After getting more familiar with some of the potential Dem prez candidates, I'm starting to develop some opinion. With Gore out the picture, the Dems have a unique opportunity to present a new man/woman.

I'll say it again: please God, not Joe Lieberman. He can't beat the fool. Nor do I think Daschle can. America doesn't like that whiny wimpy approach.

I think the two best shots are Dean and Kerry. Both of them come off as aggressive and able to debate ferociously. I'm not familiar yet with their positions, I've only seen a couple interviews on Sunday Morning. But I like what I see with these two.

Let this be the thread for discussion on who will be the best person to enact the needed "regime change" in America in 2004.

Joe Lieberman's cute and speaks in a thoughtful way.

I'd agree that Lieberman wouldn't be a good choice. I don't have a problem with Kerry's positions, if he can develop some personal appeal. Right now, I look at him and think..all the charisma of Gore and the charm of Dukakis.

You know, when Al Gore was actually running I didn't pay all that much attention to his appearances. I knew I was voting for him, so I just watched the big things, where he came across as just as wooden and stiff as everyone says he is. Since he's been doing this book tour I'm liking him more and more and I'm getting to be sorry that he's not running, which I really wasn't at first.

Right now I don't think the field of candidates is very exciting. I mean...I'm voting for whomever they put up, assuming it's not Robert Byrd (that's a joke) but I don't see the likely suspects beating Bush unless Bush beats himself with a major screw-up or if more people are feeling the effects of the slow economy. Maybe that's why Gore's not running. However, the one thing you can say for American politics is that it's full of surprises. Who would have thought that Trent Lott would self-destruct, with a little help from his "friends" of course.

Let's find out who these folks are! Read up and have fun:
Dean:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/issues.htm
http://www.issues2002.org/Howard_Dean.htm
http://www.votewithavengeance.com/dean.html

Kerry: http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_Kerry.htm
http://www.senate.gov/~kerry/low/index_low.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/kerry.html


I'll let the Lieberman/Daschle/Gephardt fans post info about them. I can't get excited about these 3, because I don't think they have a prayer of de-shrubbing the White House.

Senator John Edwards.....awww shucks.....

Anyone? Class. Anyone?????

At the risk of being pelted with tomatoes, I'll say it. Hillary.

Personally I could vote for Hillary, but I don't think she can beat Shrub.

Right now I think Kerry has the best chance of de-shrubbing the country, maybe Edwards if he can charm the country the way Clinton did.

But my point is, I think she might have the best chance to deShrub the White House. She's building a solid record as a senator and in polls she's doing extremely well; everyone knows she already has experience in the job. Perhaps most important, she's not one of the boys. Sure, there's a minority out there who would never vote her in as dogcatcher, but most of them are committed Rs anyway.

Ceashel, you've taken the bull by the horns. I wouldn't be surprised if it's Hilary.

I don't know. I guess it doesn't pay to underestimate a Clinton, but it seems to me that Hillary could really bring out the vote for the other side. The people that hate her, really, really hate her. So far, I'm rooting for getting John Edwards a better haircut and letting him go at it. I see real teflon potential there. Of course, a lot of what happens in 2004 depends on how things are on election day. If people are reasonably satisfied, GW will win no matter who's running against him.

A word to the wise: I'm a great barometer of the political scene. I truly believed McGovern would win. Ever since then, whenever I really, really believed we would win, the other side did. So you can go by me absolutely; I'm ALWAYS wrong. Perhaps for the greater good, I should become an R and really, really believe.<img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/wink.gif" width=15 height=15> I just don't know how that could happen in this universe. I need to do lots of homework, anyway. I also mostly know only a little about most of the other possible candidates, primarily from what I've see of them on Face the Nation. So I'll shut up (HA!), and pay attention. Please continue...

I'm with you there, Ceashel. I don't remember if I thought McGovern would win, but I probably thought he had a good shot. I think I was aslo certain that Muskie would be the nominee that time, although I might have my elections mixed up at this point. I did think Muskie would win, whichever election I thought he'd be running in. I was horrified the first time I saw Bill Clinton on TV, during the early part of the primaries. He reminded me of a televangelist and I never thought he'd be the candidate. I liked Tom Harkin. I doubt if I've gotten any smarter, but I'm not rooting just for what appeals to me anymore, but trying to look at the charisma factor, sheer toughness and the ability to ride out and rise above the inevitable smear campaigns and stuff like that. And maybe, just maybe, to sell an more humanitarian agenda to the American people. I don't know who, if anyone, can do that. I hope one of them can.

I agree Pat. Gore is whimping out on this one. I think he stands a better chance second time around. (After-all, this stereo-type personna the public demands, such as being a totally monogamous, go to church on Sunday family man, ect) is right up Gore's alley. I think he's chilled out, and doesn't show the pressure he once did.

**I totally believe 'Hillary' should run for pres. as she probly wouldn't win. But at least she would open the door, for more woman to run in the future as President. There has to be a first time for everything. Hillary would have my vote IF she ever ran. She really hammmed it up New Yrs. eve with that dude from Hard-ball. Obiviously a NY atmosphere, but none-the-less, she was obviously welcome in that audience. Some woman protesters, even bashed her (quite loudly and violently BTW) only to have someone in 'that' very same party, apologize for there red-neck approach. (for lack of a better anology)....Hillary was more than glad that people showed to hear her. Even bad press is good. She seemed more than willing to take on any issue.

**Laugh as they will. But I dought very much you've seen the last of her popularity!

And Gore should get off his wimpy ass and run. ANY Democrat should stand a chance against Bush. This is the worst economy I ever remember. NTM: We don't need a President with so many enimies. Are they enimies of America, or enimies of Bush???

Thought for the moment...<img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/smile.gif" width=15 height=15>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rbrown:


[quote]
Are they enemies of America, or enemies of Bush???
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
While Bush may be the current catalyst I believe the problem is much deeper. The United States has been bullying and pissing people off all over the world for a long time, starting with the people we stole this country from in the first place. And I'm not just refering to the government either. There are plenty of corporations, tourists and missionaries involved also. So what do we expect?

http://www.jlweb.com/soundbytes/bushbetter.jpg

<img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/smile.gif" width=15 height=15>