My thoughts on the Democratic presidential primary race

As you guys know, I don't share a whole lot of my opinions on the message board. But I have always loved politics, and I love talking about it. It's kinda sad that I can't really discuss it much on my own message board. Today, I'm going to make an exception, and give you an idea of where I'm coming from.

Full disclosure: Democratic Underground will not be endorsing any primary candidate, but we will support the eventual nominee. Washington, DC, has the first presidential primary in the country, and I will definitely be voting in it. I like all of our candidates, but I have narrowed my choice down to four (listed alphabetically): Barring some radical change in the race, I will almost certainly vote for either Clark, Dean, Edwards, or Kerry. I can't speak for EarlG or Elad.

How I view the race.

I think there is no doubt now that Howard Dean is the frontrunner and the guy to beat. His fundraising edge, and his excellent grassroots organization will keep him in the race long after many have dropped out.

Eventually, those who oppose Dean will coalesce around an "anyone but Dean" candidate. My guess is that this person will be either Clark, Gephardt, or Kerry -- in that order.

If the "anyone but Dean" (ABD) people don't get their act together quick enough, then this is going to be a one-man race, with only a perfunctory challenge from the ABD candidate. But if the ABD people see the writing on the wall early, set aside their differences, and put their massive resources behind the ABD candidate, there will be an exciting (but costly) two-person race that could last through many of the primaries.

My best guess is that we will have a two-man race, because the divide in the Democratic Party is very real. But I don't see it as an essentially ideological split. I see this primary as a competition between two competing general election strategies: The "excite the base" strategy (represented by Dean) and the "appeal to the center" strategy (represented by the ABD candidate).

Dean's opponents believe, deep down, that Dean's strategy will spell disaster in 2004. They look at 1992 and 1996 and they see how Clinton won by appealing to the center, and they believe that that is the tried-and-true way that a Democrat can win. I believe that their argument has merit.

However, I also believe that the country has changed very much in the last ten years, and is increasingly polarized. I read in Time magazine that Karl Rove carries around a graph with him everywhere he goes that shows the increasing polarization of the electorate, and the decreasing proportion of swing voters. This tells him: Whatever you do, you've got to turn out the base.

If we want to re-run 1992 and 1996 then we should pick the ABD candidate. (I don't really draw much of a lesson from 2000, because I believe Gore did not choose any clear electoral strategy. Just my opinion.) It is, after all, the formula that has worked for us in the past.

For me, personally, the choice is between the "safe choice" (the ABD canndidate) and the gamble (Dean). Now, before you get upset by my characterization of Dean as a gamble, please hear me out...

If we pick Clark or Kerry or some other highly respected establishment candidate, very few outside observers are going to call it a mistake. We would be making a very sober choice based on our interpretation of our previous successes. The pundits will tell us how we "did the right thing" and Washington insiders would wipe their brows with relief. If we do the safe choice I think we will win or lose by a squeaker. 51/49 either way. If we lose everyone will say "well, we did the best we could, but Bush was unbeatable."

If we pick Dean, we are taking a greater risk. The pundits and Washington establishment will tell us that we made a dangerous or foolhardy choice of someone who is either "too liberal" or "unelectable" or "too angry" or whatever. Personally, I believe it is a risk, but it is a risk worth considering. I saw Ed Rendell use the term "lightning in a bottle" to describe Dean, and I think he may be exactly that. I believe that the Republicans are scared to death of the guy because they have no idea what he can do. (Essentially, Dean would be following the strategy that Republicans have followed recently: Fire up the base.) If we nominate Dean, I think we'll either win by a decisive margin (53/47), or lose by a landslide (61/39).

The question for me, as I decide who to vote for, is whether to vote for the possibility of lightning in a bottle, or to do what I believe is safe.

That's how I see it right now. Tomorrow, who knows? ;-)

Specifically Dean/Clark or Dean/Kerry, with the "safer" VP balancing the "lightening"?

Right now that seems logical to me (but as you said, tomorrow, who knows?)

I think he would be wise to pick an "establishment" type as VP. Clark or Kerry would provide a little bit of foreign policy cover for Dean.

I think he would make a huge mistake if he chose someone who is known as a liberal.

If we choose a "safe" candidate then it will be too easy for diebold to swing the vote. So it's either repeat 2000, or take the risk and possibly crush the repubs....

of course a guy like Edwards, who seems less DLC than clark, could rally....hell we could even end up drafting gore, nobody knows yet

The ABD candidate cannot represent the "centrist" side. Dean himself is centrist in liberal clothing. The ABD candidate cannot beat Dean this way. They must appeal the THE PARTY as a whole. The candidate who will beat Bush will be the candidate who seeks to unite our party and not divide it in some war that only benefits a self serving Dean.

On edit I am adding: That a "War" that will only benefit the self serving candidate who seeks to further divide. If Clark or Kerry or Gep choose the be the ABD candidate in a war that takes sides, they are just as self serving.

But right now the perception is that he is a dangerous liberal, based on exactly two things: The war, and civil unions.

I suspect that if Dean gets the nomination, he will immediately and decisively make efforts to paint himself as a centrist. If I were him, and I got the nomination, I would immediately run ads talking about the importance of "protecting the 2nd Amendment right to Keep and Bear arms" or talking about his centrist record in VT.

the primaries. It's the logical thing to do. It would be a waste of time to go after swing voters right now.

One of the reasons I am a Democrat today is because I wanted to help elect Howard Dean. Before that, I was an independent who voted for democrats, but I was never active in the primary process; as a matter of fact, I was quite ignorant of it. I'm a moderate, and I believe that Dean has the best chance of appealing to centrists and moderates everywhere. That's why I disagree with those who think Dean is some kind of risk. (And to tell you the truth, I feel so strongly about that that sometimes I question whether that is indeed the reason they're dismissing him.)

If he wins the nomination, their fears will quickly be put to rest. Independents, swing voters, and moderates who know about him like him very much already, and this will only increase in a general election.

Here's why: he's already won that fight and the typical right wing boneheads tried to beat him in Vermont. About 70% of Vermont strongly opposed Civil Unions. Dean went out and made the whole 2000 campaign about dignity, respect, diversity and human rights. He can't be argued successfully on this issue.

Here's something else to consider. I work with a devout Roman Catholic woman at work. Several months ago I mentioned Dean to her and she immediately said she didn't like him because of Civil Unions. She lives in NH, by the way. Today we talked about him again. She is disgusted with Bush. She voted for him and feels let down. She's digusted with how things are going in Iraq. She's disgusted with how horrible Bush is about money. She wants someone new. We talked about Civil Unions again. I told her that Dean doesn't think the government should be dictating who the church has to marry but that Civil Unions are about rights, not religion. She agreed with me that everyone should have the same rights and she wouldn't have a problem with Civil Unions, she just didn't want it called "gay marriage". The only problem she had was the word, not the rights...just the word. Dean presents the argument in this same way. She is now open to the idea of voting for Dean despite how she used to feel about Civil Unions. During the fight in Vermont, the voters were disgusted by the hate the GOP brought out into the open. Now about 70% of Vermont supports Civil Unions.

As for Dean being portrayed as a liberal, well, since he doesn't worry about it and says if balancing the budget is liberal, then so be it, call him a liberal. He associates the label with things swing voters relate well to.

This man is smart and very, very intuitive. He is able to see what people want and he's willing to adjust to represent those wants. He's mutable fire, through and through. He looks, listens and watches, figures out what most people want and that's what he gives them. He's not so arrogant that he's approaching this like he knows what's best for everyone and to hell with what the people want. He's going out and asking, listening and responding to the people, and fighting their fight on their behalf. He's not doing it just so he can win, he's doing it because he has always wanted to really serve the people to the best of his ability. Lucky for all of us, he's VERY able.

I think Gore's move to endorse early was divisive and self-serving. It really saddens me. And angers me. The party should put forth its strongest candidate. How do you find out who that is? Primaries, caucuses - remember the quaint old days when we voted - and counted the vote?

Gore's attempted circumvention of the process is disgusting - and he essentially called for the other candidates to drop out - NOW - for all the supporters who have given hours of sweat and shoeleather and hope to another candidate - just forget that dream - MY dream is better.

This may put Dean over the top. But maybe many of us will keep fighting for our vision of democracy - our guy, our way. And maybe the best man - or woman - will win.

I saw Gore give an enthusiastic endorsement of Howard Dean. Last I checked, Gore was still a private citizen and has every right to endorse whomever he wants whenever he wants. Plenty of endorsements have been given by all sorts of people to ALL of the candidates...many of them months ago. Gore didn't call for anybody to drop out of the race, he simply made an endorsement of one candidate.

Granted, it's a HUGE endorsement, but I fail to see how his endorsement is any different than the hundreds that have been given so far in this sense. You make it seem as if Gore is single-handedly responsible for picking a candidate. He's not. We will still have primaries and caucauses and, based on that, the party WILL put forth its strongest candidate. Gore is just one man with an opinion that he has every right to express.

yeah, right...then how come nobody showed up when I announced a press conference to give my endorsement?

Gore's move showed a total lack of class and political commonsense, so in that sense- I suppose that we should have expected it.

Big unions? Senators? Past Presidents or Vice-Presidents? At what political level is it not permissable to endorse a candidate?

You DO realize what you're suggesting, don't you?

I think annointing a candidate early is a mistake. Dean is the centrist and the DLC candidate. I see Clark as the risk that can pull our party and nation into the future. He has the moderate cover, so he can take more left policy positions. I see Clark as able to break traditional party loyalties of Republicans and make it a race on issues. A Dean/Bush race will be the same old politics. Who can ignite their base enough to vote. I'm tired of those politics. I wanted to see a true primary. I'm tired of a few small, mostly white states deciding our candidates. I want a primary that allowed a better cross section of our country to decide the candidate. I'm looking forward to the primaries after NH and Iowa.

I think Dean represents the DLC wing of the party. His fight to gain the support of people who do not like Bush-Lite has been dishonest in my opinion. Those who want to bring our party back to it's brilliance, cannot support a man who has in his entire career defined what is wrong with the DLC. I like Clark and will support him in the nominating process if he comes out ahead and can beat Dean. Don't get me wrong, I will fight for Kerry to the end, but right now what is more important is stopping Dean.

I would like to see a fair fight between Kerry and Clark to be that man to win the nomination. I think they both represent the real progressives who also have a good balance in foreign policy matters. Both men have stood up against tyranny here and abroad and both men are standing for my values and the values of our party.

What I want to know is can the Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry and Clark people come together to make sure that we have a candidate who can beat Bush and unite our party. All four of those men have showed they are willing to fight for that goal. I think we put Dean aside for a while and have fair fight to the finish between the four.

I'm up for that fight. Are all of you? (not talking to Dean people).

I too want a candidate who can unite the party and the country.

is going to unite the party or the country? Do you think that some trying to sabotage Dean to prevent him from winning the nomination when it's clear he has more supporters than anyone else in the race qualifies as "uniting" the party? Did you even stop to think that if those in the party who don't want Dean to be the nominee is successful in sabotaging him that the majority of voters will be so angry and disgusted that they won't bother vote at all?

Whoever EARNS the nomination NEEDS to be the nominee. There needs to be NO sabotage, dirty dealing or pig piling on any of the candidates.

thx Skinner

BTW despite my current sig I'm torn between Dean and Clark

Skinner. I like your analysis.

Again, if one took the money and manipulation of the process out of the factor, we would ONLY be left with the ideological split and could prognosticate based on that.

As one who leans a bit more to the left, I would have no issue since I really don't expect a candidate to please me in every regard.

No matter how Dean does and no matter my disagreements with him, I will forever be grateful to him for reaching out to those who had felt disenfranchised.

Joan Didion while being a cumbersome writer made it very apparent in her book, "Political Fictions" that we were not viewing apathy but disgust. Dean reached out to the disgusted and communicated. Good for him.

BTW, I belong to the school of DU'ers that believe you should participate more not less. I really feel that it does no harm to your credibility as an arbiter of the rules ( nor Elad's nor Earl's)to play along with us and does more good in the long run.

And asks no omen but his country's cause. -Homer

And it's AWFULLY good to get your take on this. Thanks

I see a bit more 'do or die' on this Tuesday afternoon. I believe the middle will want what the base wants- if they can just get a fresh reminder of what that is. We grow increasingly desperate for the basics.

In a tumultuous state of political affairs, ABD is more risky than a Dean candidacy. Otherwise, we run the risk of a repeat of 2000.

onedit: need to hear from you more Skinner

Funny how people seem to forget what happened in 2002. Looking at it objectively, even before the votes were cast, the Democratic strategy was a disaster. It was bad enough that they didn't distinguish themselves from Bush, but even when they had control of the Senate they allowed Bush to control the agenda--from 9/11, to the Dept. of Homeland Security, and the corporate corruption issue. These were three issues that should have buried Bush, and instead we let him ride them to complete control of Congress. In order for the Democrats to win in 2004, whoever the candidate is, they need to fix the mistakes from 2002.

from me.

But back in early 1992 everyone, and I mean EVERYONE said that Bill Clinton was totally unelectable. Not only were they saying that President Bush obviously had the election sewn up because he was so frigging popular after the Gulf War, but Bill Clinton? No one had heard of him. He was a Governor from a small southern state no one had ever heard of.

I think the notion that Dean is unelectable is ludicrous. But I don't think he's the only electable candidate. I think your other choices (Clark, Kerry, and Edwards) are all equally electable if they win the nomination.

And I do hope that in the end we all unite behind the nominee. And may the best man win. And the best man will definitely be the Democrat, whoever he turns out to be.

I have beeen waiting to see what Gore would do. I am writing my annual email to the 5500 members of our family in this country. In it I am following his lead and telling our relatives to throw their support to Dean. We all know that we need to get the bush bums out and imprisoned . We also need someone who will, by executive order, in his inaugrural address abolish ALL the crap bush has put his name on. I have been a Gore supporter for many years but for the good of the country and its senior citizens it is time for a change.. Pegleg Thd.

I agree with your analysis!

I just got through listening to Janeane Garofalo on i.e.america talking about why she likes Dean and also she said she's going to have a radio show starting in February 2004! This is fantastic news!

these days the safe vote has questionable appeal with the voters on the left and the Right.

Insightful observation and I rather go safe with Clark then Dean myself even though ABB is better then who we have in the white house but we need to win in 2004, we can't afford another four years with George W. Bush. I say vote for the safe choice and a leader out of the loop of politicians. We need change and out of Iraq and build peace with comfortable alliance so we can end terrorism .With experience and wisdom to lead like General Wesley Clark, he's a man of honor that most Americans can trust, respect and vote for!

Thanks again for expressing your opinion and allowing me to express mine!

am so Happy that he has endorsed the man whom I trust to be the President Of The United States Of America!

You replied to my # so I will agree with you about Al Gore.

He is free to endorse who he sees fit and Howard Dean has been saying he's the closest in matching Al Gore in issues. I heard of the visits to The Gore's home in Nashville, out of all the candidates it's reported he was the only one.

I do think Al Gore's timing was off, only for the fact he should of put more thought into other candidates' campaign workers who devoted many hours working hard for their candidate, many who are Al Gore supporters too.But just announced to everyone in the Democratic Party to get behind Howard Dean who has the eye on the prize just isn't enough for me and others.

As the media makes a monoply out this sudden announcement, the inconsideration of not letting other candidates themselves know of his decision. It speaks volumes of his actions, Lieberman was caught off guard like they all were.But for Lieberman to even run in 2004 was a surprise and say not if Al Gore runs. I thought that wasn't right after he choose him over others in 2000. But they say that's Politics among peers.

I posted a few days ago on the Howard Dean thread and I expressed the winning organization that the Dean team as by tapping into liberal sites like The Democratic Underground and my corresponding to Al Gore I told him it's the most honest media coverage we have online and the information who supports or not a candidate is priceless! So there's no surprise he 's supporting Howard Dean but it's just the timing for all those who are giving their heart and soul into their candidate should have been respected a little more then what was expressed.

I still stand by my candidate General Wesley Clark as much as I think the world of Al Gore and I feel he would understand my passion for a leader that I think would make a great president.

I'm just glad that he is behind my candidate and I trust Al Gore's judgement as to the time and place.

A lot of People are coming out with endorsements of the candidates and Al Gore can certainly give his hard thought out view on whom he chooses.
If he had endorsed someone else I would not begrudge him that...I would still admire and respect him for everything he has done for our Country and for us.

And I look forward to hearing what he has to say on the campaign trail!

because you know we are a wide range of voters on the Left! :-)

But I can say and I hope in our hearts if we truly want Bush gone we all come together what ever candidate is nominated, be it General Clark, Howard Dean, or whoever....Bush needs to go!

The Dean being a gamble is a new perspective for me. I think you are right, but in my opinion it would be a bad bet.

You should share your thoughts more often! And the other admins too. It would be nice to hear from them as well.

me--maybe The NewsHour, the source escapes me.

What it boils down to is when the ReThuglican base
was energized, it took much more power than it's
percentage of the population would indicate. These
people were boiling angry at Clinton, and they stoked
the fires until they took it all.

It took the stealing of the presidency in 2000 to wake
us up. Or maybe ME up. I had no idea about the
corporate media, the fairness doctrine, corporate
personhood, friendly fascism, and all of the other
things I've learned about since that Supreme Court
bitchslap.

Now we have an equally angry, equally mobilized base,
and the only way we will win is if we use that anger.
No attack, no criticism, nothing, is going to dissuade
the Bush base from him. He could eat a baby in the Oval
Office and they would say it was Clinton's fault.

The only way we can beat Bush is to stop playing it
safe, stop playing to the middle. We have to stand
for something. The pink tutus in the middle have
cost us enough.

Thanks for coming out to talk to us, Skinner. :hi:

I've said this repeatedly here. Repukes ran against peace and prosperity. They "won" because of the right's intense hatred for Clinton. It "fired up the base" (a phrase we've been hearing a lot lately) and drove them to the polls. There are a number of reasons we "lost" in 2000 -- bad campaign, corruption in Florida, a biased court, spoiler third party -- but the fact that the rw got its people into the voting booths is a major factor. That's why I believe there is nothing wrong with "anger." "Anger" will propell one of our guys into the WH next year.

P.S. Skinner, your analysis is right on. I wish you would post more!

if Dean is the Nominee. I don't get that logic. I don't know whether Dean is a safe or dangerous candidate but I truly don't believe that any that voted for the vice-president will now back Bush*. I've been wrong before but somehow I don't think I am on this one.

The single biggest mistake we Democrats make time and time again is our complete failure to look toward the future. Every single election for us is about getting rid of someone and putting out fires.

The Republicans have planned ahead. They started planning to dominate the national dialogue and all offices at least 30 years ago. Now they are here. Republican concerns go on the table of what is important to us as a nation.

30 years ago we spoke of the importance of things like civil rights and equality for women.

Today we speak of an amendment to prevent homosexuals from marrying, the end of affirmative action, and repealing Roe v. Wade.

I dearly hope that we can all begin to think about something beyond getting rid of Bush. I don't mean to minimize the importance of our being Bush-less, but there is a hell of a lot more than just Bush at stake here.

As long as we take the safe, Republican lite route - there will be no change. And friends - we need to change. We need to change things badly. We need to take control of the national agenda again. Our concerns need to go back on the table.

I don't know if anybody else noticed, but this thread is a defining line about DU, and I don't mean about how DU will choose a primary pick or anything like that.

See, I've always been kind of a voyeur of the Right. I watch them because, frankly, they scare the shit out of me. As a VoR, I've spent some time watching FR.

Here's where the defining line comes into play. RimJob over at FR sets the rules for the debate, and let no poster deviate from the FR party line.

Skinner rarely, if ever, let's his POV on an issue be known to the general DU public. He allows free debate amongst the Democrats reign. The pain we've experienced in the various candidate threads is a testament to Skinner's belief in the free flow of ideas.

So when you come down to it, Skinner runs this place more like a debating society and takes the role of the professor that sponsors said society, whereas RimJob runs his place with an iron fist and a brown shirt.

Thanks, Skinner, for letting us play in your house. You views are very important to me, and I respect you enough to take what you've written here into consideration as the primaries proceed.

Very well said, and I totally agree.

I am so angry with Gore I could whoop his ASS. I am taking it personally because I feel as though he took my choice away from me not unlike the Florida situation.

No votes have been cast, no primaries have been held, the last debate hasn't even ocurred.

Gore has made me live to regret my vote for him in 2000. I think of Gore as a selfish spoilsport who is trying to control some dying hope that he will ever be a successful candidate in any regards ever again.

I a border on RAGE here at this moment. How DARE Gore determint the nominee. He is unprofessional and if he wished to be a true leader he would have taken the high road and supported the nominee.

MY VOTE WON'T COUNT!

I just don't see it. He endorsed Dean. He did not cancel the primaries. His vote counts just as much as yours, no more. If you want Clark, work for his campaign and vote for him. That's what the Dean supporters did and are still doing. The primaries haven't even begun yet.

Regarding the political climate WRT the current Presidential campaign, I agree that Dean could be regarded as "lightning in a bottle". Many times I've heard (& seen) people say "Everything changed after 9/11". My personal feeling is that everything (politically speaking) did change, but on 12/12/2000.

happened was because bushco was asleep at the wheel. We should never forget that it was their National Security that let it happen.

Gore's endorsement improves Dean's already formidable fundraising capabilities. It's the $2k a pop money that will start coming in now.
Big Money moves toward campaign's with momentum.

That's going to be hard to fight against on the part of the rest of the field.

she-bear and i decided to invest 10% of our net income in the next dem president because we knew the next dem prez would champion camaign reform and really take the money out of politics.

hmmmmmpf..dean has done the exact opposite, insuring that the invisible primary will forever make my vote irrelevant.

i will not fund my own disenfranchisement. he'll get my vote if he's the one but he won't get that hard saved 2000. i was thinking of using it to upgrade the car but we decided last night to save it for the next chance...whenever that may be.

I want Bush gone. Plus I think my guy will make ...an extraordinary president.

Skinner for some great insights. I fully agree that it will be Dean and ABD down the stretch.

I can only add that this primary will also be about whether Dems want to change the
face and direction of the party. Voting for Dean will definitely bring about such a change,
whether or not he wins on 04.

...I asked you in the Admins Forum if you were going to be participating more in the discussions on DU, and this is the kind of thread I was talking about. I think your forthrightness about who you support, and why, makes you a little more accessible to us without sacrificing your authority over the board, nor compromising your fairness in any fashion. I for one hope that Elad and EarlG dig in too, when time permits.

Your analysis about the nominee being Dean or ABD is sound, although I come from the ABD camp not from wanting to appeal to the center, but from the Left (and an "excite the base" disposition) - so as you say, if the ABD people stay splintered along those lines (or any lines), and do not unify, it pushes it in Dean's favor. It's one heckuva dilemma, but that's what makes us political junkies - pondering all the 'what-ifs' and 'waitaminutes'.

After the dust settles from the primaries, my hunger to remove Bush from office will prevail over my political differences with the chosen nominee (if it should prove to be Dean or Clark), and above all, I am a realist who very well knows that Clinton won by grabbing the center, and that will likely be the way we will win this time. As the Iraq occupation, fears of terrorism, and an uneasy job market hold sway in the national consciousness, the Democratic nominee must appeal to what Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature" so we can work together to lift ourselves out of this mess.

I do believe, despite much of the acrimony and unpleasantness as of late, we will, if for nothing else but survival, principle, or necessity, pull together for the common goal we have had all along - to elect ourselves a legitimate president once again and send Bush back to clearing brush in Crawford.

Hold on tight, everyone. ;-)

Thanks for sharing your insights, Skinner. Please do so more often.

Although I am not so sure that Clark is the "establishment" candidate that some might think. He was asked to resign from the military. His recent views - if we can believe that he is sincere - which I do, indicate he may be one of the more liberal Democrats running.

But I agree with you about Dean being a gamble. If he continues to get out more of the base, it is a gamble I would be willing to take. Although I am a Kerry supporter, I am also a realist. I will support the candidate that the people choose in the primaries. They are a much larger group of people than DU and we have to respect the opinion of our voters in the primaries. It would not make sense to ignore their wishes and say they are wrong and we need to nominate someone more to the center. That is a betrayal to our base and our most loyal supporters.

(edit spelling)

as if Dean hasn't done both. And that's why Dean has such a good chance to win both the primary and the GE. He excites the base, and he appeals to the center. He'll have no trouble painting himself as a centrist, primarily because he hasn't painted himself as anything different. He believes what he believes, leaving it up to you to determine how left or center he is. As far as he's cponcerned, he's just him. Like me, he believes that positioning people on this imaginary spectrum is bad for everyone.

However, I think that currently Dean is having problems with the perception of his politics, and the perception among the Washington establishment and the Punditocracy is that he is too liberal. Or at least, "too abrasive".

It seems pretty obvious to me at least that Dean is already trying to undo the perception and cast himself as a centrist -- albeit a centrist who appeals to the base.

If he gets the nomination, I think he'll make an even more obvious effort to do this. Hopefully, by then, he would still be able to change the perception. In 2000, Gore never effectively countered the caricature that the Republicans painted of him.

I put it on the media. Some press as early as May was trying to cut through the misperception. But as late as October I still heard NPR calling him the most liberal of the bunch. It's very bizarre.

I don't know how to explain it. I looked at his issues page a year ago, and never thought of him as anything but centrist. ut at the same time, everyone and his brother in the press was calling him liberal. I never saw HIM do it, except to coopt Wellstone's catch phrase.

So I guess I see the whole "left liberal" thing as being the product of two things. One, people misinterpreting his "democratic wing of the democratic party" line. Two, people misunderstanding the nature of his appeal. His being anti war might have done it, his civil unions signing might have done it, or it might have simply been a kneejerk reaction to the kind of support he was getting even early on from a wide range of democrats. The only thing I can say for sure is that his perception problems, which DO exist, didn't result from anyone visiting his website or asking him.

IMHO, part of the problem is that the media is lazy. I don't think they mean to deliberately mischaracterize Dean's record. They just don't care enough to study it themselves.

The golden spike. Now all we have to do is convince about 99,999,998 oithers! Well, subtract the actual DU population and maybe 30% of those who bought franken's book.

Actually, this is something we have to take into account, a big difference between the 2004 cycle and the 2000 cycle. We have something like a dozen great books published outlining what's going on in the media and the administration. I think this gives us the edge. I think almost ANY D has the chance of beating Bush, because it's going to be about US more than the candidate.

You're work alone with this website has helped make the media irrelevant. People like Rush telling freepers to come here is FANTASTIC, because it give US the power to control the debate.

Great to hear from you Skinner!! :toast:

who DRAFTED him to run, a liberal who appeals to the center, and is also, quite frankly, a risk as well.

That's why he could be the one.

I like John Edwards, and John Kerry. But more than anything, I'd like to see the democratic process play out.

Real simple.

You mentioned that you'd vote for him. Do you see a scenario where Edwards gets the nom? One thing about him, everyone seem to like him...Deaners and Clarkers...and compared to Kerry, he doesn't get as much grief over his IWR vote. I could still see Edwards pulling this out...

If he wins SC, then he could perhaps pull it off, but I doubt it.

I like the guy a lot, and I might vote for him, but I doubt he'll get the nom. My gut tells me that he's hoping for the Veep slot.

Thanks for sharing.

Might I humbly suggest that an insurgent Kucinich could likely be the ultimate "anybody but Dean" candidate. Assuming Dean wins NH and Iowa, I think Kerry and Gephardt will be done. If DK gets 3rd place in Iowa (which is very very possible despite CW), DK could be strong 2nd or 3rd in AZ, NM, MI, ME, WI, and HI all leading up to big showdown on March 2. DK will be strong in CA, MN, WA & OH and will certainly do well enough to be in race until convention.

Of course, a few DK wins including IA would be excellent for DK, but all he needs is strong 2nd & 3rd place showings in key larger states to be much stronger than Brown was going into convention in 1992. Remember the '92 handwringing about whether and when Jerry would get to address the convention? I expect it will be quite similar in 2004.
Please don't forget that Jerry Brown was the last candidate left standing as alternative to Clinton. I seriously believe it will be Dean/Clark vs. Dennis going into convention. Only unknown is degree to which Dean/Clark have it sown up. DK will eventually be heard despite media and pundit belittlement. But will it be during prime time? Stay tuned.

The Gore endorsement actually helps the DK insurgency since it both cements Dean as establishment front runner and it undermines Gep, Kerry, Edwards and Clark, helping to diminish the field for DK.

End the occupation of Iraq will be the theme from here on out.

Call me delusional if you want but my belief is sincere and informed.

I don't know if you are a Washington insider or not but I think the Washington insiders have been in a bubble too long and they have lost touch with the rest of the country.

There is no safe candidate in this election. Also, IMHO opinion Bush should lose in a landslide to any Democrat, but with the possibility of rigged elections, that's a wild card too.

Just an old woman's opinion that doesn't mean much anyway. Peace.

But I certainly am not an insider. I watch the same TV as you, and read the papers. I forsee no situation where Bush would lose by a landslide.

I love DU because underneath all of the sometimes annoying sniping and sometimes wacky reactions (including from me!), there are so many thoughtful and intelligent people. Most of all Skinner.

I agree with most of your analysis, but my take is -- and always has been -- that if we run the "safe" Democrat, like Gep or Kerry, we lose in a decisive way. As outrageous as we may believe it to be, Bush is a popular president and enough people buy his macho persona. I just don't think we can win with a safe candidate. Democrats are not overwhelmingly popular or successful these days. We're doing okay, but the Repubs have a leg up for sure.

Dean may be a gamble, but he may be our only shot. (For the record: I don't classify Clark as a safe Dem, he's more of a Dean gamble, in my opinion, but he either started too late or just doesn't have the same appeal.)

The only way we are going to win this is with a candidate that can bring exceptional money, momentum, and manpower. The only candidate who's proven to be able to do that is Howard Dean.

And what an insightful thought it is. :-)

All I know is whomever the dems nominate, he'd better be strong because the repuke establishment has got loads of money and will do anything necessary to keep that bastard Bush* (and Cheney) in power.

on what is going on around the Democratic universe these days. I think your thoughts on ABD are valid. If the ABD folks, like myself, want for this to not turn into a one man race, we need to get behind someone, and fast.

The only problem, is that my candidate is Dennis Kucinich. And quite frankly, you analysis would tell me to pick a centrist candidate. If I wanted that, I'd be a Dean supporter. So I seem to be stuck, not being able to join the other ABD folks.

DK will be the ABD candidate! Skinner did mistep IMHO by suggesting that Dean was not centrist and that ABD would be to Dean's right. In fact Dean is centrist and ABD will be to his left, and rightly so.

if Green, Braun, Sharpton and Kucinich supporters could all join behind one candidate. Otherwise, it may be too late.

I don't think ABD candidate can beat Bush II. He will be likely to lose in a same way Gore did, very small margin and even winning the popular vote.

Dean is a gamble but it is only gamble we have. Dean's campaign is the only place where angry moderates and greens go hands in hands.

Dean's campaign is the key to reconstuct the future of currently disintegrating Democrat party.

Hertopos

I think that you are misreading the mood of the people. There is a real groundswell of anti-bush/anti-establishment feeling in the country. Rightfully, or mistakenly, it is focused on Dean.

On almost (if not all) every issue, the people are against cowboybootie. They are aware that this is a government of tycoons and tycoon enablers. They are baffled why there is a "war" going on in Iraq. The only thing holding them is the flag-waving, "support our troops", "god bless America", tripe fed them by the White House.

They want someone to articulate that apprehension, that feeling that someing is wrong. To "play it safe" and select a candidate that will offer just a pale imitation and mealy-mouthed platitudes in opposition to the Repugs is to give them the election. It was tried in 2000 when Gore was scolded when he showed some anger, and retreated to the squishy center and tried to everything to everybody.

Dean can win because he's a fighter. I'll take "lightning" in a bottle instead of pablum in a bottle as offered by the ABD.

Give me "lightning" everytime!

summed it up in a nutshell. This puts to rest alot of the "chats" I have been having with myself. I like the "lightning" 'cause it excites and rejuvenates me, but "safe" gives me security. I think you speak for alot of us who are grasping for the "right" candidate to release us from the "Bush bondage," and I for one have not only struggled early on with choosing who I think would beat Bush, but also someone that would set our country back on the right track.

Thank-you for speaking out.

I believe you've hit the nail squarely on the head! I have chosen 'lightning in a bottle', because I personally 'sense' that the electorate is ready to reject * and his whole cabal, and are looking for a candidate who is clearly NOT *. I believe that candidate to be Gov. Howard Dean. Gov. Dean has appealed to disaffected Democrats to 'come home', and has also appealed to independent voters and disgruntled Republicans to do the same, something we as a party must do if we are to win, regardless of who the eventual nominee is. :)

and, being a firm believer in ABB, and unwilling to take any risks whatsoever with the likelyhood of 2 SCOTUS justices in the balance this election cycle, I'm sorry but I just cant do anything but oppose Dean in the primary. If he becomes the candidate - i'll support him, block walk, go to punkvoter venues and register people, do whatever i can - but I just have to play this one safe.

Our strategies that worked in 1992-96 are no longer considered safe.

Everything is different. Everything thing we do is a gamble, that's why tensions are high right now.

But i'll tell you this: the sure-fire way to lose is to not pick a strategy at all. True, we can go in two directions from this point. Anybody without the luxury of a crystal ball is just going with their gut on what the winning strategy is. The best thing we can do is let that strategy take its form when we emerge with a nominee - then COMMIT to it. It may not be the direction you'd hoped we had taken, but how often does that happen in politics?

the sure-fire way to lose is to not pick a strategy at all.

I might get skewered for saying this, but I think this is the biggest mistake Gore made in 2000. When I look at all of the candidates, I feel that Dean is the only one that seems to have a clear strategy to win. The others seem rudderless. It worries me greatly.

I greatly respect your opinion and your thoughts are helpful, whatever my own decision may be.

How about a ticket with both lightening and safe? ;-)

Julie

Don't have much disagreement, although I'd be curious to see what you think about the Electoral College in this.

That's why I'm comfortable inhaving Dean as my second choice. The ABD candidate will likely be Clark, and I'd rather take a chance on a narrow win than risk a landslide loss. I'm not much of a gambler.

However, should Dean beat ABD, of course Dean-as nominee-is my choice.

In the unlikely event that Kerry, Gephart or Edwards is ABD, I'm uncertain which way I would go.

Thanks for your take on this race, Skinner. It makes me very sorry we don't get to see more of your writing. Your style is very readable and the piece falls together very well and logically. Thanks.

...and it's been a life long enough to remember Ike...I'm so pleased to hear that the good Dr. Dean doesn't care if he gets me in his corner or not...makes my decision on who to vote for so much easier. ABD!

I also greatly appreciate Stickman Gore informing me that I'm unpatriotic if I continue to fight for my candidate. Just gives me the warm fuzzies don'tcha' know.:puke:

Democrates love to whine about the "extreme right" that has taken over the repugnacious party and how evil they are, so the Dean's & Gores of the world have decided the best thing to do is see how many non extreme rights & independents they can piss off...hey makes sense to me!

People can blather all they want that Dean isn't really a liberal and that after he wins the nomination he'll show the world what a centrist he really is....bullpuckey.

Do you really think people like me are going to believe him? Not a chance in hades my friends...I'm tired of lying politicians...we've already got the compassionate conservative leading us down the road to perdition...I've got no intention of voting for a democratic pretender just like I didn't vote for the republican one that is in the process of destroying this country.

For those of you who truly believe Dean can morph into a man with the answers (I've yet to see any answers...just a lot of what is wrong with no what will make it right) work for him...that's what Democracy is all about...BUT DON'T FOR ONE MINUTE THINK THAT I WILL STOP WORKING JUST AS HARD FOR THE MAN I KNOW CAN GET US OUT OF THE MESS WE ARE IN!

And Alphonse Gore can kiss my:kick: !!

Passion is good. :thumbsup:

But I hope people will make an effort to not respond in kind to this flame bait, or else this thread is going to go way off track.

Wasn't my intention to flame anyone, but for those of us who are Independents it gets a little old being told our votes aren't important and I do get passionate about it.

The dems were once the party of inclusiveness and comments like those made at the endorsement today put up walls...while the repugs seem to go out of their way any more to pretend they're inclusive and get away with it.

It is dangerous for our country to have one party run both the executive branch and both houses of congress (as we have all seen) and it's just flat wrong to use the for us or against us ploy that Gore used today...at least that's my opinion for what it's worth.:shrug:

I see a groundswell of pessimism about the possibility of beating Bush in 2004. Granted, this is a small population...anecdotal to the max.

I met with a group of my women friends...all ABB...and they are all over the place......one Clark, one Kucinich, who jokes about her candidate, one Dean, one leaning Kerry, one Gephardt, four undecideds who don't "like" politics. They all opposed the war, some actively...most not. Only one, besides me, thought it was possible to beat Bush. The one who said she thought he could be beat brought gasps from the group. Two this morning thought Gore had destroyed the party.

I am the only bumper sticker I see most of the time for a candidate in my community except for Bush...and not many of those.

Most don't think Dean can win and don't like "Lightening in a bottle"...but they seem more resigned than anything. I cannot light a fuse under them most of them and neither can Dean.

I just saw some poll this morning somewhere that said 70% of the Democrats believe Bush will be reelected. That is just pathetic when his reelect numbers are so low.

My conclusions? I agree we need to unite behind the ABD candidate, but it is too early to tell who that is right now. I am working in Clark's campaign...the only candidate on the platform that interests me at all.

That said..."Lightening" is going to ignite our interest or incinerate us...so I guess I agree with Skinner here. Maybe its the best tactic against the Republican money and machine..but again..we just don't know.

In the meantime, I am going to continue supporting Wes Clark because I agree completely with Kris Kristofferson's poetry:

"Just when the world is being dragged into the death spiral of an
unending cycle of violence by a vision-less, coldblooded collection of think-tank warriors goose-stepping their way
into the new millennium with a stunning lack of respect for human rights, the environment, or international law,
along comes a man with the proven credentials of intelligence, integrity, and courage singularly equipped by his spirit
and experience to lead us out of this mess.

Don't listen to what the lying liars say about him; listen to what he says. Wesley Clark is a prayer answered. Peace"

Amen

Now I don't mean that Dean is a conservative, though he has described himself as a fiscal conservative, refusing to okay the liberal programs his state legislature wanted to undertake because he didn't want to spend the money. But did you watch the Florida convention? Did you really find his performance more inspiring than the other candidates? I'm a Clark supporter, but I also saw something in Kerry and Edwards and Kucinich in that convention, while Dean seemed stale. And spiking the convention with out-of-staters struck me as being in poor taste after the 2000 fakery of out-of-staters pretending to protest counting ballots. But maybe I'm overreacting to that.

I think everyone knows the reasons why, despite being a fiscal conservative, Dean is unlikely to win the general election. The primary reason is his lack of foreign policy experience and not serving in Vietnam. At this time, people in this country are most disturbed by Bush's foreign policy and this is a guy who will not convince independents that he is stronger than a Republican on foreign policy. He won't convince veterans and he won't convince people in the armed forces. Unlike Clark.

When they open Dean's records as governor, we can also expect them to find another Willy Horton lurking. Not that I blame Dean for that, but the conservatives today are incredible calculating bullies -- they've tried to cast aspersions on Clark, and Dean is likely to have a paper trail as governor -- as would any governor -- that they will be able to use to their advantage. Yes, I know Dean is a fighter, but it won't be enough.

But really, I'd like you to vote for Clark because Clark's ideas are simply far more visionary. Do you know that on his website he has a 100-year plan? Do you think any other presidential candidate or president has ever considered what the effects of their actions will be in 100 years? This is a person who was recently CEO of an alternative energy company -- this could be the guy who stops the world from being dependent on oil. Do you know that on his website he has now broken down, state-by-state, how many lives he pledges to save by tightening clean air standards, how much the standard of living will rise in each family ($3,000) during his first term, how many additional teens will go to college, how many more people will be covered by health insurance...Here's a link if you're interested. http://clark04.com/issues/turnaround/states/ This is not a guy who is making politician promises. This is a man who makes plans and implements them. These are good plans, people.

I don't know how Dean supporters feel about their guy. I know when I think of Clark, I feel this excitement at the incredible job I believe he can do as president. I think he could be the most extraordinary president we have ever had in this country. Is that what the rest of you think about your guys? If you're not sure, could you please go to clark04.com and just explore a little more about what Clark is about, as opposed to thinking you've understood him by the content-less stuff you read in the papers? We all know what that's like.

Thanks.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_speech_environment_thenexthundredyears

Actually, if you beleive what he says in his book, Dean's Environmental Policy has always been conceived as a 100 yr plan, even in the early days of his Governorship.

The primary begins before any vote is cast with the fund raising contest and the polls. In essence, there's three parts: media, money and vote. The past six presidential elections have found that the candidate that leads by at least 1% of the MoE in the last national Gallup poll before the first primary will be the nominee.

If Dean knocks off Gephardt in Iowa and Kerry in N.H., then I think it comes down to Clark/Edwards as the anti-Dean.

In 92 & 96 I would give at least equal credit to Clinton's considerable political skills as I would to his centrist positions and I wouldn't discard the 2000 election. There was a backlash to centralism in 2000 that remains as a division within the party. So, imo, there is no safe candidate. Indications are from 2000 and 2002 that an establishment candidate might be the bigger gamble, imo. Democrats will vote for the democrat while repugs will vote repug and so the candidate with the most flexibility and political instincts will compete for the majority of independent votes. A quick primary will give a candidate more time to position themselves as well as more resources to control the pace in the general election.

I agree with Skinner about outside perceptions and do feel that no matter which candidate the election will be close. Like Al Gore, I believe that Dean is our best hope to beat Bush. I also disagree with those that think an endorsement should be nothing more than a 'rubber stamp' that comes later, and given that we are now entering the third stage of the primaries Al's timing is perfect, imo.

I've tried my best to stay away from threads regarding the primary, I've been trying to avoid opinions and biases against any of the democrats, because frankly I think they'd all do a good job. Except, of course, Joe Leiberman.

That said, given that I don't specifically support any of them, I'd place all my chips on Dean to win the nomination and general election.

He reminds me of a 1991 Clinton. I hadn't heard about him before the primary season but he just keeps getting bigger and bigger. He's the most charismatic of the lot, he's got a nice four-letter presidential name (OK, let's face it, presidential elections are scarcely about the issues), he's symmetrical, he's not afraid to go after southern votes, although I confess, if he wins the nomination and pulls some more confederate flag stunts he's going to put me in the cardiac ward. But I think he can win the south. I think he knows what to do to win the election, better than Gore, and he'll do what it takes; I think he's quite serious and will pick a great running mate.

Concerns about too liberal and angry are not terribly relevant, I think. Whoever wins the nomination will face similarly ridiculous allegations- too angry, too boring, too former-supreme-allied-commanderish, too liberal, to democratic, too notrepublican.

I think to beat an incumbent president you need the "lightning in the bottle". Otherwise you'll have a repeat of Clinton vs. Dole, with parties switched. I just don't think Dean is really as risky as people make him out to be. Clinton was flashy too.

Whoever wins the nomination will face similarly ridiculous allegations- too angry, too boring, too former-supreme-allied-commanderish, too liberal, to democratic, too notrepublican.

:thumbsup:

Yeah, don't ya just hate all those guys??? Great one, D_W!!!

:evilgrin:

Great analysis Skinner, I think it's time for some lightning! But I'm definitely ABB, all the way!!!

:hi:

To elaborate though: "Lightning in a bottle", can prove to be a "Flash in the pan".

What I am looking for, is straight forward honesty and leadership through some coming perilous times. I find this in Clark.

However......Although I like ALL of the candidates; regardless of whom comes out of this process; he/she will have my vote in '04.

I am not ashamed to say I'd rather vote Hitler, before I'd vote for bush. At least with Hitler, the evil was obvious, with bush it is devious. (Of course I might not vote for either if those were the only choices, but I am an advocate for 100% voter turnout, so to avoid the name 'hypocrite', I'd have to do something).

O8)

My usual disagreement to this, though...

They look at 1992 and 1996 and they see how Clinton won by appealing to the center

I really think that Clinton's wins had at least as much to do with his own formidable political skills as with his centrism. The "appeal to the center" strategy, by itself, is by no means a guaranteed winner, and it's what led to a lot of us doing you-know-what for you-know-who, even in 1996.

That said, I agree with the upthread discussion about Dean and the necessity/ability to appeal to *both* the base and the center.

I think that in the primary, most of the thinking on the part of voters should be about the substance rather than the strategy. Even in such a crucial election as this.

The reason I think this is that these political calculations are extremely complicated, it takes real expertise to do them. How you feel about the candidate is different, everyone is an expert on that.

He IS lightning in a bottle, but he is also SAFE. Dean isn't a liberal and his positions on policies and issues are very much within the mainstream. In fact, he is probably the closest to the mainstream out of all the candidates. The lightning in the bottle you speak of is not his views, issues or what he wants to do. The lightning in the bottle is his fight, campaign style and ability to inspire, motivate and connect with people. He is a very safe candidate who is setting a new precedent in how campaigns will be run from here on out. The argument of whether Dean appeals to the "liberal base" or middle of the road swing voters is moot in this election. This primary election isn't going to look like all the others. This is new, and a very bold and brilliant plan by Dean. He's been running a general election all along and he's managed to convince general election voters to be downright hungry to vote in the primaries. It's a whole new base. This is the one thing that those who oppose Dean fail to understand about this election cycle. Using conventional wisdom and past elections to predict the outcome is pointless because the entire playing field and influencing factors have completely changed.

The confidence Dean supporters have is not foolishness or lack of knowledge. Those close to this campaign can see what's happening clear as day. Even if all the other candidates joined forces behind just one of them, they still won't be able to stop Dean. Bush and Rove and the GOP have been using the same conventional wisdom and analysis that doesn't even apply to this particular race. Some in their ranks are starting to see the magnitude of what is happening. Bush will not be able to beat Dean. There's NO way he can as long as Deomcratic voters just get in line and vote for Dean. Dean is bringing so many new voters into the mix that even if Nader runs it won't hurt Dean enough to help Bush win.

whether we should make the safe choice or the risky choice depends on how far behind we think we are.

Personally, I'm afraid that we are starting pretty far behind, despite how much shrub has screwed up the county (screwing up the county isn't a guarantee of a loss -- Reagan screwed up the country). Bush is an incumbant, will have a ruthless campaign that will stop at nothing, will have $200 million to make up and spread lies about the "safe" candidate and has a bought and paid for media to boot. IMO, we need somebody who can work outside traditional media in order to communicate our message.

I guess I'm sick of all this political sewage in the meantime. I hear about Presidents that inspired generations, FDR, JFK, Reagan....even Clinton for me when I was 18 and voting for my first President. I want that lighting in bottle, I want the elecotrate to change, I want society to jump into the 21st Century....

I really hate to keep pointing this out, but only one Democrat -- LBJ -- has won a presidential election with a solidy majority of the popular vote in the past fifty years. Harry Truman didn't win a decisive victory. Neither did JFK. Carter barely won. Even in 1996, Clinton failed to get a majority of the popular vote. Gore, like Clinton, could only muster a plurality of the popular vote.

Even Skinner admits that Dean's general election strategy consists of firing up the base. That may have worked for Truman and JFK, back when Democrats actually represented a majority of the electorate. But with only 1 in 3 voters calling themselves Democrats, that's a not the kind of strategy that yield a decisive victory.

Frankly, Wesley Clark is the only candidate in the Democratic field that I think is capable of producing a major electoral shift. On the issues, he's a mainstream Democrat. But as a person, he simply doesn't fit the popular image of a Democrat, and because of this, I think he has the ability to reach voters who would ordinarily tune out the Democratic candidate, Dean included.

Here's how:

1) His record in Vermont is stellar. Nearly every elected Democratic official in the state (and some others) have endorsed him. Those who know him best believe in him. That speaks volumes about the man's record. His record is also one that just about everyone can admire and respect. He did a great job at representing everyone here. That's why in some elections over half of the registered Republicans even voted for him. He always got around 20% of their vote too, even 6 months after signing Civil Unions.

2) He neutralizes the gun issue. Too many Democrats just won't admit the fact that this issue alone loses SO MANY states and electoral votes. We've got all the gun control we need, we just need to enforce it properly. It's just plain stupid to let this be an issue.

3) Dean is a tighwad with tax dollars, but he always finds a way to deliver more than most at a lower cost. That alone is something that makes the man worth his weight in gold. His record shows he can do this.

4) Plain talking honesty and the ability to tie bad Bush policies in with the things voters don't like and are mad about. Instead of just saying the tax cuts were bad, Dean tells people why they were bad and how they are actually costing them a lot more than what they got in the cuts. Being able to make these connections in a way people "get" is something that works like a charm. Other Democrats don't do that anywhere near as good as Dean does.

5) He writes all his own speeches. When he talks to people he's got a sincerity and integrity that the others just can't match because he actually wrote it all himself. It's not him standing up and saying what someone else wrote for him. It just makes him more authentic.

Look at all the other candidates who have been elected for any office in the past, then look at Dean. Who got the most Independent votes and Republican votes as well as the most Democratic votes? It's Dean. Clark may have that same appeal, but no one knows for sure because he's never won a single election before. He's not tried and tested in this area. That doesn't mean he can't have a broad appeal, only that there is NO PROOF that he can whereas Dean has a proven track record of neutralizing Republican opponents time and time again by having broad appeal.

Brilliance.

Dean '04...

One point I'd be interested in exploring with you, however, is that IMO the potential outcomes are not equal in likelihood, or even close.

I agree that if we nominate Clark, Gephardt or Kerry, it will be a tight race...although our best shot among those three is with Clark, IMO, since he is a Southerner with a military background who, with his non-partisan past, also has a broad appeal to moderates and independents. This is despite the fact that he's actually more liberal than Dean. Gephardt and Kerry just don't have the same appeal to the middle that Clark does.

I believe that Gephardt and Kerry's chances essentially look like a bell curve distribution. Clark's chances are a bell curve skewed slightly in the Democrats' favor.

In contrast, I agree that Dean is either going to lead to a solid victory or a resounding defeat. Yet I would rate the likelihood of "resounding defeat" to be several times greater than "solid victory" especially when you consider how easily Dean fits into certain stereotypes that have been tagged with a negative label by our popular culture. Bush will have $200 MM to trumpet his message against such a candidate.

I think there are times when you just have to say, "Shoot for the moon," especially when the stakes are so high. But the simple fact is, most Hail Mary passes end up incomplete or intercepted. I'd rather play slow and steady with a candidate who has a good chance of beating Bush.

And in my mind, the person with the best chance of beating Bush is General Wesley Clark.

DTH

Which candidate will motivate the right winger to vote against the candidate? Dean or the ABD candidate?

A centrist candidate will mollify the centrist Republicans and not agitate the right wingers as much as the as-billed Dean. Dean is more of a centrist than billed, though, but stories of his support of civil unions (don't bash - I'm gay and am glad of his support) will agitate the right-wing Christianist vote.

But Dean's organization, drive, and actual positions on issues may be unstoppable, all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania. I've a feeling that when one candidate remains, a lot of polls will flip against Bush hard, no matter who the Democratic candidate is.

Dean can win. Bush is vunerable. All bets are off.

Northeastern librul...oh you know the drill. He will be very polarizing. And's Gore's endorsement just fans the flames.

IMO Howard Dean is radioactive.

Will candidates like Sharpton, Kucinich, Mosley Braun really go along with ABD? They have as much scorn for the DLC as they have for Dean, if not more. What if they line up with Dean? Well, say Sharpton and Mosley Braun.

The point is, I think Kucinich is in it until the end. I don't think people will leave his campaign and support anyone else until AFTER the primary. I think the same applies for Sharpton. The minute the others ally themselves, they are no longer running FOR something. They're running AGAINST something, as you point out. The people will know that. The people always love to go for the guy moving forward, rather than the obstacle.

I don't want that analogy to sound offensive. I just mean it WILL come down to FOR Dean or AGAINST Dean, FOR being a positively charged word and AGAINST being a negatively charged one.

Seems like the whole country might end up against us at one point or another. Who doesn't like those odds?

Clark, Edwards and Kerry are all out of the D.C. primary per DNC rules. I wrote 'bout it here:
http://www.mbare.org/archives/000190.html#000190

I know everyone was planning to ignore the results of the DC primary anyway. But I was looking forward to voting anyway. :-(

I'll write in someone if I have to.

When Clinton was in office many in the left broke ties with the Democrats. Universal health care didn't pass, corporate agendas were not challenged as much as they could have been, and many people became increasingly cynical.

If the lightning in the bottle is in office, people begin to believe they have representation, grass roots energy increases chances for a health care win, and working class wins. You don't loose the left because the left believes they have access to a populist candidate, and populist ideas are synonymous with the left. Yes Dean is a centrist, but Dean is also making people believe that government can be for and by the people again. With Dean you get hope, more of it than we have seen in 30 years.

Finally, I don't think Dean is more risky, in fact I'm convinced of the opposite. The last few election cycles, most recently with Ahnold have demonstrated that 1992 worked because of the candidate, not the strategy. The political climate has changed in the last decade, and it is time to try something new.

Dean will simply not be corraled
as a far lefty wacko.
Increasingly he will be revealed as
The Passionate Man in the Middle.
Hard liberals won't like it, but the
swing & moderates (of both parties) will.

Very much agree with the analysis.

Be interesting to see how people vote.

Can't see Dean or Clark as a VP.