The Finch Formerly Known As Gold

5 December 2003

A lot of this going around

It's not easy being a Democrat sometimes, as Jeff Lawson notes:

President Bush has a lock on Texas in the next election, so it's not like I'm going to lose much sleep trying to decide who to vote for in a year. But I'd still like to throw my support behind one of the Democratic candidates merely for the sake of argument. The problem is, of the nine candidates, there's only three left now that I'd be willing to vote for: Lieberman, Gephardt, and Edwards. No front-runners there.

Much the same situation prevails north of the Red River; the only question is whether W. will beat the spread. And those of us who are persuaded that Dr. Dean should go back to Montpelier and contemplate the extent of media concentration and metrosexuality in the Soviet Union are not at all heartened by his front-runner status. I mean, if we really wanted someone in the White House who fumbles when he goes off-message — well, we already have that, don't we?

In 2000, I found Al Gore so unpalatable that I marked the box for Harry Browne. (This was obviously before Browne decided that 9/11 was our fault, so save the sneers, Bucky.) I have no idea what I'm going to do in 2004, but, like Jeff, I don't plan to lose much sleep over it.

Posted at 10:03 AM to Political Science Fiction


A large percentage of voters are like you Charles (and me); undecided and unenthused. That can change with a single incident - good or bad.

There's still plenty of time for something to shake things up in Oklahoma and the rest of the nation, but I doubt it, but it could happen, but probably not.

Posted by: Mike at 12:50 PM on 5 December 2003

Of the whole sorry bunch the only one I ever saw who had his eye on the prize was Lieberman, who knows how to handle the long term. His attacks on Dean have been good hits because Dean has shown a pretty consistent tendency to open mouth, insert foot. The vortex from the rapidly sinking Clark campaign is going to drag down all the non-contenders like Edwards. I never thought much of Gephardt because he's never had any discernable stance to me except that Republicans are wrong; I don't think he's a serious enough candidate to hold on, and even if he did his defeat in the general election would be embarrassingly bad.

Posted by: Lummox JR at 12:55 PM on 5 December 2003

Lum,
I disagree about Gephardt because of this:
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/polipro/pp2003-11-26.htm

I think he's the only one with a chance. So I'm rooting against him.

-d

Posted by: Dan at 4:30 PM on 5 December 2003