A Britons view of the Democratic candidates.

(Disclaimer: lacking the time and energy to be a devoted policy wonk, the following should be assumed to be the opinions of a moderately informed resident of the United States only :-) )

Not that I get to vote (although my wife does), here's a view of the Democratic field from an outsider:

Braun:

Likeable, and good to see a strong black woman running. Sadly, at present, a black woman or man would have to be as "white" as Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice (gods forbid) to win.


Sharpton:

I love Al but I think he scares too many timid white folks with all that truth he puts out there.


Lieberman:

Too boring, and comes across as way too right wing to unite the party. Bet on another 2000-like splintering of the Left if he gets the nod.


Kucinich:

Personally, I want Dennis to be my president. The problem is that the best we could hope for is that the press would destroy him during the campaign, because if he got anywhere near the presidency he'd go down like Bobby Kennedy.


Gephardt:

Has his moments but IMO he's the Democratic Bob Dole.


Edwards:

Photogenic (which IS important despite our sensibilities), moderate, Southern, and likeable. Edwards has the ingredients to be another Clinton. Perhaps appears too green (as opposed to Green) this time, but would make a terrific VP pick if not president.


Kerry:

I don't think that Kerry would do well in the South or Midwest; he seems to fit too many of the RW stereotypes (rich, establishment, elitist, New England liberal) that Americans have bought into over the last 25 years. Also, I don't see a clear focus point for the Kerry campaign, especially since Clark took away the veteran angle. I doubt that he'll be able to get his message out effectively.


Dean:

Dean has surfed a wave of anti-war sentiment that has made him the darling of the Center-Left, which is somewhat ironic since he seems to me to be more Libertarian than Liberal. Imagine the Dean campaign without the war issue as its core; I think he'd find some difficulty presenting himself as a national figure. Can he unseat Bush? If the war in Iraq continues to spiral down to disaster he's got a real shot at it, particularly with the NRA liking him so much. If Bushco get a handle on Iraq (or can persuade Americans that they do) then Dean is DOA.


Clark:

I think that Clark can beat Bush. He’s the Anti-Bush in fact: genuine war hero and patriot, intellectually gifted and highly educated, actually Southern etc. He’s also potentially the Democratic Unity candidate, which is a pre-requisite for victory in 2004. Here’s my problem. I’m still not absolutely sure that he’s to be trusted. Admittedly, I haven’t delved deeply into the pro and anti Clark debates, so I’m open to correction, but the impression I’ve received is that he’s a bit of a “Johnny-come-lately” to the Democratic world view. I have an unfortunate feeling that, at heart, he’s a moderate Republican who’s pissed at the Far Right. Electing Clark would be like electing Olympia Snow with medals.


So, there it is. In the final analysis I keep coming back to the "Anyone but Bush" approach, and by that standard I think that Wes Clark has the best chance in 2004, regardless of the state of the "War on Terror" ™. I just hope that if he wins he’ll turn out to be a Democrat...

this idea has been appearing a lot here recently. I'm a Gep supporter so I'm tuned in to what's said about him. It used to be "rose garden" but now I'm hearing "Bob Dole" a lot.

My thoughts on this are that Bob Dole was actually a very good republican candidate, and that the personality, background, and maturity that they share looks very good compared to the dangerously adolescent arrogance of a George Bush.

Also, the idea that Gep, and the dems in general, are the party of old ideas, is straight from the RNC. Ed Gillespie made a lame joke about the dem debates looking like "That 70's show."

I wonder if this concept occurred to you organically, or if there's some email going around with the "Gep = Dole" thing.

I haven't seen any emails about the Gep-Dole comparison, I just think that Bush would win against Gephardt just as Clinton beat Dole, and for some of the same reasons. Regardless of the reality of the situation, I also think that if he gets the nomination Gephardt WILL be portrayed by the press and largely accepted by the populace as a politician whose time has passed (remember Mondale in Minnasota?). Not fair, but to be expected.

BTW, please note that I did not say, or even imply, that the Democratic Party is "the party of old ideas". As you say, that is an RNC canard, and, although I may be moderately informed, I'm not THAT easily led!

He is socially progressive, more so than Dean, who is really a centerist! Also, Wes Clark would have never conducted a war in this manner that Bush has!

Is judge him on what he says. There's a lot of talk about his past, but we can only go on what he says now. If you do, he seems pretty solidly liberal.

"Go by what he says now"??????? Why should we??? Does that same standard apply to Bush? I would hope not! It shouldn't be applied to the Democrats either. I fully agree with the poster who thinks Clark is a Republican in disguise. I think, instead of "what they say now," we should pay *closer attention* to what they have said, and done, in the past.

As Molly Ivins keeps saying, you have to judge them by what they do, not by what they say. However, as far as Clark is concerned I think the jury is still out. Time will tell.

If I could tell some difference between his ideas and the Repubs I could make a judgement. Clark seems more like a Dem than he does to me.

I just don't buy this paranoiac 'Republican Plant' nonsense. He's not my choice, but he can win, and I take him at his word. Sorry if that offends your sensibilites. I see Clark as a man who has given considerable thought to both sides of the argument, and taken a stand. For the record, Kucinich is my man.

Well, maybe Lieberman...

Basically, the Clark trust issue comes down to whether or not an individual believes Clark at his word. The stances he has taken on the issues are pretty liberal, so it's up to the voters and the public to determine if those positions are indicative of his true beliefs.

My personal belief is that it would be quite difficult for him to fake sincerity on all of the issues on which he has taken decidedly left-of-center stances.

Besides, he voted for Clinton twice and Gore, so at least it appears that he was leaning Democrat for much longer than many have given him credit for.

Edit: yikes, I just joined the 700 (posts) Club. Somebody get me out of here! :)

Granted, Bush did say a lot of moderate things during the campaign, but did not sound sincere.

Clark sounds far more than moderate; he sounds progressive. He wouldn't last 2 seconds in a Republican primary. At worst, he would be a Republican of the Jeffords variety.

Bush sounded like he was reading cue cards---Wes seems to know what he is talking about.

Not just on foreign policy but on domestic issues as well. He really takes the time to learn these things and analyze them.

He mentioned the "learning readiness" concept and the foundations researching it when he talked about early childhood education yesterday.

I'm still voting for Kucinich. :)

I don't think you should worry about Clark. He's pretty left wing when you look at the issues. Even Michael Moore likes him!

Because I really think it has to be Clark if we're going to win.

There is more than a grain of truth in it which makes for the best humor.

And, though I know it is shallow, I can't help but wonder what Clark's thoughts are about the Reagan movie since he did vote for the nincompoop twice.

I agree with much of what you post about all of them, thanks it was interesting to read.

Just my 2 cents. :-)

sure they can trust Clark. However, I think he is a dynamic candidate who can blow B*sh's ship of fools right out of the water. He's a genuine hero, smart, talented and capable. I want him to be President so bad it hurts. Dean or Edwards will make a great VP. I want B*sh to go down like a mobbed-up club fighter taking a love tap in the second round.

Go Wesley Clark!!!!

all we got is "at least he aint bush."
Its also sad that anyone believes Calrk by his words.

Believe anyone by his words?

Sure. People do that everyday. In the spotlight of a
campaign where every breath you take is analyzed, they
would have had him skinned out by now. I believe him.
I do. And I'm not some ninny. I'm fifty and going on
my umpteenth presidential compaign. I am not easily
fooled. I believe Clark.

1. agree with your assessment of Dean. He without a doubt had THE issue - the War to mobilize the anger, frustration and energy of the grassroots. He tapped the anti-Bush sentiment early and often. Total Kudos to him for an unbelievable grassroots machine and web presence. However...

Take this all with a grain of salt as I am a canuck and won't be voting obviously, but, like most folks up here, follow US politics quite closely... we're all one happy continent, right? it is also my first post after a long time watching from north of the 49th.

Dean is a conduit for my rage, he stokes the fire - not unlike a talk radio host. which isn't neccessarily a bad thing, but when when you frame the question as from voting against Govenor Bush, to voting for someone, something just doesn't click with Dean...

Also I think that the number of Americans that share those views are already in his camp with little room to grow. not going to have soft middle appeal. not that Bush will have it either. I know he's not a one trick pony and there is more to his campaign than just the war, and honestly I have researched and read his other platforms. I agree with a lot of it. just doesn't grab me, maybe it is a personality thing. I want to like Dean more. I am down with the catch phrases.

Yes. I am angry. Dean is angry. But I am tired of being angry. looking for more...
Want to support somthing!

2. Wes Clark on the other hand seems to be the package. He's got 'It' as many have observed. the charisma, the thoughtfullness, the big picture. Intellectual critique as opposed to rage. The fact that he has republican connections doesn't neccessarily bother me. I have worked campaigns for guys similar to Wes in the past. Folks that don't neatly fit into a box. but most progressives do draw from the right, left and center. It isn't a bad things to have those connections in high & Right places, from the perspective of building coalitions, broad appeal and keeping your friends close and enemies closer. He's an insider. He knows what is going on. He may be too good to be true, totally manufactured to get the appeal he has. He gives me the kind of rush that the good side of Bill Clinton did. I worry about the General's campaign machinery, but have faith. I honestly believe he is the real deal.

3. Back to Dean, as much as Wes is the anti-Bush. Dean is the anti-Cheney. I would pay big $$$ for the PPV to see Dean vs. Cheney.

4. As an outsider, kinda stumped as to why Edwards isn't doing better.

5. As an outsider, Dick Gephart looks like yesterday's Democrat, but is cashing in every IOU he's ever had. Its a new era. we need a new thinker like Dean or Clark. Dick will run out of ethanol after Iowa.

6. Lieberman????? chuckle, chuckle

great forum

If only my mother had kept her dual citizenship then I could have gotten involved more.

If they gave him the attention received by Dean I think we'd see a showdown between Edwards and Clark, and I think Edwards might well win. These two are the candidates that the Right most fear IMO.

Welcome to DU by the way. :-)

if anyone can win, Clark can. His big problem is finding a way to get enough delegates for the party's nomination.

& what's best for my country- Kucinich all the way!

His stand on ME issues tips him off. i wish the country were mature enough to elect a Kucinich/Edwards ticket or a Edwards/Kucinich ticket.
Sharpton for press secretary, Clark for Sec of Defense, Kerry for Secretary of State, Braun for DHHS Secretary, Liberman for ...Liberman, Dean for Sec of Homeland Security.

Although I would consider Kucinich a progressive, Edwards is a moderate DLC democrat. Not a whole lot of philosophical overlap.

so to speak. If you never changed, you would be bush and his family. They haven't changed in 100 years. Samual Bush supported the Kaiser against America and allies in WWI. Prescott in WWII. Now sonny boy is taking us to WWIII.

There is no intellectual development, no growth, no philosophy. Of course, Wes Clark would have many ideas and ideas that evolved. The older you get, the more (HOPEFULLY) you grow and change. He's a philosophy major for heavens sake. :)

I appreciate his depth and breadth. He's fearless. He says he's a liberal. Name another candidate who has said that. He's pro-choice,
pro-education and affirmative action and fearless about saying it.
Yes, I can believe him. He's stuck his head out and hasn't backed off, doing it without hurting the other candidates by attacking them. He's a gentleman and the others like and respect him. He has Dean's
respect and that is something else.

My views on things were different only 1 year ago---I am constantly maturing or immaturing in one way or the other.

My views on things were different only 1 year ago---I am constantly maturing or immaturing in one way or the other.

Wesley Clark is a very likeable guy, and although he waffled on a few issues early the big debate on him is whether or not he is going to stick with the left after he is elected and has control of policy.

Dean is just too hard to support beyond his anti-war stance. He struggles with the gay issue, he is an NRA member, he is somewhat anti-environment (check out the Yucca nuclear waste site bill he supported), and worst of all he is as bad as Bush. Bush never apologizes for or admits when he is wrong and Dean is too anti-apologetic to me. I don't want a President that acts like he is never wrong, being so absolute takes away the voices of the people.

I like Kerry but I am getting the feeling that he's slipping too badly to catch up. I am helping his campaign out in Iowa on November 15th and will be working for the campaign in the State of Wisconsin, but if he loses and we finally have a frontrunner I would hope that I could get in at one of the other campaigns to put my hard work and dedication to the party to use.

Rp

Personally I very much liked the look of Bob Graham, but he's dropped out. Bummer. :-(

As it stands now I like think that Dean looks like a great candidate, Kerry looks OK then there is Wesley Clark.

Clark has a great CV, but I do not know very much about what policies he is standing for so I can't really make my mind up on Clark at present.

If truth be known there is a lot of choice in the Democrat race and more than one quality candidate, even with the withdrawal of the guy who was my favourite.

There are one or two candidates I'm not keen on. Joe L**b*rm*n seems to right wing to stand up to Bush and much as I respect Kucinich's supporters for their willingness to sell their candidate to me (always a good thing) I do think that by the same token he is not quite to my taste from the left of the field. Nonetheless, keep on grinding away folks!

Isn't any wonder that he is so close to the bottom.

So, you think the best bet for the Democrats is to promote....a Republican?