Democrats agonise over who should fight Bush

[Nottingham]

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,213277,00.html?

Democrats agonise over who should fight Bush
Dean, a liberal backed by party activists and financiers, would turn off Middle America, but Clark is a Johnny-come-lately to the party

By Roger Mitton

WASHINGTON - The Democratic Party is in a dilemma.

Party leaders know that Republican President George W. Bush is now beatable in next year's election.


The war in Iraq and the sluggish economy have battered him and eroded his seemingly insurmountable lead of just six months ago.

But the Democrats also know that the man most likely to win their party's nomination to challenge Mr Bush is a little-known medical doctor called Howard Dean.

They are shocked by this and have been struggling to decide what to do about it.

more....

I thought this was a interesting Australian view of the Presidential candidates

:bounce:

[hedda_foil]

1. It is interesting, but the straitstimes is Singaporean.

It's not Australian.

[gully]

2. hmmm, they predict one of the two huh?

:scared: Guess it's comin down to the wire isn't it?

[Stupdworld]

3. plenty of time still, keep up a massive front

what wire? cant we all put in against Bush until primary time? We have so much time left..

[Rose Siding]

5. GOP pollsters already know Dean can win

snip>
Roll Call reports on a memo from a couple of GOP pollsters arguing that “if one makes the case that Bush could be vulnerable to the poofy John Kerry or the scintillating (yawn) Bob Graham how can anyone write off Howard Dean?... The difference between Howard Dean and the rest of the Democrat candidates is that Dean comes across as a true believer to the base but will not appear threatening to folks in the middle.” The pollsters “also offer an electoral vote scenario under which Dean could defeat Bush in 2004. They give Dean victories in 23 states (270 electoral votes) and point out that Bush lost all but two - Nevada and West Virginia - in the 2000 presidential election.”

http://www.msnbc.com/news/924508.asp

[HFishbine]

4. "struggling to decide what to do about it"

No struggle here. Donate and volunteer.

[Gringo]

6. How long is the "Dean a Liberal" spin going to resonate?

I wish he was a liberal, but HE AIN'T! God that's annoying. He may not go over well with middle America, since (OH NEVER MIND I'LL GET FLAMED FOR SLAMMING 'MIDDLE AMERICA') .

Anyway, I don't know about you people, but I'm not agonizing at all. I've supported Dean for months now, and am pretty confident that he's the best guy for the job. I imagine the Clarkies feel the same. The only ones agonizing are the Kerryites, Graham Crackers, Breck Girl fans and Kucinichites and others whose candidates are getting no traction whatsoever. The 12 people out there supporting Lieberman must be the ones most bummed of all since the CW in the spring was calling him as the nominee (hee hee!)

This article, aimed at a foreign audience is so simplistic and superficial - what's the point of posting it?

Also, what's this BS about Dean being backed by 'financiers'? Isn't his average donation about $50? Puh-leez.

[legin]

7. Why is it

that the AEI, the Heritage Foundation, and the CATO Institute are the quoted sources in a story about the nomination for the Democratic Party's candidate.

If I didn't know better I would think that these organisations were independant and non partisan.

For the reason that it is attempting to paint these organisations in a false light I have a few problems with this article.

[legin]

8. William Schneider of the American Enterprise Institute

is even worse than that, he is PNAC

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
(letter to Clinton 1998)

Would have thought this might be germain information that also might get into the article, but obviously not.

[legin]

9. Not the best source but

<<snip>>

The very fact that the details of these Secret Negotiations were leaked to a foreigner and foreign magazine proves that the Junta does not believe its own media (notorious for unreliability) but also points to the theory that the Burmese Generals have to rely on the foreign media and news agencies which prove that they are the real lackeys (axe handle) of foreigners. It is also tantamount to treachery because they have made a promise not to leak anything about the Secret Negotiations and yet they purposely let the cat out of the bag, while Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, as a noble Nobel laureate, has faithfully kept her promise. As a first instance the military have given tips to Roger Mitton who wrote a series of articles under cover of “Intelligent Speculation” and now the details of the discussions have been released on the inter-net.

If the hypothesis of Intelligent Speculation is genuine, then Roger Mitton seems to have more contacts than all the Burmese inside and outside of the country as well as all the diplomats and foreign correspondences stationed in Rangoon. Common sense. How can a person who does not speak a word of Burmese and is not stationed in Rangoon get all the confidential news of the Secret Negotiations without somebody leaking it to him? Simple logic. Besides, if the Burmese army betrays even this little promised trust, will they be trusted to keep their promises and agreement once a deal is made from the Secret Negotiations? This will pose a very big question to which both the Burmese and the international community cannot easily find the answer. In other words what little trust the people have in the Burmese army has been washed down the drain.

<<snip>>

http://www.rebound88.net/sp/talk/stalkdir5.html