Dem ticket & bush's invasion - speculation, assumptions, leaps of logic

[Skip Intro]

This isn't pro or anti any candidate - I am fully ABB, although I do have my faves in this race. But if the Iraq invasion is to be the defining issue in 04, as looks likely, then that tells me a few things - begin wild logic and speculation:

Assuming the Iraq debacle/crime/quagmire that has let flow rivers of blood and misery is indeed the defining issue in 04, I submit that we must either have a "pro-invasion" or an "anti-invasion" ticket. Aside from personal feelings and the humanitarian cry for justice, looking at the situation from a purely political perspective (as the bush regime surely is), which ticket, pro or anti, would be the most viable in Nov. of next year?

I submit the "anti" ticket would be the most formidable Dem ticket for the following reasons:

1) It would be easier for an "anti" ticket to win over "pro" votes than it would be for a "pro" ticket to win over "anti" votes. The "anti" vote is much more passionate.

2) The momentum, sadly, is with the "anti" side. I say sadly because, as morbid as it may sound here, the mounting costs - in both human life and monetary and diplomatic resources, and the lack of any clear threat from Iraq, and the continued proving of the lies told to justify the war by the bush regime, will only work to open more eyes. Eyes once open to the murderous deception, to the untold costs to our nation and its place in the world, will not be easily shut again.

I should probably end this post here and now, and inquire how others feel about this. But I will go further.

So, going with the "anti" ticket immediately rules out a few of our current candidates. (Pardon me while I don my flame-retardant attire ;-) ).

Surely, Lieberman is gone in this scenario. And Gep. And Edwards (he still defends the invasion as a good thing, heard him say as much during the last debate). I like Gep and Edwards for different reasons, but surely they can't run as "anti-Iraq invasion" candidates.

The only other possible "pro" candidates whom I'm not quite sure where they really stand on the issue of whether the invasion was justified or not are Kerry and Clark. Kerry voted to give bush the power to invade Iraq, and there is a question of whether Clark, at least at one time, supported bush's agression toward Iraq. Even giving these guys the benifit of the doubt still leaves them somewhat vulnerable on charges they once supported the invasion. The perception, fair or not, that they once supported bush on this could be a liablility in Nov. For the sake of this speculative strategy, if we are to put forth a true "anti" ticket, I'm afraid Kerry and Clark don't quite cut it as "anti-invasion" - at, at least not in the purest sense.

If you're still with me, that leaves, of course, Dean, Kucinich, CMB, and Sharpton. Having narrowed the field to only clear "anti" candidates (to the best of my knowledge) the question becomes which of these could generate the most enthusiasm and votes. I think they all could in their own way, but one must be chosen.

Let's be honest - Dean, just looking at poll numbers alone, would top this list. That doesn't mean Kucinich, CMB or Sharpton are to be dismissed, not in the least. But there can only be one top of the ticket. As much as it hurts to set aside anyone here for the top slot, I think it apparent that, as things now stand (which is key, of course, who knows what will happen and which way the votes will eventually go) Dean would be the best bet, strategically, out of the four, to lead the ticket. We can't ignore the numbers-game aspect of actually winning.

As I said, speculation, assumptions, and wild leaps of logic abound in this post. This isn't really a pro-Dean post, per se, tho this line of thinking has led me to believe Dean may be our best bet as the strongest "anti-invasion" candidate.

I should probably stop here too, but what the hell.

Asuuming we now have Dean as the top of the ticket and assuming the running mate comes from the current feild, who would best offset any (real or percieved) Dean weaknesses or bring an advantage Dean does not?

Well, I think a Dean/Kucinich ticket would be awesome, but Kucinich really doesn't bring that many votes, from my pov, to the ticket. Most Kucinich supporters would back a Dean ticket, I believe, as most Dean supporters would back a Kucincich ticket.

Sharpton would be wild as VP, but carries a lot of baggage and would, in the end, imho of course (as all this is), would be a divisive figure, a favorite target of the right for years.

That leaves CMB. Dean/Braun. What a wonderful ticket. Would it work, it just might. Keep in mind that I am looking at the campaign against bush in strategic terms - not what is most liberal or most popular (@DU) or most mainstream, but what will work - what will win. I think CMB is least subject to attack from the right (tho she was attacked, and lost, in her last Senate race, yes?), but this pic for VP would throw the bush machine, I think. Like it or not, politically, being black and female would serve, or could serve, to cower rove and the gang, wouldn't want to be labeled racist or sexist. That in no way takes away from her qualifications - I am looking at this from the bush perspective, and they, I believe would have a hard time dealing with CMB. Yet they would try, and would be bound to misstep. Yes, strategy here. And CMB could generate a level of excitement in the black and other minority vote that could lead to a few surprises, even in the (despised by some duers) south. Something to think about.

Certainly, the VP chioce, no matter who the nom is, could come from outside the current pack.

So, I end this by saying that yes, even Lieberman would be light years better than bush, and I would view him as a savior should he get the nom, and would work as hard as I could to elect him.

But this post wasn't about that. It was about "pro-Iraq invasion" vs "anti-Iraq invasion", and the resulting parameters and realities in winning the most votes next year.

Sure, a Dean/Lieberman or Kerry/Clark ticket is possible and might represent the best chance to oust the fraud. It would surely be representative of the current Democratic party, and the current US opinion, according to polls. But I don't see how, in a potential Kucinich/Edwards ticket, one half of the ticket could preach that the invasion was a good thing, while the other half lamented at the horrors of it all.

A tangent carried to an extreme. thank you for your patience.

(btw, I'm offically undecided)

ABB!

[efhmc]

1. This is a very good analysis. However, I think most people do a whole lot

less thinking and more feeling when it comes to picking a candidate. Maybe not the folks around here, but unfortunately we are not the ones in charge.