Just a story of when I became a dem and how I think it relates to primary

[Bombtrack]

I can remember the first time I said to myself, I guess I'm a democrat.

It didn't take any coaxing, or really influence from people I know. I wasn't really a news/politics/junkie at all. But I was always better at and more knowledgable of history and world affairs than most of my fellow studnents (I was the only kid I knew to watch The Daily Show and Politically incorrect in my freshman year of highschool, albeit not on a regular basis).

I wasn't even aware that I was a liberal, although I had determined on my own that I was pro-choice, and that the fairness gap towards and between rich and poor was too big.

But anyway it came at the end of the republican primary when the republicans chose Bush over McCain. This came as a shock to me. Because I didn't even really know about moderate vs conservative republicans, and the whole right-wing network and establishment and how that all worked.

I just knew that this son of George Bush who apparently snorted coke , who is a born-rich guy who frequently said humorously stupid stuff, who has not really made any major accomplishments and comes from a repulican base-state was chosen, over this likable war-hero from a politically mainstream state like McCain. If I had known about the fact that whoever can pander to the conservative activists better makes it easier to get the nomination, it might have come as less of a shock. But I wasn't really informed about any of that. And I believe many kids like me, kids who were naturally a little predisposed to lean democrat(lower income family, not religious, blue state) also determined that they were democrats when that happened.

But I see the parallel of that happening with younger kids today between Clark and Dean. Since, it seems it's becoming more of a race between them. To kids who might naturally be disposed to lean republican, but might not know it yet (upper income, christian/traditional, red state). They just might not get why the democrats would chose this guy with not the most instantly impressive resume(governor of 606 thousand, hamptons/park avenue blue-blood, comes from among the most left/democratic base state), who frequently has what could be considered gaffes of his own, over someone with a more instantly impressive resume (extremely humble beginnings, gave his life/career to military service, injured in combat, commanded a war with no American casualties, first in his class at west point, taught economics, comes from a swingstate etc)

That's just my feeling on the subject. I realize I'm not talking about policy differences, but that's because that's not what kids like me knew about then, and I don't think it's what they do now.

[democratreformed]

1. Glad you're here.

Welcome.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bombtrack]

7. you guy's ever hold back from calling critics right-wingers

for lack of true defense of that critism?

-Try balancing the budget for 10+ yrs.
ok, but people who casually pay attention to politics won't know that
-Try expanding health care to all your constituents.
he didn't do that
-Try legalizing civil unions despite the controversy
and he didn't do that, the Vermont Supreme court did. he complied with the legalization.

I understand why people who are passionately anti-war or obsessed with that movement, or the gay marriage movement might have a natural draw to him.

But I wasn't talking about those people. I'm talking about people who haven't really made up their minds about the political parties or ideologies or what they want to associate themselves with

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jonnyblitz]

4. exactly. n/t

[nomaco-10]

5. I love you Retrolounge......

I scanned this post and couldn't come up with anything clever to say. I knew I could count on you. LMAO

[RetroLounge]

6. Awww you make me blush

:hug:

[Turkw]

8. Interesting, Angry candidates tend to capture the attention of younger

voters. This is not a slam on anyone. Nader, Buchanan (in his first run) both captured a lot of the younger voters and ran Angry campaigns.

[Bombtrack]

9. well, I don't know whether McCain or Bush was more angry

all I know was that McCain seemed awesome and Bush seemed horrible

[Kolesar]

10. Dean was Governor of 606,000, and Clark was Governor of ...

None!

Don't you think it is a mega-huge-whopping risk, betting on a man who only got into politics five months ago and has never run a campaign in his life? Please don't tell me that Army skills transfer, because they don't. I was in the Navy, and I have also been involved in politics at some level since the 1970s. I know that the two worlds are far apart.

Further, I don't see how "blue-blood" is a detriment. Remember Jack Kennedy? Remember Franklin D. Roosevelt? They were from wealth (even if the Kennedys did not come over on the Mayflower, my point is relevent).

edit:fun with fonts

[chimpymustgo]

11. This is a very thoughtful post, bombtrack - who will capture a new

generation. Who will be admired, who will be looked to to lead?

Wes Clark is the man for these times.