Now THIS puts a whole new perspective on the upcoming Presidential elections. Kerry won first place and John Edwards came in second! Nobody was predicting this outcome.

Howard Dean seemed like the chosen one and either Gephardt or one of the other leading lights looked to be second choice.

And the most startling thing about all of this ...to me at least...is who came in SECOND !

John Edwards is, for my money, the only guy who has a rat's a** chance in hell of beating Bush this fall. Nobody among the experienced poltical pundits thought he really had a shot at it. (Just another "pretty face".)

Till tonight. ;)

Woah ...

Now this puts a whole new light on a lot of things. According to CNN, Dean got less than half the votes that Kerry did ... rumours that Gephardt is folding his tent and going home ... economics and health care the big issues .. spells an interesting time in the old corral for GWB.

Mike

jimmy carter came out of the wilderness in Iowa during his caucus run.

could Edwards be the next southern boy to do so?

No question about it Michael. John Edwards is the guy to watch. He is going places.

I remarked a couple of weeks ago that I thought he was the only one who could beat Bush this fall. Apparently the Iowans seem to think so too.

Now THIS is turning out to be an interesting race! ;) :cool:

Further to this....

Anyone who has listened to John Edwards in an interview can't help but be taken with his sincerity and down home honesty. Dean was joke. Most of the others have been in politics for far too long to still have any personal integrity.

And it shows.

John Edwards is a whole different sort of guy. All he has to do is impress the heck out of about twenty per cent of the Republicans...the way he has impressed me...and he's got it.

Oh...and the old guard in the Democratic Party will have to recognise this and bite the bullet. They are...quite possibly...the biggest single stumbling block that stands in the way of the Presidency for Mr. Edwards.

We shall see.....

Macnutt, you are actually a unique measure of who is a potential victor over Bush in Nov. I personally would like to see nearly any combination of Edwards/Dean, Kerry/Edwards, Dean/Edwards, et al, for a ticket that could unseat Bush. Hopefully, the Democrats will not resort to infighting and ruin any chances of defeating Bush. I still contend that economic issues, especially outsourcing of jobs offshore, will be a crucial issue. We shall see.

Edwards / Clark seems most favourable if Edwards is to make the ticket.

Clark would balance Edwards's apparent youth with military service at a high level. Edwards with new ideas and not being seen as part of the beltway boys club would put a new spin on the race.

A military person on the ticket would give the Dem. a real force against Bush / Cheney. Dem. would appear not be soft on terrorism nor soft on foregin policy. Edwards would be "seen" (by the electorate) to be lacking in both. Also Clark would make the military-industrial complex happy since they would have one of their own. Remember the last the the m-i complex wasn't happy with a president? circa Nov. 1963

i think Kerry would be fodder for the big republican machine. sure he's a war hero, but what else? and who would run with him that would complement him?
Dean is just too easy a target for the republican tv ad. machine. The GOP is just salivating for a shot at Dean. Rep. would win in a cake walk. With all of Dean's verbal indiscretiions they already have enough for a negative ad campaign.

No need to address Gephardt, nor Leiberman. It's over and they both know it.

Edwards could be seen as a fresh (apparently young) face. Like Clinton when he played the saxaphone on tv. Appeal to younger voters (i.e. less than 50). Clark seen as elder statesman to keep the young feller in check. Sorta' like Cheney although Clark is better read (not "red") :D

A wild card is the fact that Ralph Nader is not running as the Green Party candidate, but has said he is considering running as an independent. Sadly, he was the first third party candidate since TR's Bull Moose Party that did not favor a Democrate and enable the Democratic candidate victory in the election. We shall see.

Very astute observations macspectrum. I think you've pretty much nailed it down. Clark (who only became a Democrat a short time ago) has the background to sway quite a few Republicans over to the other side, and Edwards has something that we have not seen in a Presidential candidate for decades. If ever.

Real personal integrity. And he comes from a dirt poor family. Everybody loves a rags to riches story. Especially when the guy did it all by himself.

But he has to make it past the old guard in the Democratic party and he has to get past California. He'll have the whole south wrapped up, if he gets that far.

Yep...this is turning out to be a very interesting race, indeed! :cool:

BTW....

The major news networks are playing Dean's bizarre and inexplicable post vote rant over and over again. Perhaps he was self-medicating (he is a doctor) or maybe no one informed him of his crushing defeat before he grabbed the microphone. Either way, it was downright spooky. You'd think he actually won or something. tongue.gif

Anyone who thinks Dean has even a ghost of a chance at the Whithouse need only imagine what a fifteen second clip of that strange "victory speech" will do to him during the actual election campaign. Especially with the word's "can you imagine THIS guy in the Whitehouse?" crawling slowly by on the bottom of the screen. tongue.gif ;) :cool:

"Kerry Wins..."

Damn, I thought this was about Gaelic Football...
GAA rules

Hmmmmm

Well by gosh didn't Macspectrum and I rather call up some excitement about Wesley Clark about this back there Sept 17th ;)

http://www.ehmac.ca/cgi_bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=001180

and

Here about Edwards
http://www.ehmac.ca/cgi_bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=001555

"Edwards is very true to democratic roots looking after the poor and middle class while Clark represents a more centrist stance. With Clark's international experience and Dean's middle America appeal this might be a good combo for the world and the Democrats." Dec 21 2003. :D

Now MacNutt to his credit acknowledges Edwards but of course ends with

"Too bad. We could use a REAL opponent!" WE !!! considering dual citizenship are WE.????

Careful what you wish for. :cool:

Careful what you wish for. you mean; Careful what we wish for. :D

Yes, macdoc...I DID use the collective "We" in that past post! ;)

It was meant to convey the fact that I consider myself to be a citizen of North America (I have, after all, spent much of my life living and working for, or in, the United States). And I consider the Right and the Left in both countries to be somewhat united in the direction that they wish to pursue. Both politically and economically.

Is this a shock to you? It shouldn't be.

Much of the stuff you quote so readily in your arguments originates from south of our common border. You use it all the time. Or hadn't you noticed that fact? tongue.gif graemlins/lmao.gif

I said, back then, that John Edwards was a real guy. And that I thought he had a real chance at the Whitehouse.

I even said that I might vote for him.

I'd have thought that you would have found that to be much more of a shock, really. tongue.gif ;)

Macnutt, I did not see the post-Iowa speeches, and would love to know what exactly took place with "Dean's bizarre and inexplicable post vote rant". Why was it so "bizarre"? Does anyone know of a site that has this clip or soundbite???

This stuff has been all over the news, Dr.G...

I can't find a soundbite, but here is a news site that will tell you all about it. A google search will turn up much more about this. Dean is finished.

Howard Dean's bizarre rant (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/21/yell_in_iowa_may_haunt_dean_camp/)

(manoman I just LOVE this ADSL!) graemlins/heybaby.gif

I saw the video clip and he looked like he was off his meds.
He kept screaming the names of various U.S. states. Screaming and frothing. It was embarassing.

Just keep watching CNN. They will play it again.

This rant will sink Dean just as the "pat on the back" sunk Turner.

Dean should go back to being a mad scientist. It's over for him.

Macnutt, I found an audio transcript on CNN. It was most strange, and this from someone who supported most of his views. I don't fully agree with Macspectrum that it is over for him just yet, but this cannot help. We shall see.

The Bush campaign crew are hoping and praying that Howard Dean is the guy they will have to run against this fall.

If Dean runs, it will be a Bush landslide. And you'll see that rant a lot more during the campaign. Plus a bunch of other strange stuff he's done in public. He apparently suffers from anxiety attacks and emotional outbursts like this are well known and well documented by his medical staff. They've been talking about it for weeks.

Imagine THIS guy with his thumb on the armageddon button. No way it's ever gonna happen. tongue.gif

BTW...while I am writing this, they just played a portion of his rant again on TV. The political commentator couldn't keep a straight face. She said "that just never gets old, does it". graemlins/lmao.gif

Stick a fork in him. He's done.

The Bush campaign crew are hoping and praying that Howard Dean is the guy they will have to run against this fall.
absotively
the Republicans already have their negative ad campaign "in the can" for Dean
the man is a walking negative ad campaign
Democrats would do well to unhitch their wagon from this crazy pony
Of course, back in NY state, Hilary is just hoping that Dean falls flat on his face so that she can be the saviour in 2008.

Macnutt, in all seriousness, I fear Bush as the "THIS" man re you comment that "Imagine THIS guy with his thumb on the armageddon button. No way it's ever gonna happen." Dean went over the top, but Bush is dragging the American people, the Constitution and the economy down the drain.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/21/elec04.prez.dean.next.ap/index.html
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/news/economy/election_deficits.reut/index.htm

Well, Dr. G...we will have to wait and see what the majority of American voters think about all of this. If Dean gets the nomination (unlikely IMHO) then the voters will be able to choose which of these guys gets control of the nuclear "football".

Bush already has it. So far he hasn't nuked anybody. Yet. ;)

Macnutt, it's your "yet" that is frightening, along with the partial dismantling of the Bill of Rights. Yes, we shall see.

While I like some of Dean's views I believe he's the weakest of the top four candidates (Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Dean).

Any of the other three (unless a skeleton is found in one of their closets) would be a super opponent to Bush and a much better President.

My bets are on Clark. After New Hampshire Edwards will do well in South Carolina but Clark will do well in the rest of the South. Kerry will be tarred with the Ted Kennedy and liberal Massachusetts brush.

For Clark's VP I'll choose the younger Edwards. He'll take over after Clark's 8 years and we'll have 16 years of sane, ethical Democrats. Great news for Canada. (Yeh, I know - what have you been smoking godot?)

Cheers,

godot

Well, Dr. G...we will have to wait and see what the majority of American voters think about all of this. oh really?
the majority of voters voted against George Bush
the elctoral college vote was decided by a vote of 5-4 thanx to the Supremes - now you know why presidents fight so hard to appoint judges of their "ilk", eh?
cause you never know when you might have to call in a favour

Macspectrum...we have done this to death. Let's just leave the "illegitimate President" claims for some other time, eh? We have beat this subject sensless.

What I meant was a "clear majority" of American voters. And I think that this time around, we will see a clear majority of American voters choose one or the other.

It's shaping up to be a very interesting race, too. ;) :cool:

It's very relevant because Bush has undertaken massive programs with a zero mandate.
There is very unlikely to be a "landslide" either in this election given the split but it's too early to tell.

Mandates - a clear win gives credibility to major changes by the elected regime in democratically governed nation.

Bush had and has no mandate. He "might" - he also might get turfed. A shaky and suspect election process is very relevant. Ask a few million Americans. :cool:

Good take on the "press" here.
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040121/cagle00.gif

[ January 22, 2004, 07:05 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]

I've added a post featuring a link to Howard Dean's speech. Well sort of... (http://www.ehmac.ca/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=001687;p=1#000 000)

If the political maxim is true--when people are laughing at you, you're finished--then I suppose it's time to stick a fork in Mr. Dean.

Actually an early departure might be better.
Keep the internal bloodshed to a minimum. tongue.gif

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040118/lane.gif

Good cartoon macdoc. So appropriate, as well. graemlins/lmao.gif :cool:

Bush may not seem to have had much of a mandate after the Presidential elections, but two years later the American people chose to give him yet another Republican Congress. This is a very big vote of confidence in his administration.

Also, he has had the highest sustained approval ratings in US history. That's certainly considered to be a vote of confidence and would lead anyone to thinking that he did, in fact, have quite a mandate.

The number of US states that have dumped the Democrats in favor of the Republicans...including the largest and richest state in the union...would certainly seem to be yet another vote of confidence.

Even now...after all that has been said in the press about the lack of WMD's, most Americans seem to be solidly behind what George W. is doing in the middle east.

And even with all the hatred that has been spewed at Bush from certain groups, only the most recent poll shows a Democratic hopeful in a dead heat with George W. All of the previous ones have shown George W. with a double digit lead over all of them put together!

Now THAT is a mandate.

polls at the plenty
uh oh... looks like 4 more years of "le shrub"

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm :(

seems that Democratic presidents have sex on the brain, while Repulican presidents have war and killing people on theirs

I choose the former over the latter

How many have died in Iraq under the watchful eye of this current president?

CNN doesn't tell you that, do they.

Pentagon has not allowed any filming of any "transit tubes" returning, unlike the CBC Newsworld live coverage of Cpl. Murphy returning home.

I think a very big difference between canadians and amerikans is that we are not as accepting of untimely deaths.
It stil seems to be a big deal up here. I hope it always stays that way.
War, truly is hell.

John Edwards could upset the whole applecart...if he gets that far. He probably won't. More's the pity.
More's the pity indeed! I was saw that 60 Minutes piece on Edwards a few weeks ago, and was impressed. He's very interesting - and the only one who doesn't give me the creeps.

IMO, Jimmy Carter was the best. His tenure seems like ancient history now, I know, but he was so decent and intelligent. Too bad his kind are few and far between, especially these days.

I'm felling a bit more optimistic about Bush being defeated. His administration is squirming under the pressures of the deficit, WMDs and embarrassments over his handling of affairs. I think Americans have given him the benefit of the doubt largely because there were no obvious alternatives. The Democrats have been pathetic in their inability to hold his feet to the fire. That is changing. The Primaries are essentially providing a sounding board for the Dems for hot-button issues and they're learning. Ms. Rice's pathetic explanations for the justification of the invasion are sounding as empty as ever suggesting either arrogance (that Americans don't care about it) or a vacuum.

If the successful Democratic candidate gets the party behind him, Bush will actually have to face a political opponent for the first time since the Supreme Court decision. So far, he's been unopposed.

Like I said....now THAT's a mandate! ;)

A lot can happen in a year. At this point I honestly don't see any Democrat with a clear lead over George W.

John Kerry is a good man and he has a good background...but I'm not entirely sure he would win against Bush. IF he even gets the nomination.

If the US economy keeps improving the way it has been doing over the last quarter...and if several more of the world's tyrants begin to show up with their hat in hand begging favor...then a second Bush term is a virtual certainty. No matter who he runs against.

John Edwards could upset the whole applecart...if he gets that far. He probably won't. More's the pity.

Take heart Michael....I lived through a full eight years of that public embarassment known as Clinton. And I was actually living in the USA for a good part of that period. Whenever I had to visit a government office to fill out work visa data I would look up and see his sappy mug smiling at me from the framed pesidential photo that is required in all such places. Made me feel vaguely unclean. YUKKK! :eek: graemlins/ptptptptptpt.gif

You'll survive. ;)

As a very new kid on this block I'm probably asking a question that's already been hacked to death. It's prompted by a comment from MacNutt referring to positive results for Bush by that great judge - the opinion poll.

Like I said....now THAT's a mandate! Was Gore robbed or did Bush win fair and square?

If a Democrat were to win later this year in exactly the same manner (i.e. letting the Supreme Court make the decision - oops! that wouldn't happen, they'd make sure the Republican got it again .... okay let's just say that the Republican had a plurality of 1/2 million votes but the Democrat eked out an Electoral College win) would that be fair? Would it be democratic (no pun intended)?

Cheers,

godot

I make a point to review your post I like your take on topics.

You may notice very quickly that matter of the political left and right are gnawed at a bit here and there in Ehmac Land.

Matters concerning USAsian politics and in particular the last Presidential election are never left to rest for long. I am thinking the results of the 2000 election or lack thereof will rise like a specter before during and after the 2004 election season.

I suspect we will all enjoy restating our views, many times, with that debacle of democracy.... er... not that I have any particular view myself you understand. :eek:

BTW where is Darling’s Lake NS

DougG, I knew there was something about your politics I liked. Jimmy Carter was the last US president I was able to vote for prior to coming to St.John's in July, 1977. I shook his hand at our graduation for doctoral students at the Univ. of Georgia in June of 1977 and somehow received an invitation to the Inauguration back in Jan., 1977. Sadly, his kind, as you say, is rare. He was an honest decent man and a good president. He earned his Nobel Peace Prize.

and Carter is still doing good, humanitarian work
he announced today that he would be embarassed to be from Georgia, if a proposal goes through to remove the word "evolution" from textbooks

atta boy Jimmy !!

Jimmy Carter may well be a good and decent man...and I truly believe he is. But he is remebered as one of the very worst presidents of the twentieth century by most Americans. He was so disliked by the voters, and his administration was in such total disarray by election time, that he actually conceded the win to Ronald Regan BEFORE all the votes had been tallied.

He wanted out...and the American voters wanted him out. He was way out of his depth in that job and that fact was all too apparent to everyone involved.

He HAS, however, turned out to be the very best "Ex-President" they ever had. He is far more well-thought of now than he ever was when in office.


As for JWoodget's wishful flights of fancy regarding a Democratic win over George W.....


Sorry to rain on your parade, Jim....Kerry has only a slight chance of beating George this fall. Quite a few things will have to happen before a democrat could possibly unseat George W.

His popularity at the beginning of his fourth year as President was still well above 50%. No sitting American President who has entered his fourth year with above 50% popularity has ever failed to win re-election.

Except Jimmy Carter. ;) graemlins/lmao.gif

This coming year will see the public trial of Saddam Hussein...and we might just see Usama bin Laden being checked for fleas and lice right after being captured by the US military. Think what THAT could do for George W.'s popularity. ;) :cool:

The US economy will continue its upward swing and jobs will be created at an unprecedented pace. Growth will outstrip anything that the States has seen for thirty years. In fact, that's already happening.


If there is a new terrorist attack on the US mainland, then the American people will rally behind their proven leader and he will be unbeatable in an election. They have all said...in many many polls...that they LIKE the way he has handled the terrorists.

If there are NO new terrorist attacks before the election, then many will say that it is because George W. has the bad guys on the run. And he certainly seems to, at this particular time.

In short....any candidate the Democrats nominate will have a long tough road ahead if he wants to beat George W. to the Presidency.

The only one I see who could beat him hands down in a massive landslide of grassroots popularity is John Edwards. And it doesn't look like he will get the chance, at this point.

Too bad. He really impresses me.

BigDL's post got me thinking and I've now put my toes a little deeper into the water by creating a post - my first.

I thought it would be fun for folks to put their money on the line now and predict who will be the next President of the U.S. I was going to call for predictions on the Democratic nomination but decided that this would be tougher. It also will give some of us the opportunity to embarrass MacNutt (assuming that's possible smile.gif ) when Bush is defeated in November.

See the post elsewhere in Everything Els,e eh?

BigDL asked:

BTW where is Darling’s Lake NS
CubaMark started a thread ( ehMac Modification suggestion ) in which I learned there was a Map (created by PosterBoy) where we can put neat little icons showing where we live. I have added mine, showing the approximate location of Darlings Lake.

BigDL, with your nick I was almost ready to make you an honourary citizen of DL but it's not a very big Lake - you deserve something more impressive.

Cheers,

But he is remebered as one of the very worst presidents of the twentieth century by most Americans. care to back that up with some research from your now hi speed connection?
or just a personal wet dream?

"jobs will be created at an unprecedented pace." graemlins/lmao.gif graemlins/lmao.gif

Billions in trade deficits, trillions in government deficits and a consumer bump based on ill advised tax cuts with ZERO job growth.

I'll amend that
""George Bush is doing something Bill Clinton didn't do ... his father didn't do ... not Reagan, or Carter, or Ford, or Nixon ... Not LBJ, or JFK ... Not Eisenhower, or Harry Truman ... Not in any of FDR's four terms," an announcer says as pictures of the former presidents fill the screen.

The ad then says Bush is on track to be the first president since Herbert Hoover to end his term with a net job loss record."
....oh yeah he was a Republican too......you never did answer why after 3 terms of Republican stewardship it all ended in the Great Depression and it took a Democrat to pull the US and world out of it. Annoying those facts - get in the way of wishful thinking all the time.

The glasses get rosier and more distorted all the time. tongue.gif

This would be about right

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040120/parker.gif

[ January 31, 2004, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]

Macnutt, you have said some strange things in this forum, but your comment that "But he [Carter] is remebered as one of the very worst presidents of the twentieth century by most Americans." is one of the strangest of all comments. Who are these Americans that you feel think of Carter in this manner?

Good point Dr. G., in my travels in the U.S. by motor home, I have talked with hundreds of American fellow RVers and never once have I heard one of them speak of Carter with anything but respect.

Far from being the worst, he may have been the best. Reagan got the credit for the hostages being released, but to this day, I feel the "statesmanship and kindly nature" of Carter perhaps set the stage for Ronnie's triumph and the real credit may very well be Jimmy's.

Just my opinion.

Cheers

smile.gif

Sinc, well put. I always liked Carter as a president and as a person.

So, you intend to live forever?!?! Very interesting............

Hey macspectrum, I (as a professional scientist) must admit that when I look at Bush as the head of state of the most powerful nation on the planet sometimes question whether evolution is all its cracked up to be.... smile.gif