Should the Democrats have gone with Dean

[dchester]

I thought this might be an interesting subject to debate, as well as one that might have a little less emotion involved. Personally, I think the Democrats made a mistake in going with Kerry instead of Dean. Here's why I think that.

Dean stood for something. Whether you agree with him or not, you knew where he would go.

Dean talked about the future, whereas Kerry talks more about the past. I would really have prefered this campaign be about the future than about the past.

Very few people feel that they really know what Kerry stands for. His voting record in the Senate was very liberal, but in the Democratic primary races, he portrayed himself as a moderate (at least at times).

Dean would have energized the democratic base much more than Kerry (Bush is the only thing energizing the Democrats at the moment, and that doesn't seem to be enough).

Dean seemed to be more genuine and "likeable", whereas not too many people seem to really like Kerry.

The only reason that I think Dean lost in Iowa (which then pretty much doomed his run), was that people bought into the idea that Kerry was "electable". Too much was made by the media of Dean's speech that night where he let out that scream. He already had lost by then, as the "anybody but Bush" crowd had switched to Kerry.


I think there was a good opportunity for the democrats this election, as various factions have been disapointed in the Bush team, for a variety of reasons. It's not to the point where everyone just wants Bush out, but the country was willing to seriously consider an alternative. Thus far, a large number of people have found Kerry lacking. He'll have one more chance to sell himself during the debates, but he's got a large hill to climb at this point.

First, he has to better articulate what it is he stands for, and what he will do to get us there. Second, he has to convince people that he really means it (whatever it is), and that he won't flip again when the wind changes. Third, he has to convince people why his ideas are better than Bush's. Dean would have only had to have done the third one.

I know Dean's a liberal, but so is Kerry in my opinion. Do any of you agree, or do you think I'm smoking something?
________
stocks to buy now (http://pennystockpicks.net/)

[Ballbustah]

I would take anyone over Bush right now.
He has screwed us over and over again.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by dchester
I thought this might be an interesting subject to debate, as well as one that might have a little less emotion involved. Personally, I think the Democrats made a mistake in going with Kerry instead of Dean. Here's why I think that.

Dean stood for something. Whether you agree with him or not, you knew where he would go.

Dean talked about the future, whereas Kerry talks more about the past. I would really have prefered this campaign be about the future than about the past.

Very few people feel that they really know what Kerry stands for. His voting record in the Senate was very liberal, but in the Democratic primary races, he portrayed himself as a moderate (at least at times).

Dean would have energized the democratic base much more than Kerry (Bush is the only thing energizing the Democrats at the moment, and that doesn't seem to be enough).

Dean seemed to be more genuine and "likeable", whereas not too many people seem to really like Kerry.

The only reason that I think Dean lost in Iowa (which then pretty much doomed his run), was that people bought into the idea that Kerry was "electable". Too much was made by the media of Dean's speech that night where he let out that scream. He already had lost by then, as the "anybody but Bush" crowd had switched to Kerry.


I think there was a good opportunity for the democrats this election, as various factions have been disapointed in the Bush team, for a variety of reasons. It's not to the point where everyone just wants Bush out, but the country was willing to seriously consider an alternative. Thus far, a large number of people have found Kerry lacking. He'll have one more chance to sell himself during the debates, but he's got a large hill to climb at this point.

First, he has to better articulate what it is he stands for, and what he will do to get us there. Second, he has to convince people that he really means it (whatever it is), and that he won't flip again when the wind changes. Third, he has to convince people why his ideas are better than Bush's. Dean would have only had to have done the third one.

I know Dean's a liberal, but so is Kerry in my opinion. Do any of you agree, or do you think I'm smoking something?

I really don't know.

I think Bill Clinton was successful against Bush Sr. due to the fact that he was able to position himself as a moderate (that and Ross Perot). Today's Democratic party seems to be leaning further left then ever. I'm not sure if Dean would have appealed to any moderate's in the General Election.

I also think that Dean had a lot of skeleton's in his closet, which is why the mainstream (unreliable) media kept referring to him as unelectable. But I'm just speculating here.

I do feel that John Kerry is a horrible candidate. I felt that way last fall, and still feel that way today. Unfortunately, it seems that the more moderate Democrats don't stand a chance of winning a nomination from their party these days.

[Mark_Henderson]

I also am in the anyone but Bush camp, but I think that Dean had George McGovern written all over him. If James Carville correctly summed up the 1992 election with "it's the economy, stupid", I'd say it's pretty evident that in 2004 "it's the war on terror/Iraq, stupid". In a general election, it would have been easy work to make the liberal governor of Vermont appear a fringe figure.

If the question is which of the Democratic candidates may have been more electable than Kerry, I think the answer is Wesley Clark. I also think that he would have been a more effective VP candidate than Edwards. When the swift boat smear stuff came out, a stern rebuke on Bush's military record and disregard for military advice in Iraq from a 4 star general would have gone a long way.

When I watched Clark in the primaries, I thought he did a very good job of clearly articulating the issues of Iraq, but he didn't seem able to address anything else.