Let's be Honest About Two Things

[Stevendsmith]

1. Traitorgate is being suppressed by the state-corporate media --despite our "pass the popcorn, this is gonna be good" predictions. This story gets only the most cursory mentions in the mass media anymore. There's too much at stake. Class interest is kicking in here. I'm sickened by this, of course.

2. There is no formidable challenger to Bush in the Democratic field. I know Bush is doing a great job of damaging himself, but I don't see any Dem candidates that will blow Bush out of the water. No one is even close to Clinton caliber. (For the record, I support Dean, but his wooden and often icy personality and his foreign policy vulnerabilities greatly concern me). The establishment is going to dump millions into McGovernizing this guy. They will do damage.

[mhr]

1. 3. 200 Million Dollars Buys Significant Brainwashing and Dirty Tricks

eom

[bowens43]

2. #2

I disagree completely. Any of the top 3 or 4 dem candidates will easily beat bush. So , I guess if you already concede the election, you won't be voting?

[Stevendsmith]

3. Not at all

You'd have to kill me to supress my vote. I'm just saying that this will be a very close election, and we need someone who can win decisively. I'm concerned that we don't have a slam-dunk candidate with the charsima and platform to connect with the majority of voters.

[alexwcovington]

15. This ain't no cakewalk

BushCORP is gonna fight long and hard. No matter who the Dems run, we're going to be tooth and nail...

[soleft]

4. I like Dean and his lack (my perception) of warmth concerns me

The first time I saw him speak I was impressed with his feistiness and energy. I expected him, as a doctor, to also have a softer, warmer side, and I haven't seen it yet. I wanted to see it in the last debate when he talked to the Latina woman about her concerns, and I didn't see it.

And the thing is, you either have that or you don't, so if it's something he was to develop....most informed people would not let that affect their vote, unfortunately it seems elections are not decided by informed people.

[damnraddem]

5. Honest about two things? I don't know.

That's quite a lot of honesty for just one post.

Hey, WE have to make sure that Traitorgate, and all the rest, stays in the forefront. And one reason Traitorgate hasn't had much media space is that they've been devoting more space to discussing Dubya's declining popularity -- and those articles generally manage to mention Traitorgate as an aside, as one of the reasons for the decline.

[Gman]

6. I disagree on #2 because

I see the fear in the eyes of the GOP when they see Clark. I do agree Dean is another McGovern. If Dean gets the nomination, I hope at least his VP pick doesn't have unknown mental problems.

[Drifter]

7. Setup for failure ...

AWOL has already removed the expectation that this crime will solved and prosecuted.

There are 2 ways to satisfy a requirement.
1) satisfy the requirement
2) change the requirement

Cheers
Drifter

[diplomats]

8. I see your points, but I more or less disagree

1) Traitorgate is not going away; I'm sure of it. Just because it's not in the paper every day doesn't mean it's dying. Too many people know the truth. It will come out even if the WH and DOJ stonewall.
2) None of our candidates has Clinton's charisma, but I think some of them are capable of beating Bush. But it will be very difficult, because, as you say, Bush has money to spend out the wazoo. They will attack our nominee relentlessly.

[Stevendsmith]

11. I hope you're right

about traitorgate. I'm just mad as hell that this thing doesn't have the "legs" that even many in the mass media said it would. To use a rather shopworn, but pertinent, argument: Just imagine if it was the Clinton White House that committed this crime?

In any case, diplomats, your posts regarding traitorgate have kept a flicker of optimism alive for me!

[chiburb]

9. #1: Maybe, but I suspect...

That when there is "new" news, the media will be all over it. That will happen when the WH tries to redact some of the materials turned over to Justice because of "security" or "executive privelege". THEN you'll see a new round of stories calling for an independent investigation.
As for #2, if you're right why do polls show Bush losing to an "un-named" Dem?

[Stevendsmith]

12. I guess

I'm just looking for that candidate with the fire to win decisively. It's still early, though.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

10. The Zogby poll shows good matchup numbers for Kerry (Bush 45 Kerry 41)

and the other leaders: Clark and Dean a little less so.
I say this is good news. Kerry hasn't even mounted a national campaign yet.

[chiburb]

13. Speakinf of polls (in response to #2 in OP):

Date.....................Bush % Any Democrat %

October 15 – 18, 2003.... 43%........ 45%

September 22-24, 2003.....41%..... 45%

September 3-5, 2003 ......40%...... 47%

August 2003......... 43%........... 43%

And if you remove that evil term "Dem" and replace with "someone new"

Date.............. Re-Elect Bush........... Someone New

October 15-18, 2003..... 42%............. 50%

Sept 22-24, 2003......... 43............. 49

Sept 3-5, 2003........... 40............. 52

From a thread in LBN...

June 2003................ 49............... 38

[MISSDem]

20. who took this pool - sounds too good to

be true

[Unknown Known]

14. I have to agree totally

1) The media is controlled by corporations. Unless that changes (and I can't see that happening), the establishment will not disrupt the status quo as long as their interests are sustained.

2) Not one of the candidates has charisma. That's the problem. People today are drawn to charismatic celebrities and we need someone who is larger than life to break BushCo's control.

Basically, I wish Joe Wilson were running.

[Mandate My Ass]

16. I don't know about #2

But I disagree about #1. Here is something in LBN which I've seen in other mainstream outlets over the past few days. Wilson and fellow spooks are now going after Bushco on the lies leading up to war. They want their pound of flesh and I think they're going to get it if Bush perceives they're going to leak on other matters. I'd imagine they have a lot of dirt to dish if they were so inclined.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=175229

[CWebster]

17. This is bullshit

Why go into it with a self-defeating attitude? All this talk about the Clinton charisma--at this point in his presidential bid he was a zero - a nobody. Dean is under a lot of pressure to put on an academy award performance every time precisely because his campaign is unprecedented and very threatening to the business as usual politicians from both parties.

His campaign is the first stirring of a movement that could rattle the establishment and the insiders are going to throw up roadblocks. The Dean campaign is important because it is about more than Dean the candidate.
Remember that and don't allow their casual observations - that no candidate has that Clinton charisma or no candidate has gained standing, take on legitimacy. Be very careful of anyone who suggests that since we are not Republicans we have no hope of winning unless we promote candidates with Republican credentials with a Democratic identity gloss-over.

[MISSDem]

18. I haven't heard anything in the media about "traitorgate" for weeks

now and as to #2 - none of the announced candidates for the Democratic nomination can beat Bush especially now with California's governor being Republican. Many people believe as Susan Sontag said and I paraphrase - there is one political party in America - Republican - the Democratic party is a branch of that.

[Stevendsmith]

19. I'm not Being Defeatist

I'm making an honest observation. I support Dean. But he comes off as a dour son-of-bitch and it will hurt him. Like it or not, charisma and personality matter big time. I don't want a Republican-lite. I hate Democorporate "centrism." I want progressive populist candidate that connects on a personal level with the majority of voters. That ain't Dean, I'm truly sorry to say.