Democratic Presidential Nominees: Who will it be?

We should get a thread going on this topic. All in all, I would have to say that they are so far quite unimpressive. One of my conservative Democratic friends says she will vote Libertarian if they nominate Dean. I put them in order of power.

1.Dean- By far the angriest of the nine. He is running on an “I hate Bush the most” strategy. He is a good public speaker, but he comes off cold and kind of heartless. He is raising money from the most liberal wing of his party. He is more attuned to local issues because he was a small time governor and a “Washington outsider.” His problem is that he was against the war in Iraq and most do not trust him to do the right thing if elected. Another problem Dean has is he is insultive and rude. He also has to escape the shadow of McGovern and Mondale, which he will not be able to do. Besides being hateful, he really does not have an interesting personality and he comes off as a “limo liberal.” How does he get the nomination without the South (thanks to his stupid comments)? New York, California, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Washington state are all probably favorable to him in the primary if others drop out after the first couple of primaries. Right now, I would say Dean gets the nod. His base is the activists, college students who have a vast amount of time on their hands, liberal organizations, limo liberals, and antiwar protesters.

2.Gephardt- I see him as the Democrats best at beating W. He is articulate and passionate and he was for the war, but does not seem to be for the peace. He ran before and lost in the primaries. He can be appealing to southern Democrats because he is not a northern liberal, but he is really old news. Big labor is basically behind him, but the AFL-CIO endorsement of Dean really hurt. He might win Iowa and he might pick off some southern delegates in the South and Midwest. I do not know if he can raise the big bucks because he is not “hateful” enough like Dean. He just does not energize the base very well. His base is labor and moderate to conservative Democrats. If he loses Iowa, then he is out.

3.Clark- His nickname is definitely “flip-flop.” This guy is really lost in space. He looks like he has no clue when he sites sources for his foolish remarks. His remark about the 16 soldiers that died in the helicopter crash because of a failed Iraq policy was ridiculous. His voting record will also hurt him since he voted for Nixon and Reagan, which are hated in the liberal underworld. His military record is the only reason why he is in this race and the only reason why he is 3 on my list. I was in Europe during Kosovo and many of us did not care for Clark or Shinseki. His base is those who feel he can beat Bush, which he cannot do. Personally, I think Bush will beat him down in a debate. He might get some delegates in the South to go for him and maybe the Midwest. He has to win South Carolina.

4.Edwards- Sounds southern, but lives in the best houses in NC. What can I say? He is a trial lawyer and a very rich one. He hasn’t passed any bills he has written and he is a national Democrat from a fairly conservative state. He might do will in the South, but he has to win South Carolina to stay in. Clark really hurt him in the South when he jumped in. Edwards sealed his death when he voted against the money for Iraq and Afghanistan. He called it a “blank check,” but the check read 85 billion dollars. How is that a blank check? The only thing he has got going for him is his accent and his looks. But he resembles Clinton too much and America is not ready for another sweet talker. This is the age of straight talk, which he cannot do. His base is the trial lawyers and the endless amount of cash they possess.

5.Kerry- I think Kerry is done. Dean has beaten him. He is a Dukakis all over again. He was Lt. Governor during Dukakis’ term. Kerry is getting pounded in NH and is well behind in Iowa. By the way, no one will remember who came in second or third because it is irrelevant. You usually have to win one of the first three. Kerry shook up his campaign this week, but really to no avail. He is another limo liberal and he comes off kind of boring. His base is the people who do not want Dean to be the nominee, but have the same politics.

I predict Lieberman will be out pretty quickly along with the rest. He is just not resonating with the liberal base and he is running out of money. Let me also say that this is not 1992 all over again. Clinton got the nominee by chance and money is big in this primary. Right now I think Dean will get it. Things could change, but there is only 2 months until the primaries.

Thanks, NewLand, for the welcome(?) and for the clarification of the purpose of the site. I must admit, however, that I had originally
found this particular discussion of the administration and the degree to which it demonstrated an adherence to traditional conservative ideology to be quite thought provoking. This was why I was disappointed when the conversation seemed ultimately to degenerate.

I agree that if issues are to be debated, that contributors, both
guests and Freepers, should include citations of sources. It would
make all contributors' arguments more credible. In fact, it seems to
me that well-referenced debates over the issues could go a long way toward the type of grassroots activism that this site advocates. The occasional apparently dissenting view, as it emerges in the forum, could be seen, rather than as a threat, as an opportunity for Freepers to articulate as objectively and convincingly as possible the position of conservatives in response to the view in question. Whether these arguments serve to "convert" the aberrant poster is immaterial, because they would accomplish the more important goal of continuing to build an archive that defines (with civility) the conservative view in contrast to the "opposition".

Finally, I would like to point out that I have not seen anywhere on
the web page any indication that if a poster "quacks" like a liberal it
is suddenly open season. I did notice, however, at the time of my
first post, the request, "Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts." Unless I have misinterpreted this
request, every part of it seems to have been ignored with regard to
communication with and about Alan17b. MelissaA

"This was why I was disappointed when the conversation seemed ultimately to degenerate."

The conversation degenerated when alanb17 stated:

"...our present (unelected) president..."

"We used to think that Mr Clinton set the standard for presidential lying; but Mr Bush is _much_ worse."

"He has tripled the threat of terrorism"

"He "defends the environment", but he lets us drink arsenic and breath mercury"

Do you agree with these statements as facts...yes or no?

"In fact, it seems to me that well-referenced debates over the issues could go a long way toward the type of grassroots activism that this site advocates."

So, let's see...you have been on FR for one week...we have been here for almost 8 years (6 years for me)...are you suggesting we don't have well referenced debates here?

What is your reference for saying that. I have mine...

"Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts." Unless I have misinterpreted this request, every part of it seems to have been ignored with regard to communication with and about Alan17b.

Wrong again!

-Show me the profanity
-Show me the violence
-Show me racism

The replies were very respectful...the humor of the photos was superb...but then again, I guess liberals are generally too angry to appreciate humor, or too disrespectful of different views to appreciate diversity...

"So, let's see...you have been on FR for one week...we have been here for almost 8 years (6 years for me)...are you suggesting we don't have well referenced debates here?"

I am suggesting that I haven't seen a well-referenced debate over this particular topic, although I did think that sboyd made several interesting points on which I hope he will elaborate if he is still visiting this board.

"...our present (unelected) president..."

"We used to think that Mr Clinton set the standard for presidential lying; but Mr Bush is _much_ worse."

"He has tripled the threat of terrorism"

"He "defends the environment", but he lets us drink arsenic and breath mercury"

Do you agree with these statements as facts...yes or no?

I would actually be curious to know Alan17b's supporting arguments and sources for these assertions...

-Show me the profanity

Take a look at the final statement of your 12/6 post.

-Show me the violence

Surface-to-air missiles are not violent? (I'll overlook the stun guns :-) )

I guess liberals are generally too angry to appreciate humor, or too disrespectful of different views to appreciate diversity...

I would be curious to know just exactly what you think a liberal is. You seem to be implying that I am a liberal and that by some definition of "liberal" that I am angry and/or disrespectful. All I have done is to try to defend (very politely) an individual who, when seeming to attempt to engage in thoughtful, albeit controversial dialogue, has been treated as if he has done nothing more than, well...take a look at the final statement of your 12/6 post...

1. You are the guest here. If you have facts to debate, bring them out...now. If not, stop wasting our time and judging people who did not ask to be judged by you. You showed up uninvited...so show us your stuff or go home. Don't 'pass the buck' to another poster, which for all we know, may be YOU! There has been absolutely NOTHING "thoughful" about his/her/your dialogue thus far.

2. I had several posts on 12/6 and there were no profanity...unless you count "poop".

3. Photos are not violent. They are used here to have a good laugh in many ways. Don't like it...? Easy solution, I'll let you figure that out.

By default, if YOU cannot vehemently deny the first salvo fired by alan17b about an unelected president, you should be totally ignored. I have been very generous in giving you a platform...this is your last chance.

Answer questions or go home.

You showed up uninvited...so show us your stuff or go home.

Don't we all show up uninvited?

Don't 'pass the buck' to another poster, which for all we know, may be YOU!

Are you saying that Alan17b is no longer available for comment? If you think that I am Alan17b, I thank you for the compliment, but I am simply a student. My aim has been to obtain an education about what it means to be a conservative. I have learned much.

Wow! I thought I had logged onto a conservative site. Have I somehow been forwarded to a fascist one?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.