I am disappointed by what the Presidential race has become.

[anti-NAFTA]

Oh, how I long for the days of Gephardt vs. Dean, when issues were on top of everyone's mind. Back then there was a political war between those who prioritized fair trade and those who prioritized the war. There was DEBATE! Sure, I hated Dean back then (support him now since Gephardt left); but it was an interesting campaign, the product of which was to be a greater awareness of important issues.

Now that the race seems to be a (media-created) race between Kerry, Edwards, and Clark although the the latter two are nowhere near Kerry in terms of delegates and likelihood of securing the nomination... well now that this is the scenario it's become a race based on electability. The electability meme has been perpetuated by the media to boost the candidates who haven't threatened to promote fair trade and regulate the media.

It's become so boring that all I can do is roll my eyes whenever I hear pundits like Bill Schneider talk about how everyone cares about electability. The candidates are all bashing each other on non-issues like who gets the most lobbyist money. It's ridiculous.

And focusing on electability shows weakness to the Republicans and casts doubt in swing voters' mind about how substantial the Democratic platform is. I've heard so little about concrete agenda in the past few weeks and so many platitudes that I get the impression that the candidates are playing out of the Schwarzenegger playbook.

I think I speak for most Americans when I say I vote on the issues. It's pure political cynicism to think a Southerner will vote Democratic just because there's a Southerner on the ticket or that military experience guarantees a victory. It's also a distraction from the issues.

OK, now I'm repeating myself. But don't get me wrong: I like how Edwards has recently been speaking out against NAFTA (though I'm not sure how sincere he is), how Clark has used the words "neoconservative" and "Wolfowitz" (though I'm not sure he doesn't have any ties to them since he worked in the Pentagon), and how Kerry has a strong record of being an internationalist. I would just like to hear more stuff like this and less garbage about electability.

[anti-NAFTA]

1. kick

[lancdem]

3. Electability and issues are not mutually exclusive

and Kerry does well with voters who care about the economy, health care and education. I don't think electability is some sort of dirty word. I'd actually like to win in November.

[girl gone mad]

actually..

Kerry doesn't do well with the voters on any of those 3 issues. He only does well with the voters on "electability".

[JailForBush]

7. Electablility versus "Electability"

The quotes make all the difference in the world. Those of us who cringe at the word "electability" aren't asking for a candidate who's UNelectable, any more than free trade critcs oppose trade (an institution that has flourished for eons).

Take a closer look at what's happening to Campaign 2004.

[Faygo Kid]

2. Disagree. Most important election in history. Greater than 1864, 1932.

This isn't boring. This is the fate of our nation. George W. Bush and his minions are the most radical, damaging administration in history. Look, I worked for Gene McCarthy in 1968; been around a while. Yeah, the Dem leadership (the same gang that brought you the 2002 elections) is still clueless. But make no mistake: If we lose this one, we lose it all.

[JailForBush]

8. Hiroshima wasn't boring, either. But it was very disapointing.

I think that's what the original poster was inferring. No, this campaign will be very exciting even if George W. Bush steals the White House again. Very exciting indeed.

[Faygo Kid]

10. ??? Can you expand? Don't understand your point.

Hiroshima? Bush stealing the White House? Excitement in this race to me is its importance. Really don't get your post. Can you explain?

[JailForBush]

14. "Disappointing" does not equal "boring."

This race will be exciting no matter how it ends. It's just terribly disappointing.

[mlawson]

4. Electability is garbage???

Sorry, but I still have psychic scars from 1/20/69, 1/20/73, 1/20/81, 1/20/85, 1/20/89, and above all 12/12/2000. No matter how much you like a nominee, how much you agree with him on everything, if he does not WIN, what good does any of it do anyone??

How much has the platform of defeated nominees ever affected the winning administration, once they take office??? Can you name one instance? I cannot.

[JailForBush]

5. I was disappointed, too, until I realized that I shouldn't be surprised.

Democrats have been helping the Republicans sell us down the creek ever since 2000, so why should they suddenly change less than a year before the next presidential election? It was very predictable that corporations would manipulate this election campaign, while the sheeple sat it out. I've been shocked at the lack of political astuteness even on political chatboards, like this one.

This only reinforces the need to get LOCALLY INVOLVED. Reform simply ain't happening at the top until we learn how to reform local school boards - even that task seems to be too much for most Americans.

[donco6]

9. I've read many politically astute threads on this board.

"I've been shocked at the lack of political astuteness even on political chatboards, like this one."

Perhaps you could impart some great wisdom, rather than the usual name-calling.

[JailForBush]

13. More precisely, I've read many politically astute posts on this forum,

but I've also read many that are NOT astute. I had hoped for a greater margin of "astuteness" here.

I don't recall calling anyone names (not a very astute observation), but I can certainly impart some wisdom:

1. Take another look at education reform; it's not a dirty word.

2. Don't be intimidated from using the word conspiracy; it's what makes our government tick.

3. Don't let the media pick your candidates.

[donco6]

29. Here's some wisdom

Think before you write.

[sandnsea]

6. Money and new voters

I was pretty disappointed when that was was the election was about. Electability is just as annoying because it means the reason people think Kerry can beat Bush is he's ten times better on every single issue.

[BurtWorm]

11. Very well said!

:toast:

[Mairead]

12. If you really voted "on the issues" rather than on "electability"

you'd be voting for Kucinich!

[JailForBush]

16. And if people really cared about issues, Kucinich would be at or near the

top. Catch-22.

We, the people, set low standards - or no standards at all - and typically don't even set up to THOSE standards. Witness Al Gore versus George W. Bush or Arnold Schwarzenegger versus Gray Davis.

[anti-NAFTA]

18. If you remember...

I was a Kucinich supporter two weeks ago and even had a thread about it. I switched in fear of getting another term of Democratic centrism at the hands of Kerry and Edwards while whenever the Repubs get elected they can shove the most hardcore rightwing stuff possible down our throats. It's not about electability that I stopped supporting Kucinich; it's that it's more expedient for me to support Dean right now. I actually think if Kucinich was the nominee and there was no unfair media that Kucinich would do better against Bush than Dean. I might switch back to Kucinich though. Who knows.

[George_Bonanza]

20. Dean's more centrist than Kerry or Edwards

Despite his rhetoric. Is that you want go trust, purely rhetoric?

[anti-NAFTA]

22. Maybe he is.

I've been skeptical on him because of his centrist record, but it's possible for politicians to change. At least he states where he is on the issues unlike Kerry who resorts to standard, vague terms.

[dansolo]

32. Despite his rhetoric?

Which rhetoric are you talking about? Dean has said over and over again that he is a centrist. The whole notion of him being a liberal was a media fabrication. That, and the fact that people never understood what Paul Wellstone meant when he was talking about the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party."

[Philosophy]

15. My definition of "electability"

The compromise between threatening the status quo as little as possible while still managing to differentiate oneself from the opposition.

I think the reasoning is that George Bush got "elected" so he must be doing a lot of things right, and we want to get elected just like him, only we are just a little bit better.

[JailForBush]

17. That would make a great campaign theme:

VOTE DEMOCRAT - We're just a little bit better.

[anti-NAFTA]

19. George W. Bush came close to Gore

because he mobilized his base and got Republicans really energized (his convention speech was quite strong although he's changed since then in terms of both policy and speaking style) while Al Gore, who had already degraded himself by praising NAFTA, simply had nothing to say. And he nominated a conservative as his running mate.

[charlie]

23. Nothing to say?

I disagree. His "people vs the powerful" themed campaign gave him a solid lead over Bush right up until the debates. Gore suffered a death of 1000 cuts from an hostile media.

[anti-NAFTA]

26. People vs. Powerful? Hostile media?

How can a man who supported NAFTA more than Bush Sr. did convincingly make a case against the powerful? That's ludicrous. Again, his was a campaign of platitudes rather than concrete policy.

The media may have been a bit unfair to him because Bush was more headline-friendly and entertaining to cover, but Gore received some of his biggest contributions from Viacom and Time Warner. Hardly a reasonable excuse.

[charlie]

28. So?

Gore bucked the New Democrat line and "conventional wisdom" and campaigned with a populist message. It garnered him a half million more votes than the chimp, a remarkable result considering the media tide he was working against. The media wasn't "a bit unfair" to him, he endured coverage that was at best disdainful and mocking, especially compared to the kid glove treatment Bush got.

You're arguing that the Democrats ran the wrong guy. Maybe so, but it's not true that Gore had "nothing to say." He ran a campaign that left the DLC, his knucklehead running mate, and the corporate media aghast and it worked.

[charlie]

21. Think it's bad now?

Wait until after the convention... the lust in Jimmy Carter's heart, Dukakis' ACLU card, whether or not Clinton inhaled... the campaigns and their media coverage are going to roil with inconsequential tripe. Republicans prefer to spend more ammo on defining their opponents as Commie perverts than arguing issues. And of course, the media will gleefully lap it up.

[Lexingtonian]

24. oh, please

So the issues that are being discussed are not the ones you want to talk about. Isn't the definition of a bore 'a person who can turn the conversation to talking about what s/he wants to talk about faster than my ability to turn the subject to what *I* want to talk about'?

For all the wonkiness, I conversely wasn't convinced by the candidates 'debating' what were proposed to be the issues. The 'positions' of those still in the running are essentially identical, at least to the extent that what gets implemented has more to do with the force of personality of the nominee/electee than small print and effusive claims before friendly audiences.

So people are voting on the issue. In the face of nearly identical position claims, they're voting on who they consider most likely and able to deliver on them. And the media are evidently noticing this as a trend, as the present story line of the campaign. More assertion of the Dean camp's rationalizations (media conspiracy, 'memes', the clueless swing voter) doesn't change this dynamic to the coverage.

In short Democrats are now focussing on selecting the candidate with the best combination of abilities and liberal commitment, progressively eliminating the conservatives and least relevant/inepts. If you want relative power rankings, it's presently Kerry 50, and Dean/Edwards/Clark (the regionalist conservatives) splitting the rest almost equally, e.g. 20/18/17.

[emulatorloo]

25. Stop making sense! n/t

[ngGale]

27. "John Edwards is sincere because...

I'm in North Carolina, and believe me--we know about NAFTA. John Edwards is for 'real.' I can't tell you the other candidates really do know.

[David Zephyr]

30. Wow!

You sound as jaded as me.

I especially enjoyed this: "It's pure political cynicism to think a Southerner will vote Democratic just because there's a Southerner on the ticket or that military experience guarantees a victory."

When the overiding concern to voters in Alabama in 2003 with regards to electing judges is the Ten Commandments, when the Ten Commandments became the center of the Governor's race in Mississippi in 2003, when the word "evolution" is being removed from the text books in Georgia in 2004, when a judge orders a homosexual parent not to "act gay" in front of his son in Tennessee in 2004, I ask you how low does the Democratic Party need to drag itself to pander to people who will never vote our way anyway?

[bigtree]

31. Darn those voters and what they want!

[Seldona]

33. Funny I am a Clark supporter.

And 100% of the reason is on the issues.

Go figure.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

34. I pretty much feel the same way about Gephardt and Dean

"the race seems to be a (media-created) race between Kerry, Edwards, and Clark although the the latter two are nowhere near Kerry in terms of delegates and likelihood of securing the nomination"

yep