I read in Time??, maybe....that that interview actually spurred a substantial increase in support for Dean.

It seems folks were irritated that he was berated by Russert and that there was a substantial increase in support (mostly campaign signups and donations) through his website.

I'll putter around for that article.....

I don't think he did "bad" at all. He seemed strong on the issues and only faltered on statistical data.

Tim Russert is a tough interviewer and I think he selects questions like that to keep his guests on their toes and fumbling.

Ahhhhhhhh......

Another thread killed.....more room for myself.....


BRING IN THE HOOKERS AND BEER!!!! :D

I think Leiberman is my favorite candidate at the moment. Ignoring the fact I probably just spelled his name wrong.:)

And it worries me that Dean will win the primary. I don't much care for him - and his clenched teeth smirk really disturbs me.

But in the recent polls amongst democrats, 2/3s can't even name one of the democrats running int he primary - and if they're named for them Lierberman wins. So I have some hope... I think he probably has the greatest chance of winning against Bush at the moment.

Does anyone know where I could find the 2000 vice presidential debate online? I can't really remember it and now with him running for president I'm curious to watch it over again and pay closer attention.

I think Dean has generated a lot of support because of his willingness to voice unpopular ideas, which endears him to a lot of left-wing-liberals who are tired of seeing the democrats bend over and kiss the ass of the Bush administration for fear of alienating "patriots." That said, it's still very early in the game and I think most of Dean's support is less "pro-Dean" than "anti-Bush", and will evaporate if/when any of the other candidates start to look like they have a decent chance of beating Bush. I think Dean's main contribution to the cause at this point is shifting the tenor of the discussion and energizing the core support base.

However much I agree with Dean on a lot of issues, I am not terribly confident he can beat Bush, and (like most of his other supporters) I'll cut and run to whomever looks like they can get that smirking chimp out of office.

I think a lot of people have lost the illusion that Bush is anywhere near the center of the political spectrum, so a centrist who can articulate a clear vision and who engenders confidence in his ability to handle foreign policy will stand a decent chance. However, I don't think we need to have a southerner as the main course on the menu, so to speak. I think Edwards would make a good VP candidate - he's charismatic, well-spoken, populist, telegenic, and in a good position to be groomed for a presidential run in 4-8 years. I have no idea who would be an effective presidential candidate at this point, but it needs to be someone who appears to be strong, who will call Bush fearlessly on his bullshit without alienating more conservative swing voters.

I think it's far too early to give polls any credence, as most people are going by name recognition alone rather than any knowledge of the candidates' positions.

(edited for some grammar)

While Dean is hot right now, and - considering the Dems nominated Dukakis - he may pan out. However, I think that as everything shakes out, one of the more centrist "major" candidates will be the nominee. Kerry, Lieberman or Gephardt are the most likely. One interesting trend to note is that in polling done in the early primary states, only one candidate is in the top three in all of the states and it is not Dean or Kerry - its Gephardt.