Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun
Dean still had more credibility with democrats never having supported the war. Dean would also give democrats something to be excited about....
|
I think you're right on both counts, but I think Dean is a less seasoned politician than Kerry. Kerry can take the hits, and he can dish them out. Dean was nearly in melt down by the end.
Believe me, this is the way the Democratic leadership prefers it. Kerry the candidate, Dean the activist. Electoral politics aside, I prefered Dean, and migt have supported him. But liking someone and comparing electability are two different things. The same crowd that opposed the war wants the guy who started that war out of office, REALLY bad. They will support Kerry just as strongly as Dean. The ABB crowd is very strong.....
Quote:
|
Kerry isn't doing that....that's why you hear democrats talking about McCain being a part of Kerry's administration....because Kerry can't make it on his own.
|
There are a lot of reasons McCain would be a dream for them, and
none have to do with Kerry's energy, as compared to Dean's.
McCain would all but guarantee them Arizona, a key state. McCain is IMMENSELY popular with the moderate/centrist, "undecided" voter. He's got integrity, he's a reformer, and he's a devout Conservative. He, like Kerry, is a war veteran. Like some Dem. consultants have recently phrased it, it'd be the electoral equivalent of the Yankees trading for A-Rod. Biden said it'd be like a parliamentary "Unity Government" (this would of course would never work in our system, but sentimental crap like this would score major votes, which is the unfortunate name of the game). McCain would steal votes away from Bush, he'd be like a third party candidate on the Democratic ticket.
Electorally speaking, it'd be amazing for the Democrats. But it won't be happening, thankfully......
Threaded Mode
