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

[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...

[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...

[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...