitting at my computer in the UK listening to a live stream of the Iowa Caucus debate from C-SPAN, I was taken back by John Edwards, the youthful looking (even though he is the same age as Tony Blair, 50) energetic candidate. All gloss I thought. I was wrong, he was eloquent, charismatic and made precise points to each question. It made me think of an idea for this post. Edwards probably won't win the nomination, or come close, but perhaps he should win? Who do you believe SHOULD win on strength of argument, presence etc, but won't because of finance, media exposure and so on? Clark is the still the Democrat I want to win, but now Edwards comes a close second. Oh and 1980? Ted Kennedy SHOULD have won...

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

Bozo the Clown should win the Dem nomination.  It would be quite fitting.

[RhodeRage]

The Democratic nomination should be won by the person who best reflects the Democratic party -- Howard Dean.  None of these diet republicans that they've got out of there.

But no matter.  Whoever wins will be a better President than Bush ever could hope to be...in my humble opinion, anyway.

[mtwhitney]

I think that only Dems should reply to this one, otherwise there will be alot of non-serious replies by Republicans. (even though I like the bozo-the-clown one)

[7,052,770]

Sitting at my computer in the UK listening to a live stream of the Iowa Caucus debate from C-SPAN, I was taken back by John Edwards, the youthful looking (even though he is the same age as Tony Blair, 50) energetic candidate. All gloss I thought. I was wrong, he was eloquent, charismatic and made precise points to each question. It made me think of an idea for this post. Edwards probably won't win the nomination, or come close, but perhaps he should win? Who do you believe SHOULD win on strength of argument, presence etc, but won't because of finance, media exposure and so on? Clark is the still the Democrat I want to win, but now Edwards comes a close second. Oh and 1980? Ted Kennedy SHOULD have won...

I believe only Clark can stop Dean now.
Not the greatest, not the worst.

[Carey]

The Democratic nomination should be won by the person who best reflects the Democratic party -- Howard Dean.

A rich, elitist, pro-gun, middle-roader is the best reflection of the Democratic party? (not saying he isn't a true Democrat, but I dare not say he's a perfect reflection)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Diet Republicans? This term annoys me really much, somebody doesn't represent your views 100% therefore they're really Republicans? This internal cannibalism is what is harming the Democratic party. I can guarantee you, all nine of the Democratic candidates, as well as most Democrats (save a couple like Zell Miller) are definately more liberal than the average Republican, and were they in the Republican party, they'd be out of place.

[jravnsbo]

1980- Kennedy??  Against a sitting President, no matte rhow he bad Carter did he gets the nomination and especially since Kennedy killed a lady and got away with it.  That will always haunt him.

diet Republicans-- must be like the Republican wing of the Democratic party comment by DEan.  DLC seems to be unwanted in Dean's party.

Dean is who should be the nominee as he is the rich, elitist, but the Dem party is definately not pro-gun, and dean is not a moderate but liberal which is the Dem party nowadays as their rage for Bush is blinding them.

Sitting at my computer in the UK listening to a live stream of the Iowa Caucus debate from C-SPAN, I was taken back by John Edwards, the youthful looking (even though he is the same age as Tony Blair, 50) energetic candidate. All gloss I thought. I was wrong, he was eloquent, charismatic and made precise points to each question. It made me think of an idea for this post. Edwards probably won't win the nomination, or come close, but perhaps he should win? Who do you believe SHOULD win on strength of argument, presence etc, but won't because of finance, media exposure and so on? Clark is the still the Democrat I want to win, but now Edwards comes a close second. Oh and 1980? Ted Kennedy SHOULD have won...

[StevenNick]

Some part of me wishes that someone like Gephardt would get the nomination so that this country can have a real contest of ideas in the general election.  I'd like to see a 1960 style race--a gentlemen's contest between two worthy candidates.

Unfortunately it looks like the democrats are going to nominate the shrill Vermont putz Howard Dean.  Prepare yourself for some very obnoxious debates in the fall.

[12th Doctor]

This is an interesting question.  I think that Liebermann should be the nominee.  He is tough on national security in the Hubert Humphrey/Scoop Jackson Democrat tradition, but he differs with Bush enough domestically to acctually make the election a battle of ideas.  A year ago,I thought that he would be the nominee for sure.

[MAS117]

Sen. John Edwards, or Sen. John Kerry should be the nominee.

[Gustaf]

I always disliked the Kennedys...

Btw, StevenNick, I thought the 1960 race was littered with fraud and dirty tactics?

1980- Kennedy??  Against a sitting President, no matte rhow he bad Carter did he gets the nomination and especially since Kennedy killed a lady and got away with it.  That will always haunt him.

diet Republicans-- must be like the Republican wing of the Democratic party comment by DEan.  DLC seems to be unwanted in Dean's party.

Dean is who should be the nominee as he is the rich, elitist, but the Dem party is definately not pro-gun, and dean is not a moderate but liberal which is the Dem party nowadays as their rage for Bush is blinding them.

Sitting at my computer in the UK listening to a live stream of the Iowa Caucus debate from C-SPAN, I was taken back by John Edwards, the youthful looking (even though he is the same age as Tony Blair, 50) energetic candidate. All gloss I thought. I was wrong, he was eloquent, charismatic and made precise points to each question. It made me think of an idea for this post. Edwards probably won't win the nomination, or come close, but perhaps he should win? Who do you believe SHOULD win on strength of argument, presence etc, but won't because of finance, media exposure and so on? Clark is the still the Democrat I want to win, but now Edwards comes a close second. Oh and 1980? Ted Kennedy SHOULD have won...

[Michael Z]

Wesley Clark has committed too many gaffes and nobody knows what he stands for on domestic issues. As for the other candidates, Richard Gephardt lacks the charisma which, unfortunately, is necessary to succeed for a Presidential candidate in this mass media-driven day and age. Lieberman is too conservative for the majority of Democrats to stomach; I agree with MAS117 that Edwards and Kerry should get the nomination because they'd have the best chance of winning a general election this year. Unfortunately the reality is that Kerry's campaign has virtually imploded, and Edwards has 'running mate' written all over him (no matter what the press say, I believe his outright denial of ever wanting to be a VP was pure politics on Edwards's behalf. And as Afleitch pointed out, he has changed his tack lately).

[jravnsbo]

Kerry should be, b/c he was the front runner, money galore, party establishment with him, got the convention in Boston, but then he started campaigning like a Senator ont he floor of the Senate, zzzzzzzzz  and he voted for the war which the base hates.

Sen. John Edwards, or Sen. John Kerry should be the nominee.

[jravnsbo]

The voting itself had fraud in IL, MO and TX , but the campaign itself was decently clean by politics standards.

I always disliked the Kennedys...

Btw, StevenNick, I thought the 1960 race was littered with fraud and dirty tactics?

1980- Kennedy??  Against a sitting President, no matte rhow he bad Carter did he gets the nomination and especially since Kennedy killed a lady and got away with it.  That will always haunt him.

diet Republicans-- must be like the Republican wing of the Democratic party comment by DEan.  DLC seems to be unwanted in Dean's party.

Dean is who should be the nominee as he is the rich, elitist, but the Dem party is definately not pro-gun, and dean is not a moderate but liberal which is the Dem party nowadays as their rage for Bush is blinding them.

Sitting at my computer in the UK listening to a live stream of the Iowa Caucus debate from C-SPAN, I was taken back by John Edwards, the youthful looking (even though he is the same age as Tony Blair, 50) energetic candidate. All gloss I thought. I was wrong, he was eloquent, charismatic and made precise points to each question. It made me think of an idea for this post. Edwards probably won't win the nomination, or come close, but perhaps he should win? Who do you believe SHOULD win on strength of argument, presence etc, but won't because of finance, media exposure and so on? Clark is the still the Democrat I want to win, but now Edwards comes a close second. Oh and 1980? Ted Kennedy SHOULD have won...

[Wakie]

This is an interesting question.  A case can be made that MANY of the candidates SHOULD get the nom.

If you just look at the candidates resumes then by all rights John Kerry should easily be the candidate (15 years in the Senate, war hero, a moderate who has domestic and international experience, carries the endorsement of International Assoc of Firefighters, etc).  But he ran a very poor early campaign and has received much bad press for his endorsement of military action in Iraq.

John Edwards would almost certainly get the nom if he had more experience.  He's from the South, comes from a humble background, is bright and eloquent, and carries a great deal of charisma.  Most Democrats I know consider him their 2nd favorite candidate (no matter who their favorite is).  Should the Democrats lose in 2004 and should he remain in the spotlight he'll be a contender in 2008.

I think most Democrats expected Al Gore to return for a rematch with Bush in 2004 or for Hillary Clinton to step up to the plate.  Of course neither happened.

[jravnsbo]

Hilliarya nd Gore can fight for it in 2008, after Bush gets reelected and there is an open field.

This is an interesting question.  A case can be made that MANY of the candidates SHOULD get the nom.

If you just look at the candidates resumes then by all rights John Kerry should easily be the candidate (15 years in the Senate, war hero, a moderate who has domestic and international experience, carries the endorsement of International Assoc of Firefighters, etc).  But he ran a very poor early campaign and has received much bad press for his endorsement of military action in Iraq.

John Edwards would almost certainly get the nom if he had more experience.  He's from the South, comes from a humble background, is bright and eloquent, and carries a great deal of charisma.  Most Democrats I know consider him their 2nd favorite candidate (no matter who their favorite is).  Should the Democrats lose in 2004 and should he remain in the spotlight he'll be a contender in 2008.

I think most Democrats expected Al Gore to return for a rematch with Bush in 2004 or for Hillary Clinton to step up to the plate.  Of course neither happened.

[Gustaf]

I've heard that in the tv-debates, the camera angles and lighting was manipulated, sovas to make Nixon look even more like an unshaved crook than he already did.

The voting itself had fraud in IL, MO and TX , but the campaign itself was decently clean by politics standards.

I always disliked the Kennedys...

Btw, StevenNick, I thought the 1960 race was littered with fraud and dirty tactics?

1980- Kennedy??  Against a sitting President, no matte rhow he bad Carter did he gets the nomination and especially since Kennedy killed a lady and got away with it.  That will always haunt him.

diet Republicans-- must be like the Republican wing of the Democratic party comment by DEan.  DLC seems to be unwanted in Dean's party.

Dean is who should be the nominee as he is the rich, elitist, but the Dem party is definately not pro-gun, and dean is not a moderate but liberal which is the Dem party nowadays as their rage for Bush is blinding them.

Sitting at my computer in the UK listening to a live stream of the Iowa Caucus debate from C-SPAN, I was taken back by John Edwards, the youthful looking (even though he is the same age as Tony Blair, 50) energetic candidate. All gloss I thought. I was wrong, he was eloquent, charismatic and made precise points to each question. It made me think of an idea for this post. Edwards probably won't win the nomination, or come close, but perhaps he should win? Who do you believe SHOULD win on strength of argument, presence etc, but won't because of finance, media exposure and so on? Clark is the still the Democrat I want to win, but now Edwards comes a close second. Oh and 1980? Ted Kennedy SHOULD have won...

[jravnsbo]

First off Gustaf I think you are confusing Nixon as a crook with later years comparisons.  At the time he was the sitting VP and the cameras did hurt him with 5 o'clock shadow, but just made Kennedy shine even more.  It was widely said if you saw it n TV, Kennedy won, if you listened ont eh radio Nixon won the debates.

I've heard that in the tv-debates, the camera angles and lighting was manipulated, sovas to make Nixon look even more like an unshaved crook than he already did.

The voting itself had fraud in IL, MO and TX , but the campaign itself was decently clean by politics standards.

I always disliked the Kennedys...

Btw, StevenNick, I thought the 1960 race was littered with fraud and dirty tactics?

1980- Kennedy??  Against a sitting President, no matte rhow he bad Carter did he gets the nomination and especially since Kennedy killed a lady and got away with it.  That will always haunt him.

diet Republicans-- must be like the Republican wing of the Democratic party comment by DEan.  DLC seems to be unwanted in Dean's party.

Dean is who should be the nominee as he is the rich, elitist, but the Dem party is definately not pro-gun, and dean is not a moderate but liberal which is the Dem party nowadays as their rage for Bush is blinding them.

Sitting at my computer in the UK listening to a live stream of the Iowa Caucus debate from C-SPAN, I was taken back by John Edwards, the youthful looking (even though he is the same age as Tony Blair, 50) energetic candidate. All gloss I thought. I was wrong, he was eloquent, charismatic and made precise points to each question. It made me think of an idea for this post. Edwards probably won't win the nomination, or come close, but perhaps he should win? Who do you believe SHOULD win on strength of argument, presence etc, but won't because of finance, media exposure and so on? Clark is the still the Democrat I want to win, but now Edwards comes a close second. Oh and 1980? Ted Kennedy SHOULD have won...

[jravnsbo]

Yes, who SHOULD win the democrat primary?  The angriest of them all?

================
Memo to Terry McAwful
May the Democratic leaders get the anger they deserve.

BY ZELL MILLER

Here are some recent headlines as I see them from the Democratic demolition derby: (1) Sharpton "feels good," could feel better; (2) Kerry cusses; (3) Dean gets "help" from Gore; (4) Democrats ask: "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the angriest one of all?"

(1) First, the Reverend "Ready for Prime Time." Conventional wisdom says native Southerners John Edwards and Wesley Clark and moderate Joe Lieberman will have the edge when the primaries move South. Don't count on it. I'd be willing to bet a steak dinner (mad cow or no mad cow) that Al Sharpton will get almost as many votes as Messrs. Edwards, Clark or Lieberman in this supposedly more friendly territory. (If they're still around, that is.) The last time there was an African-American in the primaries, Jesse Jackson blew everyone away, getting 96% of the African-American vote in the South, carrying Georgia, Virginia, Mississippi and Louisiana, and placing second in North Carolina, Florida, Maryland and Tennessee. It would be a tall order to match that. But Rev. Sharpton could do well because he's even more appealing than Rev. Jackson. While Jesse is sullen, Al is engaging. Can you imagine Rev. Jackson poking fun at himself? Can you imagine him on "Saturday Night Live" belting out James Brown's "I Feel Good" with a few cool moves?

Al Sharpton did a pretty good impression of the "Godfather of Soul." Of course, the rotund reverend has long been the "Godfather of Con." He's slick as a peeled onion. In just one short primary season, his timid fellow candidates and the even more timid media have erased the criminal Tawana Brawley shakedown. They've given this trickster who has never been elected dogcatcher a legitimacy he does not deserve: their Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval as a bona fide presidential candidate. So, get ready to start counting Rev. Sharpton's delegates. They will be impossible to ignore on national TV when the Democrats take center stage in Boston. Memo to Democratic Chairman Terry McAwful: It's called "reaping what you sow."

If you think this could not possibly happen, consider that not-too-distant history. Take the Georgia primary in 1988. Georgia's senior U.S. senator, governor, House speaker and largest newspaper endorsed Al Gore. Mr. Gore was running right of center, warning that a vote for Michael Dukakis would spell defeat for the Democrats. But Jesse Jackson won Georgia with 40%. Al Gore got 32% and Mr. Dukakis, who later would carry 10 states as the nominee, got 16%.

(2) Now to "Cussing Kerry." Like Alice, this campaign gets "curiouser and curiouser." What will those former Gore consultants try next? The electric blue spandex surfing bodysuit didn't work. The jeans and Harley Davidson didn't work. Chet Atkins turned in his grave at the senator's guitar picking. And now comes the F-word in Rolling Stone. My mouth ain't no prayer book, but John Kerry could have asked his pal Tom Harkin of Iowa how cussing went over with voters in 1992. Like a lead balloon. It's as if Mr. Kerry will do anything to appear the "coolest" in the Our Gang crowd. What's next? John Kerry wearing a baseball cap sideways?

(3) Howard Dean is a hard man to feel sorry for, he's just so cocky. But I'm feeling bad for him. He's worked hard to get where he is, including finding an honorable way to raise a lot of money. But there hasn't been a leader since Julius Caesar who's had more conspirators pretending to be his friend--but really wanting him dead--than suddenly Howard Dean has today. They want his Internet contributor list. They want his energy and spontaneity. They want his secret for tapping the young antiwar crowd. So they'll endorse him, pat him on the back with a few "atta boys," and secretly hope he loses.

I'm not sure what Al Gore will contribute. Is he going to advise Mr. Dean to roll down his shirtsleeves and put on a coat, preferably in earth tones? Will he teach him to speak in that stilted highfalutin way? Maybe he'll teach him how to win a Southern state. Like Tennessee.

(4) Now, about that anger. Most Democratic presidential primaries lean liberal, even in the South, and African-Americans play a huge role. In 2004, Democratic voters are going to be angrier than I've seen them since 1972. Like George McGovern in '72, Howard Dean has tapped into that anger. I think regrettably so, not only for the country but also for the party.

As this Park Avenue-born Vermont governor makes his maiden voyage South, with Southern strategist Al Gore beside him, I don't think he has to worry about pickup trucks or "God, guns and glory," as he puts it. Not in the primary, not this trip. But he should be forewarned. These folks are called "Value Voters." They go to church to seek salvation, not argue about bike paths. And they are just waiting to be heard from later. And they will be, loud and clear. And that's when you might hear certain folks really start cussin'.

Mr. Miller, a Democratic senator from Georgia, is the author of "A National Party No More," just published by Smyth & Helwys.

[Wakie]

Cussing didn't seem to hurt George Bush in 2000 ... I don't see why it should be an issue for Kerry in 2004.

[Gustaf]

He always looked like a crook, didn't he? The famous second-hand car ad was before Watergate and all that surfaced. I am not saying he was viewed as one, but that he looked like one.

The second part seems to be basically what I said?

First off Gustaf I think you are confusing Nixon as a crook with later years comparisons.  At the time he was the sitting VP and the cameras did hurt him with 5 o'clock shadow, but just made Kennedy shine even more.  It was widely said if you saw it n TV, Kennedy won, if you listened ont eh radio Nixon won the debates.

I've heard that in the tv-debates, the camera angles and lighting was manipulated, sovas to make Nixon look even more like an unshaved crook than he already did.

The voting itself had fraud in IL, MO and TX , but the campaign itself was decently clean by politics standards.

I always disliked the Kennedys...

Btw, StevenNick, I thought the 1960 race was littered with fraud and dirty tactics?

1980- Kennedy??  Against a sitting President, no matte rhow he bad Carter did he gets the nomination and especially since Kennedy killed a lady and got away with it.  That will always haunt him.

diet Republicans-- must be like the Republican wing of the Democratic party comment by DEan.  DLC seems to be unwanted in Dean's party.

Dean is who should be the nominee as he is the rich, elitist, but the Dem party is definately not pro-gun, and dean is not a moderate but liberal which is the Dem party nowadays as their rage for Bush is blinding them.

Sitting at my computer in the UK listening to a live stream of the Iowa Caucus debate from C-SPAN, I was taken back by John Edwards, the youthful looking (even though he is the same age as Tony Blair, 50) energetic candidate. All gloss I thought. I was wrong, he was eloquent, charismatic and made precise points to each question. It made me think of an idea for this post. Edwards probably won't win the nomination, or come close, but perhaps he should win? Who do you believe SHOULD win on strength of argument, presence etc, but won't because of finance, media exposure and so on? Clark is the still the Democrat I want to win, but now Edwards comes a close second. Oh and 1980? Ted Kennedy SHOULD have won...

[© tweed]

Bozo the Clown should win the Dem nomination.  It would be quite fitting.

Yeah, he's back.  What a pleasant surprise.

Well, unless a major political event turns the tides on this election, the Dems won't win.  So nominate the guy you like.  That's dean.

Did you seee him at the debate?  When he was asked wehn he would balance the budget, he responded with "I will do it in the seventh or eighth year of my administration."  I like him alot, too bad he doesn't stand a dead rat's chance of winning.

Dean in '04: if you're gonna lose, lose in style.

[jravnsbo]

Miami, comment you made about the budget, did you hear the crowd laugh at that point.  They know.

Bozo the Clown should win the Dem nomination.  It would be quite fitting.

Yeah, he's back.  What a pleasant surprise.

Well, unless a major political event turns the tides on this election, the Dems won't win.  So nominate the guy you like.  That's dean.

Did you seee him at the debate?  When he was asked wehn he would balance the budget, he responded with "I will do it in the seventh or eighth year of my administration."  I like him alot, too bad he doesn't stand a dead rat's chance of winning.

Dean in '04: if you're gonna lose, lose in style.

[© tweed]

Still, it was funny.  The others act like such politicans with their "I don't know" crap, and he tells them.  He's cool.

[jravnsbo]

The ABC News superdelegate estimate as of Monday, January 5 at 9:00 am:

Howard Dean—90

John Kerry—59

Dick Gephardt—49

Wesley Clark—24

Joe Lieberman—20

John Edwards—16

Carol Moseley Braun—4

Al Sharpton—3

Dennis Kucinich—2