For Democrats only: I think our field is shaping up quite nicely. Several of our candidates are starting to look promising indeed. Of course, only a political junkie would have sat through the entire two-hour debate, and the fact that there are 10 of them works against any one standing out. If the field isn't winnowed down soon, they might want to consider dividing themselves into two groups for a debate so we get more than these unsatisfactory soundbites.
I think they ought to keep Al Sharpton in just for the entertainment value. Carol Moseley Braun is obviously the weakest link. But you know, guys, she wouldn't stand out so painfully as the only one who ever brings up women's issues if some of the rest of you did so occasionally, too. I really like Bob Graham, but for some reason he doesn't come across well. He voted against the Iraq war resolution, against the tax cuts and against confirming John Ashcroft -- a much higher profile in courage than several others in office. But even with all his electoral experience, he doesn't sound sharp.
The real progressives are supporting Kucinich, and normally I'd be in the "Down the Drain with Dennis" camp myself. My unparalleled record for picking hopeless losers even extends to Republicans -- I always thought Dick Lugar would make a good president. However, common sense must occasionally assert itself.
Joe Lieberman does nothing for me. That leaves Dick Gephardt, Howard Dean, John Kerry, John Edwards and Wesley Clark, a more manageable number. The general did OK, for a new guy, and he certainly has an interesting face and presence. His early slip on the banana peel of how he would have voted on the Iraq war resolution was a mistake no experienced pol would make. You could practically see Never Answer a Hypothetical Question tattooed on Clarke's forehead -- at least he's a quick learner.
more...
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=15720
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
