|
...Lieberman and all of this stuff about him is really starting to annoy me. Everyone here has said that he is enabling the Republicans, and they would be right. As far as the candidates go, he is the one I like the least. Instead of making this about issues, he has made it about being anti-Dean. Despite Saddam's capture, I don't think Dean is the candidate that has the least chance of winning against Bush, I think Lieberman is, here's why:
Democrats appeal to two principle bases. Liberals that will generally go with us, unless they go with a thrid party, or don't vote, through disenchantment. The other group is the moderates/centrists, who could be persuaded to vote for us but also for *. On top of that, some moderate conservatives may be included in this group.
Lieberman will not appeal very well to the Liberals. An argument from godhatesbush.com is that Gore lost because not enough liberals voted for him. By this same token, Lieberman would lose because not enough liberals would vote for him. They would either stay home, or vote third party.
The problem with the centrists is that Lieberman comes off as weak. His personality and campaign have no real life to them. He would let Bush trounce him in a debate and furthermore, the swing voters would think that Bush comes off stronger on National security (even though he fucked up) and vote for him, especially since Lieberman does not present an alternative. People paint Dean as a crazy left but there are not a lot of things he comes off soft on, nor does he enable his adversaries. Lieberman enables his political adversaries. Even with Saddam's capture, I still prefer Dean, but I will support any Dem, although I am getting closer to making Lieberman an exception to that statement. Furthermore Al Gore owes Lieberman nothing.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
