Which candidate will have the widest appeal?

Demographically, geographically? Edwards, 1st, Kerry 2nd, Graham 3rd IMO


Edwards says he has wide appeal
Tells N.H. audience he can compete with Bush 'anywhere'

By JOHN WAGNER, Washington Correspondent


NASHUA, N.H. -- U.S. Sen. John Edwards tried Sunday to make the case that he is the Democrat best suited to take on President Bush, arguing during a pair of town-hall-style meetings in New Hampshire that he can compete with the Republican incumbent in all the country's regions.

"I know I can beat him; I don't have any question about that," the North Carolina senator told a crowd of more than 100 people who turned out to hear him at a city park in Nashua .

-snip-
Edwards, who focused heavily on fund raising during the first six months of the year, was asked by an audience member why he is a better choice than U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts or former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who have led in recent opinion polls in New Hampshire .

"I don't have a negative word to say about the other two candidates," Edwards said. "Either one of them would be a better president than the one we have now."

But Edwards added: "On a strategic level, I can compete with George Bush anywhere."

"When you talk like this," he added in his Carolina drawl, "it helps when you compete in the South."

All three Democrats who have held the White House since President Kennedy have been Southerners.

In Peterborough, Edwards said his appeal is "more than a Southern thing," arguing that he could make "an authentic, genuine case" that he cares about the interests of every day Americans.

" pretends to be for real people, and we know he's not," Edwards said.
-snip-
Vaughn, 52, told Edwards that despite working hard his whole life, he had struggled to put his children through college.

"From what I've heard from you today," he told Edwards, "you're my man."

http://www.newsobserver.com/edwards/coverage/story/2729775p-2530716c.html

Southern charm, charismatic, smart and energetic.

Exhibit 'A'

Edwards has no **message** besides being a son of a millworker. Perhaps that is why is campaign is stuck in the mud.

he has no appeal to the approx 56 million disabled.

But Justice for All does speak for many of that 56 million, and they speak LOUDLY.

Edwards knew damn well what he was doing when he voted against the disabled. He has absolutely no excuse.

Boy, I missed that one. Was there a eugenics law or something?

He voted for a judicial nominee who has a bad record on the subject. Is that the reason he voted for him? Care to prove that?

We've tussled on this before, and I'm stretching the bounds of board policy to even respond, but that's EXTREME, HYPEREMOTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION.

Edwards had been inundated w/faxes, phone calls and emails from PWDs and families of PDWs, begging him to vote against Judge D. Brooks Smith's nomination.

He, along w/other Senators, was informed of Smith's public threat to further weaken the rights of people with disabilities

I was a part of that campaign, as well as my father who was born and has lived his life in N.C.

So, what did Edwards do?

In casting his vote to promote Judge D. Brooks Smith to the lifetime Third Circuit Court of Appeals, only one step below the Supreme Court, candidate Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., disregarded the extensive evidence of unethical behavior and discriminatory conduct that caused the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times to oppose Smith's confirmation.

Sen. Edwards, hid out in his office across the hall from the hearing, and didn't even have the courage to cast his "Yes" vote in public.

http://www.now.org/press/05-02/05-23.html

That may not seem like a big deal to you, but have you ever had to sue to get an entity to comply w/the ADA ruling? How about under a misogynist, bigoted judge?

Wheel a mile in my wheelchair, then tell me it's no big deal!

He voted for someone whose record on this issue is a problem. You are using misleading and shrill language based on a completely unsubstantiated assumption and wielded with full awareness of your potent emotional cachet as vulnerable.

He did not VOTE AGAINST THE DISABLED. To say that is to presume that he specifically voted to hurt the disabled. It is also either a misguided misrepresentation stemming from presumed moral highground, unfortunate diction or a willing deception.

You do not know what other issues were on the table here. It's your right to have specific hot-button issues, but your obligation as a human being to represent them fairly. A person who doesn't like Lieberman as a person isn't necessarily anti-semitic.

No, I haven't wheeled a mile in your wheelchair, but that doesn't give you the right to make incredible misrepresentations.

A person reading your first post would think that he specifically voted legislation in to target the disabled and hurt them. That's not true.

Dean avoids gun control issues, but that doesn't make him pro-murder. 99 Senators voted to keep "under god" in the pledge, but this doesn't make them "anti-Bill of Rights".

When you use the term "vote against the disabled", you are wildly misrepresenting. How do you know how much mail he got on the subject of Smith? How do you know what other issues were raised? Do no other issues matter than yours? This may have had nothing to do with his decision, and that's not "wrong". It makes him someone you don't like, but you don't know what made him make up his mind on this, and your statement shows us that you presume that you do. Perhaps more chilling, it shows that one against your agenda is legimately subject to any derision. If one votes against Clarence Thomas, is that person a racist?

Say that he voted for a questionable jurist. What you repeatedly do is to whip up hysteria that Edwards hates the disabled. He's not some fiend sitting around cackling as he sticks needles into the eyes of orphans. Someone just reading your posts with no foreknowledge might think so. You deliberately avoid the question. Please answer this directly. How do you know he "voted against the disabled"?

I voted for Dianne Feinstein. Does that make me pro-death penalty? I support my Congressperson, does that make me pro-Catholic?

for a lifetime appointment of a misognistic, bigoted judge, knowing full well his history. A judge described as a throwback to an era when disabled people were routinely warehoused and forgotten.

He was informed by phone, letters, faxes and emails, what this vote meant to the disabled community and how it would affect their lives. He was informed that the judge had threatened, in public to further weaken the rights of people with disabilities. And that is not voting against the disabled?

He knew it was wrong. He din't even have the balls to vote publically! No, he hid. He waited until the cameras were gone, then asked if his vote could still be counted. This was no mistake. He did hurt the disabled w/his vote.

His vote, in effect, told me, that my rights did not matter to him. My rights to accessibilty, my rights to work, my rights to homecare, and much more, along w/the same rights of millions of disabled people did not matter to him.

You can call me hysterical all you want, but it does not change the fact that Edwards knew, well in advance, what this vote meant to a huge voting bloc. He fucked up, royally.

But! Although that one vote definitely put him on my shit list, it is by far not the only reason I will never vote for him.

P.S. There was no other bill or amendment attached to that vote.

Although, I might word it differently. He didn't offer his support to people with disabilities on this issue with this vote.
He didn't stand up when I believe he really should have. It does give me a feeling that it's not a priority for him, and It bothers me, tremendously!!!
I was also bothered by a reproductive rights vote he skipped.
The thing that is confusing here is that one of his drawbacks is his inexperience, yet he's blowing opportunities to show us what he's made of by voting on the issues that are important to us all.

of the patients bill of rights.

You can't know why he voted for that one judge, and it's moronic to believe that the reason is his contempt for the disabled.

He has missed the least votes of any serious candidate running, so that one vote shouldn't be used against him

He's a trial lawyer who has helped alot of people who became disabled through the negligence of others.

I think he's one of our stronger candidates.

His thin resume troubles me though.

he's done enough in his six years that it's obvious he knows how to work hard as a public servant

he also has the best ideas that will appeal to exactly what we need to win

civil liberties(office of, and DHS agency) and middle class tax cut are things that will not only get independants on board but disenfranchized republicans as well, Dean's gun-control pipe-dream.

Also college for everyone, his rural developement annitiative. Being the most pro privacy and civil rights of any serious candidate.

Look at his legislative record, he's been there during 9-11, on all the right committees, but still not a washington insider.

Despite his gov and war experience Kerry still comes in 3rd in electability. He's thurston howell with war medals, no JFK. He could win, but he'd be a REAL underdog

We're more than 6 months out from the first primary. As you'll recall, John McCain was nowhere at this time, and he won NH.

Edwards' strategy, and really, that of all the candidates, is different from Dean's. Dean is revving it up now, but that doesn't mean no one else can. It means they are biding their time.

As for 'he doesn't have a message'....uh...whatever.

Edwards has watered things down way, way too much. People only hear about how he faghts fer reguler peepuh and how his daddah was a millwuhkuh. On top of it, his delivery makes him sound like a shyster.

Will he spend his loot? Yeah, but so will Lieberman.

I'd vote for Edwards, but his campaign needs to improve. Going from double to single digits is not an auspicious sign.

Yep, he could lose the Daddy stuff a tad, but I personally feel lots of warmth from the man when I see him talk for more than 15 seconds.

He's also seriously dogging Junior on personal issues, which I think is almost necessary to rid ourselves of him.

"George Bush is a phoney; he's a phoney." 7-7-03

"Since he's been President, he hasn't spent thirty seconds thinking about the concerns of the common man"

"The only thing George Bush respects is wealth."

I disagree, obviously.

I think he has many messages, most of all that the country is in dire need of a democratic administration and he's the best man for-and to get- the job.

More importantly he has ideas. The thing that democrats are alledgedly guilty of these days is complaining and complaining about issues without real ideas to fix them.

He fits this profile the least of any candidate.

His campaign has been stalled probably because the GOP/corporate elite are doing everything in there power to see that the biggest threats to Bush(Edwards and to a lesser extent Graham) is not nominated and the biggest asset(Dean) is.

Health care of kids, college for anyone who qualifies, adding nurses, protecting civil liberties. He has a pretty liberal voting record, on the environment, affirmative action, etc. And he's been one of the biggest fighters against *'s right-wing judicial appointment.

That, combined with this likable demeanor, his looks, his smarts, his Southern thing - I see him appealing to suburban voters, Southern voters, young and old. And he can definitely get the black vote. He has a Clintonian ease around blacks.

a strike against him for some in this crowd.

Many so-called liberals, including some at DU, love to yammer on and on about how déclassé the Great Unwashed are, and some even find jokes about tornados and trailer parks amusing.

Poskonig, I am not saying that you are one of these people, but for some of us, the fact that Edwards comes from the working class and speaks to working class concerns is in itself a message. Not a complete one, but definitely a start.

I don't hold Edwards' backgroun against him. The only thing I care about in a candidate's background is military record: the better it is, the worse the candidate is in my eytes. I don't give a fuck about whether his dad was a millworker, a corrupt oil mogul, or a Nazi. I vote for the candidate, not for his parents.

Got the security angle, got the southern governor background, got a reassuring, sane manner that moderates will find appealing, stood up to Bush on Iraq before standing up to Bush was cool. Got an excellent record. Got Florida.

*******

Click to subscribe to Graham04 on Yahoo Groups

Contribute to Graham For President (Enter "Laura Kinsale" as your BobCat if you want to give me credit toward my pledge to raise 1k for Bob.)



http://grahamchat.whitesandworks.com:80/chat/world/html/login.html

unlike Edwards he'd be a lock for reelection. It would be one less of 4 or 5 possible southern pickups for the GOP

He'd make a good minority or majority leader.

Not Hillary

The RW media tried to dismiss Edwards as "running for veep" when he announced as part of there strategy to not let him get nominated. It wouldn't have made any sense for him to be on the bottom of the ticket of someone like Kerry or Dean anyway.

I think it's more accurate to say that Graham is running for vp.

But Edwards can win Florida with or without him as a veep

Graham for senate. Edwards/Richardson or Edwards/Kerry for president I say

<<But Edwards can win Florida with or without him as a veep>>

I wholeheartedly disagree. There is zero buzz about Edwards here in FL. If you're using Edwards because he's Southern, Clinton lost FL in 92, and we know what happened in 00 with Gore. Carter lost FL in 1980 by 17% and he was a neighbor. I think Edwards would fare far better in more traditional Southern states as Arkansas and Tennessee. A majority of Floridians cannot relate to the mill worker story. It gives Edwards a nice character. I like Edwards as a candidate. I just don't think he's capable of carrying FL without Graham. When Jeb's at the helm, it just isn't easy for Dems in FL.

and he has alot of support from lots of people in the Miami area as well as college democrats and some administration I've met at most of the public schools here and at least 2 kids at Rollins. My campaign suporvisor from when I worked on McBrides attempt is backing him and I'm pretty sure he's well connected to the state legislature and mayors office.

Floridas a big state, it would be hard for you to get the "buzz" if you weren't a pollster or something

According to an aquaintance in FL who's also backing Edwards, Donna Shalala our University President(and former Clinton HHS sec) didn't rule out endorsing him and said he's on her short list if she does endorse someone.

If he can win tenesee(and he can), he can certainly win Florida, which not a typical southern state except in the panhandle area.

Because Florida has such a popular public college system, his scholarship program is/will be very popular there among soccer moms and dads

He can appeal to the redneck and non redneck portions.

If Graham fails to raise more than 4 million in the third quarter, he'll pretty much be out of it for the top spot.

a UM student! :)

Well I am sure there are Floridians who will back him, I was simply explaining my observations. By buzz I was referring to places like the staunchly Democratic retirement communities with extraordinary voter turnout, and elderly people I've spoken to know very very little about Edwards. That's not to say they're fully committed to other candidates, so good luck to him on making those inroads. Broward County FL has more registered voters than Dade which makes no sense but officials claim that's because many new immigrants have yet to register to vote unfortunately, but the point is that if the largest voting electorate in FL, and by far the most Democratic County in FL, is so interested in candidates other than Edwards, it's going to be a tough win in FL for Edwards. He has not raised much money at all in FL. Again, I wish him good luck, he's a good candidate. He just needs to get down here and make things happen.

I feel like making a point about McBride since you mentioned him. Bill McBride's campaign taught me a lesson. And that is, we Dems believed that we needed a candidate from outside SoFla in order to win a statewide race. And what ended up happening was that the SoFla base backed Janet Reno and ultimately felt like they were without a candidate after the primary. McBride was never really well known in SoFla and so the base was not energized to get out to the polls and vote for "their guy." Jeb did way too well in Broward and Palm Beach. McBride carried those counties, but not with the margins that Al Gore and Bill Clinton carried them. I am from SoFla, I voted for McBride over Reno in the primary, but most voters here just never got excited over a guy from the other side of the state. I thought McBride's geography would be an asset, but I think I was wrong as I look back on that race. He was a good guy for sure, and I'm glad you helped his campaign.

<<unlike Edwards he'd be a lock for reelection. It would be one less of 4 or 5 possible southern pickups for the GOP>>

If Edwards DOESN'T run for Senate, we are bound to lose the NC seat. At least if he runs we have a good chance, even if it's not a sure victory.

That's what a lot of non-Floridian Southerners call Florida residents.

The place is weird. It has quite a few unusual-for-the-South constituencies, like the Cubans and the massive transplanted-senior population. You have to handle these folks differently--grandma and grandpa won't be swayed by the message that will pull in the Cubans.

Add to that the Jeb Bush factor; the guy has a vested interest in ensuring his brother does well. (It's called Jebbie's Run in 2008; if Jeb can't deliver his state for the 4th Reich in 2004, the GOP high command may not want Jeb on the ticket come '08.)

Treat Florida as a unique situation and you'll do well.

Clark, Dean and Graham.

Thanks for posting, chimpymustgo, it was an interesting article, but you know all the Deanies are going to say Dean, all the Kerryites are going to say Kerry, etc.

Plus, some people are going to come and lie about/bash Edwards, as usual.

I just wanted to share that about Edwards. I strongly believe that the more people get to know him, the more they will see what a great candidate he is - and how he can beat the skin off *.

Yes, those of us who have chosen a candidate obviously think ours has the widest appeal. But it's a point worth exploring that tends to get lost here on DU. I'd like to hear why supporters think their guy can appeal widely, beyond the very angry base.

I'm for beating Bush. I desperately want us to choose a candidate who will appeal widely in the nation as a whole. One who does not alienate either the far left OR the center. (The Dem center does exist, little as some here want to admit it.)

*******

Click to subscribe to Graham04 on Yahoo Groups

Contribute to Graham For President (Enter "Laura Kinsale" as your BobCat if you want to give me credit toward my pledge to raise 1k for Bob.)



http://grahamchat.whitesandworks.com:80/chat/world/html/login.html

Dean is already proving wide appeal -- Dems, Independents, Republicans, people who've never been involved in politics before, people who've never contributed and even never voted before.

It amazes me this is even a question.

Republicans for Dean
http://republicansfordean.blogspot.com/

Independents for Dean
http://deanindependents.org/

Dean Leading Among NH Independents
...with 25% support among all undeclared voters in the latest ARG New Hampshire poll. View the poll results here --> http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/dem/

And in fact, speaking of polls, they just announced on Hardball that Dean is at 28% in NH and Kerry is at 25%.

Eloriel

before a primary. It's a good tactic in a general election, but registered Republicans by definition have no overt motive for taking sides at this point. If they mean former Republicans like Weicker I'd just call it "former Senators for Dean".

the rotund ex CT senator and governor who used to go on Geraldo and say Clinton should be impeached?

Dean is getting support from republicans alright. Just as democrats would support the most-likely-to-lose in the general republican.

Except republicans are alot better at manipulating elections, including primaries.

Dean is no McCain. Dean is running to the fringe, McCain was to the moderates. McCain was a straigt-talker and underdog. Deam is a self-proclaimed straigt-talker and underdog. Dean is a self-proclaimed "fiscal conservative" who's not one because he wants to raise taxes. McCain was an actual Fiscal conservative because he wanted to lower spending and cut taxes.

Dean is getting genuine support from people who would never vote for Bush or a conservative and maybe a half dozen paleoconservatives

Other than that his "independant" support is motivated by CREEP2004

I don't think the lead guy is going to have broad enought appeal alone (geographically). SO it is Dean or Kerry as Pres. and Edwards or Graham as VP. I personally like Dean/Graham. We could win with Kerry/Graham or, perhaps, Dean or Kerry with Edwards. But I think we have to Graham to carry FLA.

I like Dean and he has a message.

Edwards would never veep for Kerry or Dean, I must have said this a thousand times.

Edwards couldn't win southern states for Kerry, because the states he could win at the top of the ticket(NC, TN, AR) would never go to Kerry with any veep. The only southern state Kerry could ever win would be Florida. The only other Bush states Kerry could win would be Nevada, Arizona, Ohio, and New Hampshire. Edwards doesn't have any advantage in any of those places. Kerry WOULD chose Graham

Edwards would never veep for Dean because he's too smart to end his political career by jumping on a sinking ship that would only win New England(except for probably New Hampshire and Maine), new Jersey, California, DC, Delaware and Hawaii. With any veep he'd only win about 80 electoral votes. Not even New York.

The GOP would have to spend a third more if Edwards was on the top of the ticket, because he puts a third of the country in play and makes every state, district, and town more dem friendly.

He'll appeal to a huge chunk of that 50% of the country that normally doesn't even show up to vote, not to mention most Greens and most Democrats.

He'd win by a landslide. The media whores would be forced to cover a handful of his ideas and new seeds would be planted.

In business, its easier to create a new market for a product than compete in a mature, stale, declining market. What we have is Coke and Pepsi competing in a declining market. Sure, they might be able to steal a few percentage points from each other, but then you have someone like Red Bull coming out of nowhere defining an altogether new market.

Kucinich is Red Bull, so to speak:)

interested in a more even-handed approach to the Israel/Palestine conflict so that they can have genuine change.

He has already been endorsed by Rabbi Lerner's Tikkun (well as endorsed as a non-profit can do) and Jews for Peace who are working very hard for him.

Not to mention the Arab Muslims (about 3 million of them in the US) who are just as tired of the I/P quagmire. To that we can probably add the Black Muslims in the US who are just as concerned.

The one who wins the Dem nomination, no?

is without a doubt one of the most "electable" Dem candidates. Face it; he's Southern, he's a moderate, and he's handsome. Don't discount the "handsome-factor". He's appealing to the swing voters. Not who I'd prefer, but I think that he has as good a chance (if not better than a few others) of beating the boy who would be king.

I think he'd be an excellant VP choice. Hey, at least he can spell.

he doesn't add balance or electoral advantage to any serious dem running

i guess you could make the case for Gephardt, but I don't think anybody wants howdy doody to get the nom.

Kerry/Edwards makes no sense
Edwards/Kerry is the answer and parallel to Bush/Cheney

or Edwards/Graham if you want another combo

Edwards is the charismatic orator outsider(but not too much of an outsider)
Kerry is the boring gravitas

"All three Democrats who have held the White House since President Kennedy have been Southerners."

There is a reason for that and we would all do well to pay attention to it.

Edwards is the man, make no mistake. The others are all great in their own way but if you want a winner... there really is only one choice.

Got to decide whether idiology is more significant than winning. Is Edward's idiology that far off from you ? Think hard on that one, the price tag for a bad decision is pretty steep.

he is solving.

Office of civil liberties + rights

Increased congressional oversight on domestic spying by reorganizing intelligence

Workers/Shareholdewrs bill of rights

etc etc

He's not just yelling about what he thinks is wrong with the world. He offers solutions to problems, with a sense of hope.

To win statewide in FL, it is so important to have mass appeal. In Southwest Florida, we have conservative retirees from the Midwest. In South Florida, we have liberal New Yawkers. We have plenty of Latino Republicans. We have plenty of liberal Latinos. We have loads of immigrants. We have loads of xenophobics. We have African-Americans. We have racists. We have homeless people. We have some of the most expensive real estate in the country. We have Southerners in the North. We have Northerners in the South. I mean really this is no exaggeration whatsoever. Florida is an extremely diverse state in terms of demographics as well as ideologies.

This page of my website

http://hometown.aol.com/gbd4/page4.html

provides stats on Graham's success in the least Democratic areas of Florida.

But let us take this to a national level.

Bob Graham has extensive EXECUTIVE experience matched by just one other candidate - Howard Dean. As a former Governor, Graham has the executive experience so valued by the American electorate as seen in many of our last elections. Writing legislation in the legislature is not equivalent to being the one man running the state. And Americans know that. Bob Graham as Governor ordered State purchase of open spaces, initiated job creation, appointed a diverse slate of judges, and mandated affirmative action practices in hiring. He has a record of executive accomplishment.

Bob Graham is very respected on the most important issue of the day - national security. No other candidate chaired the Senate Intel Committee. Despite Senate rules, Graham chaired the Committee longer than normally allowed. Because the Committee is a Select and not a Standing committee, there are special rules. To make it less political and more focused on national security, there are short term limits placed on the chairmanship. Graham was given an extension. The point is, he has the breadth of knowledge on national security. Unlike one particular candidate, who supports a war and is thrust to the spotlight as Democratic Foreign Policy Expert Extraordinaire only for that reason, Graham understands the workings of the intelligence agencies from his time spent investigating the 9/11 context.

Bob Graham has made rural America a central focus of his campaign. Graham is the only ex-farmer in the race, and that will attract such voters, in addition to his NASCAR sponsorsip and bluegrass concerts.

Bob Graham has the most substantive economic plan thus far, and his idea of a millionaire's tax bracket will appeal to the middle class sick and tired of seeing the rich get tax breaks. Additionally, Bob's Workdays that have included jobs from garbageman to truck driver, will present him as someone who does understand the struggles of a variety of working class Americans.

In an age of uncertainty, Americans will be looking for a real statesman, a candidate who has a clean command of the issues and speaks confidently on the most intricate aspects of policy. Graham has also done extensive work on health care as recognized by the National Council on Aging in 2001. Graham has called for a more open government, and in this era of secrecy, that calling will comfort the American electorate. Executive experience. Command of the issues. Poised. "Osama bin Forgotten." Bob Graham has what it takes to appeal to Americans so lost in this era of secrecy, arrogance, and divisiveness. His announcement speech focused on "bringing our two Americas together." And he is determined to do so.

though I think that any of our candidates could potentially be strong against Bush.

I think Dean will be strong in his native new england and pick up New Hampshire.

Dean is already showing strength on the West coast in states like California, Oregon, and Washington.

His stand on fiscal responsibility and state rights regarding gun laws should win favor with some in the South and other rural areas. He could imo pick up West Virgina and possibly Arkansas.

He is showing strength in early polls with Independents(he leads with Independents in NH) He is winning many people over who voted for Nader in '00. He is showing that he can do well with male voters--a voting bloc that we have to try and find some improvement with. He is bringing people who have not been into politics into the political process.

I think he can pick up some southern and rural voters. There are several things in his message that can be tailored for these voters.

As you mentioned, states rights and guns will strengthen his appeal.
There's lots more!! Dean has these ideas of inclusion and community restoration that includes people that some Democrats may be repulsed to consider. But, THINK about it! It's a truly amazing concept if you bring it all together.

"I don't want to win without the South. I want to go to the South, and I'm going to say to white guys that drive pick-up trucks with Confederate flag decals on the back of their car, "We want your vote too, because your kids don't have health insurance either."

--------

“When we come to the South, Democrats have got to start talking about race because the Republicans always talk about race,” he said to the South Carolina Democratic Convention. “They talk about it to try to keep people from voting, they talk about it by using divisive words like quotas, which are race-based words. In the South, we have discovered that when white voters and black voters vote together, we all make progress.”

Dean promised Democrats that he would work to ensure the African American base of the Democratic Party was not ignored. And in this state, which moved up its presidential primary date to Feb. 3, 2004 — making it the first primary in the South — he made an appeal to white voters who have long supported Republicans.

“There are 103,000 kids with no health insurance in this state and most of them are white,” he said. “What I want to say to white voters is, ‘Let’s put aside those divisive issues the Republicans always bring up and lets vote together for a better future for our children’.”

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/64897.html

<snip

If any Democrat has a history of attracting swing voters and "Reagan Democrats" in winning elections against better-funded Republican opponents, it is Dennis Kucinich. He has repeatedly defeated entrenched incumbents. He beat a Republican incumbent for mayor in 1977, for state senator in 1994 (overcoming the national right-wing tide) and for
Congress in 1996.

His Congressional district includes the suburb of Parma, Ohio, described as "one of the original homes of the Reagan Democrats." An Ohio daily calls it a "conservative Democratic district," which he carried by 74% in 2002. Being a success there may be a better predictor of national success than holding statewide office in a liberal stronghold like Vermont or Massachusetts.

Kucinich is a winner because he builds Wellstone-like grassroots campaigns against bigger-spending opponents. He is a winner because of his blue collar roots and populism, reflected in his battles for heartland voters against unfair, corporate-friendly trade deals.

He is an unabashed progressive who wins because swing voters who don't agree with him on every issue still see him as a fighter for their interests, as someone who will put the interests of workers and middle-class consumers ahead of big-money interests. No Democrat is better positioned in 2004 to attract 'Reagan Democrats' and swing voters with a frontal attack on how Bush policies hurt them and favor the rich.

Republicans use "wedge" issues to pry away traditionally-Democratic white working class voters -- a tactic that has not succeeded against Kucinich. In '96, for example, Republicans used his support of gay rights as a wedge, and he stood firm and triumphed.

On the other side of the spectrum, no other candidate can attract disaffected voters, 3rd party voters and Ralph Nader supporters to the Democratic column like Kucinich. Across the country, Nader 2000 voters and Green Party sympathizers are joining his campaign, as are other 3rd party supporters.

http://www.kucinich.us/electable.htm

but this guy has as much chance of beating Bush as Sharpton does and there is no way the party will hand the role to him.

there is no way the party will hand the role to him because he stands for everything they have refused to change in this country.

That is precisely the reason I'm backing him- real change.

Keeping my fingers crossed and working my ass off!

Peace

Dean.

I can't say that any are appealing (and I cannot believe that people actually think Kucinich will win an election, not that I don't agree with a lot of what he says). I like Dean, I like Kerry. But I REALLY like Clark, who needs to get his ass into this race.

Even people who do not really understand the meaning of the word paradigm can understand that we have a bad one.

And they will vote for a candidate that offers a better one.
Kucinich has the clearest and best one.