| Democratic presidential candidates for 2004 election by John Gelhaus, Iowa City, Iowa |
| My later preferences: Top tier: 1. Kerry Middle tier: 2. Edwards Bottom tier: 3. Sharpton 4. Kucinich |
|
 |
| Webmaster: John Gelhaus |
| This page revised 11-5-07 |
| Commentary: John Kerry--A proven leader with excellent ideas; has much experience, including foreign issues. Will be able to get a significant number of "swing" voters (Republicans who vote for Democrats,) and Independent voters. (Richard "Dick" Gephardt)--A proven leader with very good ideas; has much experience, including foreign issues. A very close 2nd place next to Kerry. Gets rid of all of Bushes tax cuts, even for middle class; middle class will probably recover that from increased wages due to the federal government giving much $ to businesses for health premiums. (Joseph "Joe" Lieberman)--Dependable to do what's right; very good leader; good overall experience; appearance DOES matter (if he & Edwards would've changed faces, Lieberman would've had more campaign money coming in than Edwards.) On 11-18-03, I moved him from 3# in the top tier to #3 in the middle tier. (Robert "Bob" Graham)--Was number 4 on my list, now out of the race. Hopefully, he can help the eventual Democratic winner beat Bush in Florida; he can throw all of his support to that person; hopefully, Florida's Independents & Republicans who were for Graham will follow his advice to vote for the Democratic nominee. (John Edwards)--Somewhat of a lightweight; reminds me of Sen. Feingold of Minnesota (needs more depth of knowledge on issues;) has heart in right place. The more I hear him, though, the more I like him. I used to have him just after Dean on my list, but switched them around as of 11-4-03. Maybe some decade he'll be president or VP; he didn't make over $20 million being a trial lawyer without being a highly effective & believable communicator. (Wesley Clark)--he didn't even have his thoughts organized about what he wanted on various important issues when he announced his candidacy! He used to vote Republican--how much of a change of HEART has he had? Why is he running? Maybe Hillary Clinton decided she wants him as a vice presidential running mate when she runs in the future; by having him as a presidential candidate now, it gives him more name recognition & credibility as to level of executive skill. I moved him from not on the list to #5 on 1-10-04. (Al Sharpton)--Doesn't seem serious about running; has a lot of good knowledge about a lot of subjects. (Carol Mosely Braun)--didn't seem serious about running; the more I heard her ideas & rationale, the more tempted I was to have her trade places with Sharpton on my list, which I did on 1-10-04. (Howard Dean)--Seemed very pompous when I saw him in Iowa City; HE accuses BUSH of being arogant! (In psychology terms, it's called "projection.") People who've known him well for years say he's arogant & has a hot temper. I wouldn't want to work for him if he were my direct supervisor, & I wouldn't want him working for me as president. Being a medical doctor, you have to expect that he has a huge ego; but that doesn't mean he can't be civil, patient, & humble. He has great organization; people in cities of all sizes, college students... are woking hard for him; he certainly doesn't go by the theory that you can peak too soon (a ridiculous theory unless it has to do with spending limited advertising $ too soon;) his early start & grassroots efforts are very impressive. On 11-18-03, I moved him from #5 of the middle tier to #5 in the bottom tier; on 1-10-04, I moved him from #5 to #8 (now #7 after Moseley Braun left.) I don't like his views as governor about allowing the sale of assault weapons. Being against war with Iraq would cost him votes in the general election. He said he was for the "Lugar" amendment which was vertually the same as the bill to allow Bush to go to war with Iraq, yet Dean harshly criticizes other candidates for voting for the bill. He thinks that 7 years is too long ago to bring up his Medicare reducing ideas; no, Mr. Dean, it isn't. Dennis Kucinich--I put him in last place right from the beginning; I don't trust his judgement as much as the other candidates' judgements. Since Lieberman & Clark didn't campaign in Iowa, the chances of either one being elected nationally were very slim. I'm glad Gary Hart (former U. S. Senator from Colorado) decided not to run. Vice President For V.P., Kerry might choose a governor for balance (someone outside Washington)--Richardson (NM) or Graham (FL.) NM barely went Democratic last time; Richardson could seal the deal, but he'd have to help get at least 1 more state & hold all others that went Democratic last time he'd lose some votes of people prejudiced against Latinos, but gain votes overall in swing state Florida. If FL is seen as now going Democratic, Graham wouldn't be needed as VP (1 million people moved to FL since the '00 election, half of them Latino [non-Cuban Latinos vote predominately Democratic;] the butterfly ballot is history which confused people into voting Republican rather than Dem.;]) but with Nader in the race, it makes it more likely that Graham would be choosen--Graham is very popular in FL & a moderate; but Kerry will probably have more than enough FL votes (Bush won in '00 by only 537 votes.) If FL is seen as going Democratic without Graham (a likely scenario,) then look to Gephardt; he could swing MO to his side, & that's all that's needed to win the election (if other states stay the same, even FL.) Gep. would also be liked very much in swing industrial states of OH & PA; balance: he's not a Washington outsider, but he's also not a senator like Kerry. Gep's luster has worn down some over the last few years, but unemployment is an issue & he can rally that crowd; if he's not VP, then former Sen. Bob Edwards (NE,) Gov. Vilsack (IA,) Clark (AR,) Clintons (formerly AR, ) Mosely Braun (IL) (all neighbors of MO,) along with Gep. will have to campaign hard in MO to win it. Edwards can raise a LOT of money from wealthy people, & could rake in votes from Independents & moderate Republicans--both of whom are key to winning; he'd hold onto the Dem. base with his liberal stance on social issues; but he's a senator (insider like Kerry) & probably wouldn't be able to take his own very conservative state of NC or home state of SC; might be helpful in FL, being a southerner. Clark will probably be wanted as VP if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination in 4 or 8 years (which is very likely;) the Clintons now are probably doing what they can to keep Clark from being Kerry's VP. Gephardt looks best qualified to be VP & help win the election. If FL goes Democratic no matter which of a large number of people are V.P., Kerry could choose most anyone; he & Gephardt get along very well. (If re-elected & the aging Gephardt doesn't run for president, look for an H. Clinton, Edwards, Clark Democratic race, with Clark dropping out to join Clinton. If Kerry wants to leave behind a legacy of his V.P. becoming president, he should choose Edwards [Edwards would probably choose Clinton as V.P. 8 years later.]) I would think that the national Kerry campaign executives would want to stealthily leak to the media the names of Kerry's top few choices for VP. This would keep the eventual VP nominee from being a big surprise; if it's a surprise, people might think, "Oh, hmmm, I didn't hear that name much when reporters were discussing possible VP choices. Maybe that person isn't the best choice." A few months before that, leaking names of other people who live in swing states would be good for letting voters in those states feel that Kerry thinks their state is important; even though their state's big name person won't get the VP nomination, voters in those states will remember that Kerry thought that their big name person was one of the best & therefore feel better about Kerry & identify more with him. I haven't heard much in the media recently about Graham, & I'm hearing more about Edwards & still quite a bit about Gephardt. Kerry's cabinet Edwards would be good as US Attorney General; Vilsack would be good for Sec. of Ed.; Clark--Sec. of Defense. Gore--Sec. of State; Nader--Sec. of Interior or Energy or lead Environmental Protection Agency if he drops campaign for president? Electable Most of them talked about how they are the most electable. Graham said he could take Florida & therefore win the general election; Kucinich said he could take his home state of Ohio, & no one has ever won the presidency (at least for a LONG time) without winning Ohio; Lieberman said he was most electable because he's a moderate; Kerry supporters say he's most electable because no one can say he's not patriotic; Edwards said he's from the South, & no one can win without taking the South, & he could get the most working-class votes which is a must; an e-mail from his national campaign said that he'll be the Dem nominee 'cause "He's the only candidate who can take on Bush on every issue & in every state," "He has the best plan to turn this country around,"...; Gephardt is from the Midwest which has swing states (can go either way,) & Missouri is in the Midwest, & is really a Southern state, too, & he has labor backers; Moseley Braun said she was the clearest alternative to Bush, & could get more women voters than anyone else, & you've got to do well with the large number of women voters in order to win; Dean kept saying he was most electable because blah, blah, blah, etc., etc... (well, he IS fiesty enough to stand up to Bush.) They all said they had the best health plan. Lawyers A lot of them are lawyers (Kerry, Edwards, Leiberman, Gephardt, Moseley Braun, Graham.) If you're not leary about lawyers, you ought to be. How many people can come out of law school with more morals than when they went in? (Not many, especially the ones who become successful lawyers.) At least Graham didn't practice law. The movie "Liar Liar" was about a lawyer--it had a fitting title. Trial lawyers are probably the worst, but some do decent work (for example, some fight to get Social Security benefits for people who are recently disabled;) prosecutors are probably the worst of the trial lawyers, but some of them do decent work (for example, some personal injury lawyers help victims receive fair settlements; they make sure that violent criminals are locked up; they work to settle cases out of court.) But what other profession is there, overall, where workers are EXPECTED to be evil at times AS A PART OF THEIR JOB?? (Well, O.K., there are sales people whose bosses teach them how to be deceptive, such as a door-to-door vacuum sweeper sales person who knowingly--without mentioning it--has a much more powerful motor in the demonstrator sweeper than the one the customer will receive.) I'm not saying, necessarily, that lawyers are worse in their non-professional lives than non-lawyers. Lawyers get paid to stretch the truth, to make it seem like the other side couldn't possibly be telling the truth, to say things that are true but knowingly misleading. They use all sorts of tricks--for example, a prosecutor might state 2 untrue things about the person being questioned, then ask a question that for sure will elicit a yes answer, then say that the person said yes to all 3 things ("So, you were trespassing inside the building and broke an office door open, [then with dramatic emphasis so the person will concentrate just on that part] and you were not at your home at 9 p.m. that night--in fact you weren't home at 8 p.m. or 10 p.m. or any time in between! ISN'T THAT RIGHT!" "Yes." "Why did you decide to trespass in that building?" "I wasn't in that building." "But you just said you were! Court reporter, please read back my question and the answer starting with '...you were trespassing.'" [After it's read:] "I was saying 'yes' just to the part about the time." "Oh! So now you want to change your story! Well, which story are you going to stick with, or are you going to make up another one!") Drama & theater classes are more beneficial to law students than classes in political science. Lawyers want to win; if they're not certain the accused is guilty, that's alright with most of them, especially with lower level crimes; when law enforcement comes to them saying someone is guilty, they take the case even if they have no idea if the accused is really guilty, & they do what they're paid to do--win; if they were on the side of the accused, they'd work just as hard to show he wasn't guilty. Prosecutors try to justify their behavior by saying it's the jury or judge that decides guilty; lawyers think justice has been done if the steps in the justice system were done. Have you ever known a lawyer or law enforcement to apologize for sending an innocent person to jail...? Do you think they all CARE if innocent people are pronounced guilty, or do you think some lawyers just pass it off as an unavoidable part of "justice"? Lawyers who handle the breakup of a company will usually eat up all that the company has left, leaving $0.00 for each shareholder; if it were an insurance company, though, which is required to have an unbelievable amount of $ in reserve, the lawyers might not be able to take it all; lawyers know how to delay & vacuum $ (probably not all shareholders will be found, so they'll go through yet another round of trying to contact them as the lawyers & their people's $ meter goes higher & higher with Big Money Per Hour; they'll get extensions on court cases against the dissolving company...) If a newspaper lists their top 5 choices for president & calls them all "winners," a campaign worker who gives out the message that his candidate "was named the newspaper's winner" is giving a half truth; it doesn't take a lawyer to come up with a message like this, but they're the experts at it. They might say that a recent poll showed their candidate in 2nd place, last Wednesday's poll showed him in 3rd place, and last Monday's poll showed him tied for 3rd; this might seem like each poll shows him doing better, but the "recent poll" might've been conducted before the other 2 polls. Another campaign might say that a recent poll shows their candidate surging to the top in a certain state; they know that most people will interpret that as meaning that the candidate is at the top, but what the campaign means is that the surging process is still taking place (their candidate is really in 4th place out of 9.) If a poll shows a lot of statistics with a range of responses (such as pairing candidates in many ways & asking if people have a favorable, very favorable, or extremely favorable opinion about a candidate, a campaign might be able to pull out 1 winning combination, or brag about how more people have a "favorable" opinion of this candidate compared to any other [even though the candidate is last on the overall favorable opinion rating & other candidates have high "very favorable" & "extremely favorable" ratings compared to the other candidate.]) If a candidate is a distant 2nd in the ratings, & statistics show that the top candidate beats the 2nd in every category about past caucus goers except among those who have been to a caucus only in the year 1952, the campaign could say that their candidate is predicted to be ahead but not go into detail as to how. Find a former practicing, repentant lawyer (if you can find one!) & ask what % of lawyers purposely do evil work as a part of their job--an honest answer will be "close to 100%." Any of the candidates on this list would be a better choice than George W. Bush. I'll strongly support the eventual nominee. "The real measure of your wealth is how much you'd be worth if you lost all your money." -- Bernard Meltzer (1914-) American Law Professor |
 |
| Bumper sticker at Kerry campaign office in Iowa City: "Dated Dean, married Kerry." |
| My preferences towards the beginning of the 2004 campaign season: Top tier: 1. Kerry 2. Gephardt 3. Leiberman Middle tier: 4. Graham 5. Dean 6. Edwards Bottom tier: 7. Moseley Braun 8. Sharpton 9. Kucinich |
| My rankings according to how well candidates are effective communicators with large groups & individuals: (1=Excellent, 2=Good, 3=Average, 4=Not so good, 5=Terrible) |
| With large groups Kerry 2 Gephardt 2 Leiberman 2 Graham 4 Edwards 2 Clark 2 Sharpton 1 Mosely Braun 2 Dean 1 Kucinich 1 |
| With individuals Kerry 1 Gephardt 1 Leiberman ? Graham 2 Edwards 1 Clark ? Sharpton ? Mosely Braun ? Dean 5 Kucinich 4 |
| My preferences in Jan., 2004, the day of the Iowa caucuses: Top tier: 1. Kerry 2. Gephardt Middle tier: 3. Leiberman 4. Edwards Bottom tier: 5. Clark 6. Sharpton 7. Dean 8. Kucinich |
| Go to my "Letter to the Editor," Jan., 2004, about the candidates. Go to "Pictures--Billionaires for Bush" (Iowa City chapter). |
| Here are some web sites about Democrats that you might be interested in viewing/subscribing/joining/forwarding: Democratic Party Meetup groups (monthly meeting places decided by voters; over 700 groups) http://democrat.meetup.com Johnson County (Iowa) Democratic Party (includes links to 2nd District Dems,...; subscribe to e-mails--"Listserve") http://www.jcdems.org Iowa Democratic Party http://www.IowaDemocrats.org Democratic National Committee http://www.democrats.org College Democrats of America http://www.CollegeDems.com Billionaires for Bush (can join) http://www.BillionairesForBush.net Air America Radio (can play the station over the Internet) http://www.AirAmericaRadio.com AFL-CIO Union http://AmericasPriorities.com Move On ("working to make effective citizen participation by building electronic advocacy groups") http://www.MoveOn.org America Coming Together (ACT) (voter mobilization to elect Democrats) http://www.AmericaComingTogether.com Liberal celebrities (celiberals) http://www.celiberal.com/theWhineRack.php My web page about differences in neckties of Democrats & Republicans, & the tie quiz (if you have nothing else to do) http://www.geocities.com/gelhaus_john/neckties.html Democratic Governors Association http://www.democraticgovernors.org Joe Biden http://uniteourstates.com |
| 2008 presidental candidates: Joe Biden is one of the most qualified. Having Wesley Clark as V.P. could be a very good choice. I don't know enough about Hillary Clinton yet to have much of an opinion; many people have strong opinions for or against her--I wonder how well they know how she stands on issues, or if their opinions have to do with her style... Because she didn't say it was a mistake for her to vote to give Pres. Bush authority to go to war with Iraq until many other people in Congress had done so, & because she only half appologized for it, she's not going to go over well with many Iowa Democrats. Edwards will do very well in Iowa, & he's a great candidate. Obama will be another who lasts. |
| (2008 presidential candidates towards bottom of this page). |
| Democrat Chet Culver won the 2006 election for governor of Iowa over Republican Jim Nussle. Included here are some words of Nussle: Jim Nussle opposed a minimum wage increase and only voted for the increase in the House because the bill would also cut estate taxes for the wealthy. He has consistently been against a minimum wage increase for nearly two decades in Congress while repeatedly voting for a Congressional pay raise. With Jim Nussle's help, Iowa's families have stayed at a stagnant $5.15 per hour, while U.S. Representatives have received a $40,000 increase since 1997. He doesn't support Iowa's working families even though a minimum wage increase is long overdue Jim Nussle said on the Jan Mickelson show that he wouldn't support aminimum wage increase. It is abundantly clear that Nussle wouldrather stand for a tax cut that only benefits the wealthiest peopleover a wage increase that would benefit thousands of Iowa's workingfamilies. Iowans overwhelmingly support an increase, and Nussle'sopposition shows just how out of touch with Iowa he really is. "If you just put minimum wage out there as a single vote, yeah, I havevoted against that." � Congressman Jim Nussle From WHO radio show:JAN MICKELSON (Host): "Iowa could [raise the minimum wage] even if thefeds don't. Would you sign that as governor?" CONG. NUSSLE: "Well, I have voted for, again I would have to see whatthe agreement looked like. I would want to see what we could do withproperty taxes, I would want to see what we could do with health carereform. There's a lot of issues out there besides the minimum wage." "I don't have anyone on either side of the issue coming up to me andsaying that we just need to do a minimum wage." - Congressman JimNussle |