Which candidate has the best message to defeat George Junior?

Obviously George W Bush is going to run again as a "compassionate conservative". He will run on the premise that he is a "strong" leader and the best person to run the "war on terrorism". That will be his basic campaign.

Which Democrat best challenges those premises? What is the best strategy to counter the Bush premises? Who best confronts Bush on these issues? Why?

These two candidates have taken Bush to task the most for the things he has done. They could point out how we are not safer after Iraq especially with the excessively high terror alert AFTER Saddam's capture. They could even discuss the many ways Bush mismanaged the war by alienating allies and not having a plan or exit strategy.

As for the compassionate conservative thing, one need look no further than the Patriot Act. They could discuss the mistreatment of American citizens under the act and about Bush cutting military benefits. These are my suggestions.

Dean's message is mostly negative and fringe.

Because Dean is as mainstream as they come.

Dean is the most mainstream outsider to run in quite some time! :o

I agree with you, especially that foreign policy will be the main swing issue. I would add that Clark can go into more detail than Dean usually does; and can propose credible paths forward. Dean may also propose credible paths forward, but I'm not sure he'll get credit for coming up with them; most people will probably assume that he's repeating the advice he's received from others, whether he is or not.

My two other issues that I think will have a lot of pull for certain voters are the environment and the information control process that Bush uses, and that leads him astray.

One issue that really needs to be made clearer by a major candidate is the environmental issue. Each Dem candidate has talked about this, but who will the average American voter hear on this issue?

My view is that the candidates that are percieved to be most traditionally liberal--Kerry, Dean, Lieberman, Kucinich, Moseley-Braun, even Edwards and Gephardt--won't be taken seriously on this. Sure, Democrats always talk about the environment. New England Democrats especially talk about the environment. These candidates are saying good things on the environment, but I don't think they're being heard.

The remaining candidates, Sharpton and Clark, have a better shot at being heard. Sharpton can be heard on this because of his unique way of putting things, and the fact that the environment is not a traditional African American issue, which is what people expect to hear from Sharpton. Clark especially can be heard on this, because environmental issues are not one expects to hear from a man with a military background. Clark does run the risk of being seen as merely trying to fit into the Democratic party, though.

What I mean about information control is a whole bunch of stuff. Secret, industry-only energy policy meetings. Refusing to answer questions directly from Democrats, forcing them to be asked through Republican committee chairmen. Mis-handling of intelligence about Iraq. The politically-motivated "leak" of the CIA operative's identity. Names for bills like the "Clean Air Act" that are deliberately misleading. Every one of these is an inappropriate misuse of the power of the presidency. And again, I think that as a perceived outsider, Clark will be the one who is best heard on this topic. Clark can say that if information is mishandled in the Army, people die. That will be a strong argument against Bush, that only he can credibly make.

it's the deliverer of the message that's the key. Kucinich, Clark or Dean are all capable messengers. Responding to what somebody just said about Dean being fringe, nothing could be further from the truth. He's about as middle of the road as you can get, it's just that the Right is so far Right they call Dean the fringe because they have forgotten what the middle is.

should take some pointers from Edwards message.

should take some pointers from Edwards message.

For a couple of reasons....

I am basing my assumptions on BushCheney04 using a mixed campaign strategy. The first part will be a photo op strategy showing Bush as a fearless, patriotic man taking the fight, mano e mano, to the "evil doers". This will be a naseating, bucolic representation of George Bush. The second part of the strategy will be the vicious smearing of his opponent. George won't do this himself, he will have the family retainers do his dirty work.

1. Howard Dean will take the fight to George W. Bush. He will not allow Bush to define the campaign, the campaign narratives nor will he let the Bush photo-op strategy go unanswered. Out of all the candidates running Howard Dean has the best attack narrative. The Rebulicans are calling him "angry", "pessimistic" and "bitter" but that is just a load of nasty old schtick to make him stop attacking them. It has not stopped him so far and I cannot see it stopping him now. Howard Dean can put the Republicans on the back foot.

2. It does not matter what they say about you. It does not matter if it is the truth of lies all that matters is that you are torn down. Howard Dean has shown himself to be well able to "take the pain". More over, his attacks on Bush will leave the Reblicans with less time and money to attack the candidate than they would like.

so are many primarybots on this board.

He has been taking it to Bush since the day Bush got in office. He was the first to come out against Bush's "diplomacy" and his bullying Iraq war plans back in 2002. He was the first to come out against Bush and the way they were handling the military operations in Afghanistan. He fought for the middle class tax cuts. He fought against ANWR and the Energy Bill still isn't passed. He's been fighting against all of these right wing policies his whole life.

He's worked on terrorism legislation and tactics since the mid-nineties. He's promoted energy independence and renewables his whole life. He's written education legislation for children, teens, nurses and more. He's got the Small Business credentials and has sponsored numerous policies that have helped small business and women business owners as well. He's worked for fair policies in trade bills and helped get them in the Jordan bill. He's fought against bills that didn't include them. He has the foreign policy relationships and credentials as well.

He's the whole package with the record to back it up. And he's already beat Bush in public opinion polls which proves he can do it again when he's annointed the frontrunner and gets the frontrunner coverage Howard has gotten. He's the Real Deal and America will know it because he has the goods to expose the raw deal of George Bush in every single area.

I think most of the candidates have messages that are strong enough to beat jr. but I think Dean has backed up his message with something more important. He has made hundreds of thousands of Americans passionate about democracy again. A campaign run on more small donations than ever seen and a candidate who is listening to their concerns. This grassroots support lets the message of government BY THE PEOPLE mean something again.

Also Dean is not restricted by matching funds and he shows no signs of having a difficult time raising money. I'm not sure which of the other candidates have refused funds but unfortunately in this election it will be essential.

I reiterate, that while they all have their problems from my POV they also all represent messages that could beat bush*, but will a message be enough?

and with a great record and history to back up every word. 30+ years of studying and applying progressive thought and actions.

His message sells real well to those Reagan Democrats in the industrial heartland who have lost their jobs in the last 10 years due to bad trade deals. We need to beat this clown in states like Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin. Pennslyvania, west Virginia. The Gep has a message that can do that.

Almost every American wants a national health care system. The reason most people are turned off from politics is they see no hope from either party. With Kucinich he can stress that he takes no corporate money which will apeal to many of these people.

Kucinich is the anti-Bush.

That's the best way to beat Bush - not "my secret Governor records are not quite like Bush's, and my secret energy meetings are not quite like Cheney's."

he is the only one who is clearly saying everything that is wrong with the current administration.

Why the assumption that we must challenge the Bush premise? How about if we assert a real liberal/progressive premise and let Bush try to challenge that?

but to beat an incumbent, you must show that he needs to be replaced.

Clark is a great candidate, but I don't think he particularly has a great "message."