dean-wards
Good luck to my favorites in Iowa. As I've indicated a bunch of times, I'm a split Democrat -- admiring most the movement Dr. Dean has built, and the passion and power Senator Edwards has. I am reassured that more in Iowa see the latter; I am worried that we all (Democrats at least) don't forget the importance of the former.
| Permalink | technorati
Comments (11)
I'm sort of a split Dem, too, so I appreciate the sentiment. But, isn't "de-dwards" pronounced like "DEAD-wards"?
nice point.
fixed.
There's your ticket: Dean and Edwards.
Interesting news today about Edwards and Kucinich agreeing to "share" support in Iowa caucuses. Those who truly make up the libral wing of the Democratic part will need to give Edwards another look.
see: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/elec04.prez.edwards.kucinich/index.html
Iowa and New Hampshire won't tell us who will be the nominee, but Dean, Edwards and Clark look (to me) as taking over the fight.
Edwards and Clark are in the unfortunate position of not having made the key strategic decision that Dean and Kerry made: abandoning the voluntary spending limits. Dean and Kerry have the potential to slug it out on equal terms with Bush in the general election--Edwards and Clark don't.
That's a shame--Edwards and Clark have qualities which would make them fine general election candidates and fine presidents--but it's also a fact.
I completely agree. I've been impressed with them both since the start. Edwards has given some wonderful, incredibly detailed policy proposals. And he might be more electable. But Dean has a certain passion and an excellent movement that are both great too. I also appreciated very much latest ideas, his suggestions to reform democracy in the US (through campaign finance reform, nonpartisan redistricting, etc.).
Detailed policy proposals ought to come from VICE Presidents who, after all, have to steer 'em through the Senate (which the US public seems to want split right down the middle - if they succeed, it technically gives the Veep the deciding vote).
Also, the more scary whackable guy ought to be the Prez, so that everyone will know he's gone too far if he gets knocked off. Until he does, everyone can happily pursue the agenda he was elected on. Scary Veeps just chill everyone since they are worried that the guy will gain power. If the scariest guy is already the Prez, no issue! And Dean more scary than Edwards.
Finally, Americans are mostly scared of their own shadows, if they actually watch the media. It lies to them about risk all the time, to get ratings, sell worthless "products", and convince them that more authority is good for them. So the major role of the President is just to act loony and prove that it's all right, you won't get whacked just for that. Bush is mostly scary because he doesn't have any real quirks or vices any more... he lost them all and his personality with them. Clinton liked fresh-faced interns and McDonald's, those are two weaknesses the public could understand and forgive.
Dean's weaknesses are a love of negative campaigning and a strange kind of war-whoop that will terrify America's enemies! Much scarier than Clark's wimpy attempt to start WWIII, which was refused by one snobby Brit. Hmmph! No one will refuse Howard Dean that easily.
Hello world!
Coincidentally found your site from Google, although not good in your language, but however enjoyed very much from what i can understand. A very interesting website indeed. Thanks to the webmaster
visit my page Teboil
Coincidentally found your site from Google, although not good in your language, but however enjoyed very much from what i can understand. A very interesting website indeed. Thanks to the webmaster Teboil
Coincidentally found your site from Google, although not good in your language, but however enjoyed very much from what i can understand. A very interesting website indeed. Thanks to the webmaster. Car audio