Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Scipio · 02-02-2004, 10:36 PM

Have we talked about HRC enough?

The simple answer is this: any legitimate candidate in the field (Clark, Edwards, Lieberman (although he's done for), Kerry, and probably Dean) is able to beat Bush. Edwards will get called a money-grubbing trial lawyer, Kerry a northeastern liberal snob, Clark an inexperienced politician who's running as an opportunist (not sure what the standard line on Clark is, though he did step on a few shoes at the Pentagon).

They all had disadvantages, but for my money, my party had better put John Edwards somewhere on the ticket. Sure, he was a trial lawyer, but he'll spin it as fighting back against big corporations. It fits neatly into his rhetoric. Ya know, the whole fight for the little guy "two americas" bit. He sounds good on tv. He looks good on tv, and he has a certain amount of likability. People like to vote based on qualifications or policies, but they often end up picking people they seem to like or trust.

The key battle for Bush in 04 is the trust factor. People will vote this guy back in because they trust him to protect america. Oddly enough, he beats democrats in the category of "protecting america" or "making america strong," but loses in the category of "foreign policy" taken more generally. Lies do matter, but if it seems that Bush lied with good intentions, and he's "trying to do a good job," people might say, hey, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. The standard of proof is not what the CIA says, but what the president believes.

And I'm rambling, but here's one last thing to consider.

Kerry has a solid military record to back him up. It's objectively true. The man's a bonafide war hero. But, will his aristocratic appearance (both physically and otherwise) and his liberal tendencies make him appear weak? Do they cancel eachother out?

Edwards. No national security cred. But, he has a small town background. He's likable and down to earth. In spite of never serving, can he connect to Americans on a level where they trust him to do right for them? If he does that, people will get what they want, which is to feel safe. We hope.

02-02-2004, 10:36 PM	#29 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	Have we talked about HRC enough? The simple answer is this: any legitimate candidate in the field (Clark, Edwards, Lieberman (although he's done for), Kerry, and probably Dean) is able to beat Bush. Edwards will get called a money-grubbing trial lawyer, Kerry a northeastern liberal snob, Clark an inexperienced politician who's running as an opportunist (not sure what the standard line on Clark is, though he did step on a few shoes at the Pentagon). They all had disadvantages, but for my money, my party had better put John Edwards somewhere on the ticket. Sure, he was a trial lawyer, but he'll spin it as fighting back against big corporations. It fits neatly into his rhetoric. Ya know, the whole fight for the little guy "two americas" bit. He sounds good on tv. He looks good on tv, and he has a certain amount of likability. People like to vote based on qualifications or policies, but they often end up picking people they seem to like or trust. The key battle for Bush in 04 is the trust factor. People will vote this guy back in because they trust him to protect america. Oddly enough, he beats democrats in the category of "protecting america" or "making america strong," but loses in the category of "foreign policy" taken more generally. Lies do matter, but if it seems that Bush lied with good intentions, and he's "trying to do a good job," people might say, hey, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. The standard of proof is not what the CIA says, but what the president believes. And I'm rambling, but here's one last thing to consider. Kerry has a solid military record to back him up. It's objectively true. The man's a bonafide war hero. But, will his aristocratic appearance (both physically and otherwise) and his liberal tendencies make him appear weak? Do they cancel eachother out? Edwards. No national security cred. But, he has a small town background. He's likable and down to earth. In spite of never serving, can he connect to Americans on a level where they trust him to do right for them? If he does that, people will get what they want, which is to feel safe. We hope. __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."