I’m starting to warm up to John Kerry. I liked his reference to his “band of brothers” in his speech last night. The idea of him getting his war buddies back together for one more big fight is pretty cool. Speaking of cool things about Kerry, his favorite album is Abbey Road. That makes up for his Fonzie imitation on the Tonight Show.
I’m also warming up to his position on the war. Specifically, I think the “I feel like I was duped!” line will resonate with voters more than Dean’s “I was right when you were wrong” will.
Dean had a respectable showing, but I’m not sure what his prospects are after this. If he doesn’t win Arizona and/or New Mexico, then he’s finished. The rest of the states already feel like they’re evenly divided among the other candidates.
He also hit all the right notes with his concession speech. With the exit polls showing that he lost the “angry vote” to Kerry, it’s time for Dean to get his claws back. The key is to hit Bush hard without raising his voice (and I don’t mean to toot my own horn here, but I’m the king of being pissed without raising my voice). Dean should ramp up his rhetoric and get some headlines. The “code words” speech is a start. When he hits the stump today he should just go for the jugular and say something like “There’s no room in White House for someone who’d rather appease racists than help children.” Here’s another line that somebody should steal.
I really with John Edwards would have beat Wesley Clark. I think as people start dropping out, Edwards’ star will rise. My theory is that he’s everyone’s second choice. If Edwards can’t win big in South Carolina, not only is he screwed, but it also casts enough doubt about his ability to “deliver the south” that it would ruin any VP chances.
Lieberman is a goddamn crack smoker. Did you catch his speech when he talked about a three-way tie for third? In your dreams. At least when Kucinich says things like “I’ll drop out when I take the oath of office”, it’s funny and endearing. Lieberman on the other hand really thinks he’s gonna pull off some sort of Clinton-esque electoral upset (if anybody’s gonna do that, it’ll be the doctor). He needs to drop out right now.
posted by greg on January 28, 2004 @ 10:38 am
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I have to agree with you about Edwards. It’s been my suspicion for sometime he’s not really here to win, but here to show that he can be a great VP. Bill Mahr tried to get him to admit on his show last weekend, but could not.
I have a feeling who ever shows better in the south is going to end up as the first choice for VP.
Comment by andrew — January 28, 2004 @ 11:37 am
We probably all better warm up to Kerry because it looks like he will be our nominee. Baby Tuesday will separate the men from the boys with Super Tuesday a mere formality. Dean gave a fabulous speech last night but it probably won’t be enough.
Comment by Becky — January 28, 2004 @ 11:44 am
i’m just glad clark isnt getting off the ground because i really do wanna vote for a democrat in november, but voting for the general would be stretching “anyone but bush” too far for me.
cant say i like kerry. if i was a reporter and had him in the crosshairs id want to know why a congressional report with his name on it that showed the secret government unconvered by the church report was still up to its old tricks, not to mention arms for hostages or the october surprise, produced few prosecutions which were quickly pardoned and business went on as usual. this bothers me. with ammunition like this he didnt put up more of a fight? troubles me.
edwards is my second behind kucinich too, if for nothing else he’s greener to the senate and hopefully less corrupted.
dean… as i said before dean folks are now talking about voting conviction and concience from a side of that argument they havent been on before. wonder how long itll be before they’re compared to naderites.
and joe’s gotta go. who are this 9% who voted for him?
Comment by josh — January 28, 2004 @ 12:16 pm
Joe is the only Democratic candidate I’d vote for… maybe also Edwards. First off, “I was duped” makes Edwards seem dumb to me. I know he isn’t, but show a little courage, man! I’d never vote for Dean.
Lieberman has a consistency that I like. Back when Clinton was launching Desert Fox, he’d already ackowledged that Saddam had to go, and he’s had the courage of his convictions ever since. I want a democratic candidate who will act decisively to protect our interests and strengthen our defense. Lieberman and Edwards are the only candidates who show me that.
If Lieberman doesn’t get the nom, then I may have no choice but to vote for Bush. I don’t want to because I hate how beholden he is to making his tax cuts permanent, but lacking a Lieberman, that’s the way I’m going.
Comment by Earnest — January 28, 2004 @ 1:17 pm
I wouldn’t make national security my number one voting priority. Lets face it, we have a huge military and can pretty much defeat any threat. It doesn’t matter who’s in charge that really isn’t going to change much. It would take decades before our defense was at a point where any one could do a whole lot of damage.
Terrorists are bad, I know, but you have a much greater chance of slipping and dying in your bath tub then you do of getting killed by a terrorist. They can do a lot of damage, but I’m sure the next big hurricane, earthquake, or volcanic erruption will do more.
I much more concerned about facing the why’s behind terrorism then actually confronting it. Because just like the war on drugs you’re never going to stop it completly by fighting it… in fact you might just make it worse.
Comment by andrew — January 28, 2004 @ 1:40 pm
I don’t fear that I’ll be attacked by terrorists, but I do fear that others in our country will. While I may never be the victim of a terrorist attack, that doesn’t mean that I will in no way be affected by a terrorist attack. Education is my number one priority for America, but defense should always be a government’s top priority. Always.
Comment by Earnest — January 28, 2004 @ 1:56 pm
What if I could tell you that for $10 billion dollars we could save 10,000 people from dying from cancer; Or we could spend the same amount of money on homeland security and prevent a possible attack that may kill 1,000 people. What’s the better investment?
I believe there is more than enough money ear marked for defense. What we need are smarter people deciding what to do with that money. Does building $120 million F-22 fighters make me safer? What do they have to shoot down besides obsolete MiG’s? Couldn’t we have just bought the “bargin” JSF for 35 million? Are the terrorists really planning on shooting a missle at us? Is that why we need a missle shield? We already have the best military equipment in the world. We have more than enough military intelligence. If we weren’t busy stationing troops all over the world we’d have more than enough personnel. What we need is better trained and better motivated intelligence and soldiers. For example if we bought those Joint Strike Fighters instead of the F-22’s we could afford to give every soldier a $42000 raise. Not that I would suggest doing that. But you could use that money to increase their training, saleries, benifits, etc. Throwing money at the problem is never the solution. Being smart is.
Comment by andrew — January 28, 2004 @ 2:54 pm
“Education is my number one priority for America”
then you must be smoking the same crack that Lieberman’s smoking because voting for Bush is a vote AGAINST education.
Comment by tom — January 28, 2004 @ 3:40 pm
thas’ kosher krack!
Comment by tha pusherman — January 28, 2004 @ 4:00 pm
Best Blog Line Ever:
“Lieberman is a goddamn crack smoker.”
‘Nuff said.
Comment by Darth Pundit — January 28, 2004 @ 7:25 pm
A vote for Bush is also a vote against saving money. I am wary of people who would rather spend money on vague threats than on concrete ones that threaten us every day.
Comment by Shannon — January 28, 2004 @ 9:16 pm