catapult magazine

Does any one of the democratic candidates stand a chance of unseating President Bush? Please feel free to expound.

I think Clark can do it. It would help him to stop getting all the celebrity endorsements, though. Thumbs up from Madonna and Michael Moore aren’t going to help his campaign.

I haven’t been following the Democratic candidacy thing at all, but what’s wrong with a thumbs up from Michael Moore? I can see where Madonna’s political credibility might be questioned, perhaps unfairly, but surely Moore has established himself as something of a legitimate cultural critic. Or is he perceived as being too “radical” south of the border? I know when the Iraq invasion went into high gear his opinion was sought by international media sources much more frequently than in his home country. And as far as celebrity endorsements go, Dubya has a bunch of country singers who are outspoken in their support of his administration (although not the Dixie Chicks apparently).

This isn’t Blisster, by the way, it’s Henry. I signed up with my own name but for some reason it’s showing my wife’s info, and it’s too late for me to try to figure out why.

I think Michael Moore lost credibility after his performance at last years Oscars. His film has also been heavily scrutinised and criticised to the point where I’m not sure what to believe about it. One thing I do know is that he exaggerates. People in Toronto, as you know, lock their doors.

I confess I don’t put a lot of stock in Madonna’s endorsement. Moore, though, has come out swinging time and time again against corporate influences in politics. If he is willing to endorse a mainstream candidate (he threw his hat in with Nader last time, remember, mainly because he said that neither a democratic nor a republican candidate would be able to advance anything but a corporate agenda), then I’d argue that candidate is worth a look.

I had been in favor of Dean (mostly because he seemed to provide fodder for some good Doonsbury comics). Lately though, he seems to be operating like he has gone without sleep for way too long. Now I don’t know who sounds good. They all claim to be Christians (except Lieberman, of course) — but I never know what that means when a presidential candidate says it.

Yes, I think it’s the “radical” thing, Henry. While there are, no doubt, many avid supporters of Michael Moore, I’m guessing there is an even larger group who find him too extreme or remember his endorsement of Nader and blame Nader for splitting the vote in 2000. I think a lot of voters have a bad taste in their mouth when it comes to Moore.

One of my problems with the Democrat contenders is that despite the fact some of them have military backgrounds, they all sound as convincing and credible as college activists when they talk about the war in Iraq.

I’d like to hear a Democrat with strong military experience talk intelligently about what they’d do differently, etc. and I thought it might happen here, but they’ve been pretty disappointing so far … especially Clark, who was a General.

And Dean is nuts. I don’t care if they’re going to start injecting him with morphine before he makes appearances – the guy is off his rocker. Another former military man who wouldn’t even condemn the actions of either Osama bin Laden or Hussein in interviews. Actually, I kind of hope the Dems nominate him, because I think Bush would slaughter him at the polls.

I don’t know why on earth one has to have military experience to speak intelligently about what’s going on in Iraq. Military people have a military bias. I have an anti-military bias. Hurray for a candidate without a pro-military bias who criticizes the current militaristic regime.

My point was, Dan, that I expected even MORE of an intelligent discussion than usual from the candidates based on the fact some of them have military experience. Firsthand accounts usually lend for some insight.

Unfortunately, they aren’t even sounding intelligent. Like I said, Dan, they sound like mere college activists. People who want to be President had better be damn prolific about issues like war and not sound anything like someone in college. Or like bumper stickers, for that matter.

By the way, military experience has generally been something that sways many Americans when voting for a candidate. It’s not a completely unreasonable demand I’m putting forth.

our current president isn’t what i would consider prolific about issues like war, either.

but, for the most part, it doesn’t matter. he’ll win reelection because the democrats haven’t had a vision of what kind of america they’d like to build. the republicans, following several humiliating presidential election defeats, came together and developed a vision for the future of the country. and, for the most part (adding in a little neo-conservatism in the early 90s), they’ve stayed the course since the 80s.

the only democratic candidate who stands a chance is wesley clark. he is a retired four-star general (four-star!), former supreme commander of nato, rhodes scholar, first in his class at west point, never smoked pot, from the south. he’s the only candidate with sufficient military experience to disavow any grand notions of war the bush administration has been promoting for the past three years. but he won’t be nominated because his positions have been feeble at best, including his stance on war (which, as anne has noted, has been a subject most democratic nominees have stumbled around).

so . . . george bush will be re-elected.

I agree with most everything you said, laurencer.

Of course, I don’t think the burden to be prolific right now is on George Bush, since he’s got the advantage of already being the President and is riding a host of emotional and patriotic waves. It is those who criticize the President (according to the realities of elections and politics) who have the so-called burden of proof.

So, what does everyone think of Stone Cold Kerry?