Democrats Still Lack Favorite For 2004

[Rose Siding]

Democrats Still Lack Favorite For 2004
After Six Months Of Running, No Leader Emerges

Six months of intensive campaigning by nine candidates have left the race for the Democratic presidential nomination every bit as unsettled as it was at the beginning of the year, with no clear front-runner, the addition of a surprise insurgency and several nationally prominent candidates struggling.

By almost any measure, the field of candidates has become more closely bunched during the first half of this year, partly because of the unexpected success of former Vermont governor Howard Dean. Each of the Democrats, including Dean, must now overcome doubts about his or her candidacy to have hope of winning the nomination next year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20525-2003Jul20.html?nav=hptop_tb

[Sushi_lover]

1. Fine. Bring on the competition.

The strong will survive.

[booksenkatz]

2. Glass is half full

(I'm not usually an optimist, esp. in the mornings, but...)

It's hard to pick just one from several excellent candidates. I'd happily and proudly support almost any of them. That's a very different quandary than having NO ONE to pick from, as this article seems to suggest. These types of stories make it sound like we Dems are flat out miserable because we don't like any of our candidates.

Or maybe that's just my take on it.

[revcarol]

3. This article is SOOOOOO sick.

Like we're supposed to choose before we choose. DUMB,DUMB,DUMB. Anc our choice will not necessarily be one of the top 'money men.' Gee, we got 6 whole months to look at 9 fine candidates. Just stay our of our business while we get on with it!!

[radwriter0555]

4. LOL! oh YEAH? Who does the GOP have? Give me ONE reason

to vote for bush.

If he drops dead tomorrow from a stroke or something, who does the GOP have to run?

NO ONE. ZERO. NADA.

Think about THAT for a dirth in leadership. All they got is the guy who couldn't get elected, with no credibility, no successes, and a list of failures of epic proportions.

[AndyTiedye]

5. and a bottomless war chest

> All they got is the guy who couldn't get elected, with no credibility, no successes, and a list of failures of epic proportions.

and *five times* as much money as the leading Democrat. He raised more
*last weekend* than any Democrat did last quarter.

but that is now. Fast forward to the convention, when one of the candidates,
broke and bloodied by a long rancorous primary fight, limps to the podium
to accept the nomination. By then, we can expect * to have over half a billion
in the bank. But even this understates the Republicans' advantage, as they have
moved from buying ads to buying entire broadcasting stations and networks. The recent FCC decision allows them to buy up the newspapers as well.

Of course, the Dems will pull together to raise some money, and try to run some ads -- only to find that the radio and television stations and most of the newspapers will not run them (the FCC having released them from any obligation to do so), while their "newscasts" continue to provide free advertising for the Shrub.

The Internet is the only possible means of mass communication that they do not control, and it may be our only hope for getting the message out.

Of course, some of *'s "accomplishments" speak for themselves.
No amount of TV propaganda will convince someone that all is OK in Iraq when
their kid is serving there and and his tour of duty has been extended over and over.
Nobody will believe the economy is recovering if they are looking for work and there isn't any.

Everything * touches turns to shit, and his handlers and the media pour on enough gold paint to make it through the next photo-op.