New headline on

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ 

How about that? The democratic voters are beginning to realize that experience and integrity matter. Dean gets publicity as a frontruner but when voters really start to listen to the candidates, perhaps there is someone with more depth, experience and understanding who is connecting with voters who really care and take the time to research why they should vote the way they vote. In the election, Bush would have a field day with Dean, but Kerry is going to be much tougher for George to do battle with. I know the polls don't indicate that right now, but as people get serious about making their voting decisions I think its going to change. I've been watching a lot of CSPAN lately and the guy (Jon Kerry) really beginning to impress me far beyond the other candidates.

Electibility matters. Kerry stands on much more solid ground on national security. His military record and understanding of military matters is impecible I like this guys character and I really think he makes tons of sense. Military support and National security are big issues for Bush. But if you listen to Kerry you begin to see where he can effectively challenge Bush on these issues. He is so on top of his plans, programs and platforms. Mark my word, he is just beginning to come on and could move to the front of the pack of Democratic hopefuls.

I agree. X

I think Kerry is a better choice, and may have a better chance at unseating the Dub. Dubya fans would prefer to run against Dean.

OK, I usually stay out of the political posts, but I just gotta respond to your comment:

"The democratic voters are beginning to realize that experience and integrity matter"

Have you looked into Kerry's history? He changes his position and goes back on his word almost as often as I change my underwear! I live in Massachusetts and don't know a single MA resident that plans to vote for Kerry. Frankly I am amazed that the national press has not picked up on this yet. This man has no integrity whatsoever.

Lenny you must have real stinky underware!!!

Hmmm, maybe I should sell it on Ebay then 🙂

-Lenny

betcha they'd sell high if you got Kerry to sign 'em.

ROTFLMFAO,

You guys are great.

I'm still behind General Clark.

Later

Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)

I'm from MA.

Kerry? Nope.

He truly does change with the tides (and Lennys fruit of the Loom) on just about EVERY issue.

Clark? Before his assinine comment claiming that 9/11 would not have happened under his watch, and that terrorist attacks would somehow dissappear if he were president.

Can you say "out of touch bozo"?

If I were voting Democrat, I'd go for Lieberman since he's been more consistent on most issues.

As for who can beat President Bush? I think Kerry would have had a chance before he started his last ditch efforts to mimic Dean.

But the primaries are rarely about who can beat the incumbent. They are about who can beat the others within their own party.

That's what makes them so much fun!

And the American voter is quick to forget all the mud slinging from the primaries when it comes down to the general election. Or else Bush would have sunk based on his attack on McCain (who turned out to be a one-trick pony anyhow.)

True Tailgator,

I can't vote in the Dem. Primary, I'm registered Libertarian. But I would like to see the strongest Dem, face Bush in the general election. Dean isn't it. Kerry, maybe. But I think Clark has the best chance against Bush. I mean Everybody in politics, steps on their ****** occassionaly while speaking. Some don't remember things they have stated in the past, and contradict themselves. And Some outright Lie, to the American People. I am not going to allow an occassional slipup to deter me from voting fr, who I believe to be the best cadidate, to run this country. I voted for the Shrub, in the last presidential election, but have lost faith in his vision for America. I hope the Dems give me a choice. If not, I'll be at home smoking cigars come election day, after voting in any local elections, and leaving the presidential spot blank.

Later

Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)

Tailgater...

You may be from Mass. and therfore we might assume you would have some more historical perspective on Kerry's record. However from the tone of your comments you are definitely not a Democrat and may just be expressing the opposing party's line in an effort to cast false negatives on a candidate that I truly think the Republicans are most afraid of.

All you need to do is think about the sixties and what Kerry was experiencing and his heroics in the Vietnam war vs. Bush getting drunk at Yale Frat boy parties.

When I hear Republicans attack Democrats in this race, Kerry's name is rarely mentioned.

I've been observing Kerry's occassional changes of position. In every case, I've observed, the change is the result of changes in information, circumstances and realities upon what these positions depend.

I've found these changes to be done in a very thoughtful meaningful way. His change in perspective on the Iraq war is very understandible. He made a decision to support Bush based on presented intelligence that built a logical case for war given assumptions were correct. When sources like the CIA and the US Military made it ver cleary thaat the Bush Administration's presentation was based on a fabrication filled with lies rather than solid intelligence, Kerry rightfully and thoughfully changed his position. I applaud him for that.

Nothing wrong with changing one's position if new realities and information clearly demonstrate a new truth that demand a change. (Even Bush has done it on numerous occasions)

The caucuses in my state happen in 2 weeks. Hence I'm really trying to be observant of the candidates records. But your obvious smearing ("he changes positions") presented in a derogatory way is just not a very intelligent way to present a point.

Maybe not you very often, but the problem with the republicans leaders and pundits, in general, is that they have a very elitist attitude that the masses are stupid and that derogitory smears packaged into 10 second sound bites are enough to convince the "stupid common folk" that Democrats are idiots. I know that most of you are probably must smarter than most republican leaders and pundits give you credit for. Maybe you might even consider lifting your head out of the right wing talk radio sand and take some time to really start listening to some of these candidates messages unfiltered on CSPAN rather than the smears and slogans you've been brainwashed with.

Gosh its going to be a fun year!!!

So it takes a Democrat to be able to mention that Kerry changes stances as much as a flag flaps in the breeze! He has never been a steadfast proponent on any issue, watches how the tide is going and then adjusts to that position!

I am a a Republican and I hope that Dean wins the Democrat nomination, that would provide some real folly and give us a fun election---one that would be won without any problem by GWB! Clark could cause some waves, but only Liberman is consistent when it comes to Democrats!

Charlie

i agree with charlie in part. i hope dean is nominated.

"Liberman is consistent" he is and will continue to be a bore and an ass. i can't listen to his whiny voice. i think the only reason gore picked him was to get the jewish vote and not because gore thought, assuming he ever thought, that lieberman could offer some leadership, lacking in gore's personality.

i also agree in part with dbguru. the republicans are elitists, but they don't think the masses are stupid, they know it. it's called the "S" factor and it explains the dogmatic belief in bush as the one and only. the pictures taken of him with the halos and the cross behind him are not taken by accident, they are planned as subliminal messages.

i would not go through the trouble of trying to re-register in order to vote for any of those "politicians" running for the democratic nomination.

how dean handles bush will be the next story.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Read "Shadow Warrior" by Felix Rodriguez (I think tht's his name. His useful carrer with the CIA was ended when his picture got splashed all over the papers because of leaks out of Kerrys' Senate Sub-Committee Hearings into intelligence activities involing Iran-Contra. Mr. Rodriguez DID meet Ollie North and one of the other main bad actors in Central America (Costa Rica I think) but it was not a planned meeting, but a chance encounter, and Rodriguez wondered if Ollie was being "led down the primrose path" but figured he was a big boy, and there was the job he WAS down there to do to get on with. After many misleading leaks meant to embarrass the Reagan Administration, that left Mr. Rodriguez with no hope of ever re-establishing a realistic cover. Kerry was ordered to publicly apologize to Mr. Rodriguez. At about 4:00 PM on a Friday afternoon, after all the press had called it a day, and there weren't even many government employees left in attendance, Senator Kerry made his "apology". WOW, it never got the coverage the spurrious and untrue allegations did! Don't EVEN try to sell this man as having character. BTW, the medals he threw over the White House fence during a VietNam war protest, were purchased at an Army surplus store, he still has his, so much for making a statement!

CWFoster

i assume everything you say about kerry is true based on accuracy and demeanor other posts of yours.

without even knowing that, i just see another politician.

i consider the word politician a dirty word that should be spell pol****ian in polite company.

That's it, I'm switching to A-1.

KERRY, THIS IS GONNA BE OUR YEAR IF HE GOES UP TO BUSH!!

GIG'EM,

Dan

CW,

There's a lot more to your story than you mention and in many people's eyes, the motivations behind Kerry's actions with the medals are very understandible. If your allegations about the leaks were really an issue, don't you think they would be brought up and made very public. But of course that might only bring up the punitive efforts of the Bush administration in blowing former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV wife's CIA cover.

Remember, there are many who completely applaude Kerry's act of throwing his medals away in protest considering the futility of that war effort. And those who don't applaud this can easily understand or take these actions into perspective, including many republicans I've heard comment on the non-issue. No one in the press, including right wing journalists on Fox right now are making any issue about Kerry being prone changing positions because they know those type of smears either extremely loose foundations in fact or highly debateable when taken into perspective of surrounding circumstances.

This decision is about the future, not the past, but....

If you really with to get nitpicky about the past, compare Kerry and Bush in the 60s, the former being a war hero who had the character and conviction to protest a war that was truly a futile effort despite his dedicated military career and the latter who slid though a national guard committment but in reality was basically a drunken frat boy.