New Democrat Vs. Old Democrat

What is going to win the battle at the end of the day?

An Old Democrat or a New Democrat?

The new Democrat would appear to be more progressive like Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean. They seem to apply new logic to old status-quo questions the Washingtonians haven't solved, even though they've been there.

Questions like: Where will the jobs be? Where will our healthcare come from? Where will America be in the international community, loved or hated? Are the insider policies of the WTO and NAFTA faliures that need scrapping? Is the defense budget in need of a good cutting in time of waste and economic woe?

The likes of Leiberman, John Kerry, John Edwards and Dick Gephardt must fall by the wayside and become a minority in the Democratic Party if Americans are to make any real progress with the help of Washington. The old Democrat.

John Kerry, for example, is a prime example of the Washington establishmentarian. He voted for the war, made little or no criticism of Bush until Dean's popularity grew, and said nothing about issues of universal healthcare or the dangers of the Patriot Act. Well, Kerry has gotten some movement in the polls since he attacked Howard Dean so vociferously. Not so statesmen-like to go negative on your own party, as a cheap way to get poll numbers. But what the hell, go negative, it works, right?

All those issues are on the minds of Americans. Bush has abused his authority and those Democrats were there in Washington when it happened. They stood by. They voted in favor of the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. Their in-action helped to stifle free speech.

If Dick Gephardt doing a photo-op in the Rose Garden with President Bush is not an indicator of where he is poltically, I don't know what is. Gephardt is an old-time grandstander and Washington insider, ready to deal his values down the river. And he can stand there and wave his arms around, and get "animated" but it is his status-quo, go along votes with Bush that make him irrelevant in this day and age.

Leiberman, poor chap. He is so out of touch with his own base, he thinks he can get moderate votes by pandering to Israel. Sorry Joe, gotta do more than that. He doesn't have a clear view of an America he'd like to see, and thats why he can't express it. I don't think he's fully realized his position on the Iraq War is wrong, and that Dean's vitriol against Bush does represent mainstream opinion. Too long in Washington, bye Joe.

There is really nothing wrong with John Edwards. That is, if you like people vacillating on their campaign platform. John Edwards got critical of the war the same time John Kerry did, when pollsters noticed it had an effect. This type of politician doesn't have good instincts. They know what to say, only because someone has told them to say it.

Funny how General Wesley Clark sounds more like a real Democrat than the ones who have been working there for a while. His views on Iraq, the economy and healthcare are focused and front-and-center. He seems genuine and you get the feeling he cares about our economic plight. Perhaps, because he isn't a multi-millionaire like John Kerry. Or it could be a sort of 'true believerism,' where he sees a problem and thinks he can make a difference.

We need more of that in Washington.


[Edited on 19-1-2004 by darkwraith]

What a riot. Nothing wrong with Edwards if you like "vacillating" but Clark is the "real democrat".

If you're not following legitimate analysis these days, please catch up. The Godfather of all Democratic strategists, James Carvelle, explained Edwards meteoric rise in polls as attributable to one thing: CONSISTENCY.

Today on CNN, he described Edwards as THE BEST STUMP SPEAKER HE'S EVER SEEN with the ability to weave a story and pound a theme and relate to every audience he meets like no candidate in modern times. He also said there's TWO candidates Bush really wants to face on stage CLARK and DEAN, and only ONE he doesn't: EDWARDS.

But this wasn't an endorsement. Carvelle likes Kerry. But he's no fool, and knows what people like.

By the way, Kucinich and Dean aren't even from the same planet. Why do you consider them from the same wing of the Democratic party? I agree if you mean the unelectable wing.

To the pits with this...

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I didn't hear John Edwards say anything relevant to the issues since he started mimicking Howard Dean.

And since I'm a political junkie, I've watched almost every debate since the beginning. Sad, huh?

I don't care for what pundits say about the horse-race.
Their job is to hype things up and sell ads on TV. They don't examine the ideology behind a candidates platform, or the substance.

I think Carville is great. But there is really nothing to say about most of the candidates because aside from Dean and Kucinich, they are cut from the same cloth. That is,
Washington insider.

Outsider seems to be the way to go. Arnold did it, so did Ventura. New ideas for the beltway, I say.

You're right. Everybody is entitled to an opinion. I just hope you don't dismiss Edwards as an "insider" just because he's better at the game then the players.

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful...

He's a one term junior Senator. Served on Senate Intelligence...and that's the extent of his Washington baptism. His adult life was spent in David and Goliath battles against corporate America fighting for little guys.

I like Clark, Dean, Kucinich...all of them really. I just don't like it when Dems do Bush's work for him and bash all the other Dems. Another reason I like Edwards.

"The main issue is the war," Martin Sheen said recently on CNN.

And Edwards is wrong on the war. He voted for it.

The idea that we can go on this crusade in Iraq, when jobs are scarce and spend 100 billion more a year on defense, is arrogant to say the least.

These people in Washington take our money for granted. The Senators and Congress get the best healthcare, the best pensions, and we get laid off.

I'm gonna be eating dog-food out of a can for my retirement. MMM good.

With all due respect to Martin Sheen (none), most Americans agree the war is a dead issue. It happened, now what?

Angry woulda/coulda/shoulda platforms are great, but not exactly solutions and don't play as well in real life as they do on West Wing.

The thrust of Edwards, Gephardt and a few others messages and actual proposals have to do with saving and creating jobs. That's the only thing that will keep you and I from eating dog food.... A JOB! Being right or wrong on the war last year is the stuff of bragging rights for angry college students...

I concede Dean is very appealing on the war and validating my disgust with Bush. Does he know any other tricks?

CNN is reporting an Edwards / Kucinich deal where they agree to not bash, and share supporters where it makes sense... (like in Iowa tonight).

Kucinich people will be voting Edwards to make thier anti-establishment (anti-Dean/Kerry/Gephardt) vote count.

This is not a concession by Kucinich, just an Iowa thing to help cap Dean's hi-jacking of the party and promote the same issues.

Edwards: Dennis and I, more than any other candidates, share the same vision.

Kucinich had a great line last week-
"Why is President Bush going to the moon? Maybe he's
looking for the weapons of mass destruction."

Then there's this from Howard Dean-
"If George Bush wants to go to the moon, maybe he should go there and stay there."

I think John Kerry is 'too liberal' to be electable.

[Edited on 19-1-2004 by darkwraith]

Originally posted by RANT
His adult life was spent in David and Goliath battles against corporate America fighting for little guys.

Fighting for a large chunk of the little guy's pie maybe, post any awards.