"It is with great pride and deep humility that I announce to you today my candidacy for the Senate of the United States," Mfume said in a three-page statement made available to reporters at a news conference in Baltimore.
Mfume, who was a five-term U.S. congressman before becoming president of the Baltimore-based National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, issued the statement after incumbent Paul Sarbanes announced Friday that he will not run for re-election.
Thoughts?
[UPDATE 05.14.05 12:15 PM CST]
As I expected, this discussion has included the requisite "Whatkindof 'BlackDemocrat' " is he stuff?
more accurately, dean's position on the war is not the most effective way of gaining voters from the existing pool of voters.
dean should concentrate on other themes in order to compete effectively with the other democratic candidates.
he should not hide from his stance. that would be useless anyway.
but there's no need to run "war ads" like he did in iowa. nor is there reason to question clark's war stance
read on, for more outrageous commentary...
a disclaimer: i admit this is assuming turnout remains static from 2000. if dean does, in fact, benefiit from a dramatic turnout increase tomorrow, then i may have to revise my ideas on how dean's war stance should be used in the primaries.
the good (for dean) and the bad (for dems and bush):
"Gov. Dean was surging even before the Gore endorsement. He has the most commanding lead -- except for Sen. Hillary Clinton -- of any candidate in this see-saw Democratic pack," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
"But are the Democrats competing for the right to lose to President Bush? The President gets at least 50 percent against any of the nine Democratic wannabe's and for good measure, tops Sen. Clinton, the Democratic favorite who says she's not running."
But not all the news is good for President Bush: American voters approve 51 -- 43 percent of the job Bush is doing, matching his all-time low of 51 -- 42 October 29.
bush has an 11 point lead over dean (was six points a couple months ago). turkey? drugs? stocks? what accounts for the small bounce?
my guess? he's been able to saturate the airwaves over the holiday season. that all changes now - as the primary campaign kicks into high gear. all the major candidates are in striking distance a year out.
listening to joe lieberman describe dean's trade positions as "protectionist" got me thinking about NAFTA, etc. my gut reaction said that dean's stands are not protectionist, but i couldn't immediately say why, given the way the issue is usually framed: any regulation on international trade is deemed protectionist, as opposed to free-trade ("free" being the operative word)
dean needs to connect the threads of his vision more effectively, and i think i've hit on an idea...dean needs to establish a new rhetorical framework that pits the idea of "globalism" vs. "isolationism".
my phraseology here is just a first attempt - suggestions welcome. but slog through this and tell me what you think, if you're so inclined
john paul stevens defined pornography pretty concisely: "...I know it when I see it... ." concise...yes...and ineffectual.
the same definition seems to apply to "electability" in 21st century democratic primary parlance. it's been applied to virtually every candaidate by someone on dkos...it's bullshit in every instance - especially as applies to this field of democrats against this president. any of the contending dems is within striking distance of the president a year out form the election. as i see it, all of them are capable of winning the election. all of them.
more than a few of you disagree.
well...why? as you answer, try and include a definition (a simple, one sentence definition would be ideal).
all of my attempts contain some variation of the word "bullshit".
...a new poll shows that residents are split on whether they would re-elect President Bush or would rather see someone new in the White House.
...Wisconsin could be fertile ground for campaigning by Bush and the Democratic candidates who emerge as front-runners, according to a new Badger Poll released Thursday
yup. wisconsin's role in the primaries may not be as influential as the general - bush lost this state (progressive traditions and all) by a very slim margin - like 7k votes.
just throwing this out there to keep us all sharp (whoever we're backing in the primary). this campaing will be a "long, hard slog".
this is taken for common knowledge here at kos, but the question remains: how do we make this common knowledge in the national psyche?
my thoughts? well, we (as democrats) do what we have been doing...just a lot louder. this administration - and the entire republican leadership - is corrupt, incompetent, and untruthful. that's the campaign we have to wage from now until november. of course we have to have a positive message and all that jazz - and that will come. but this should be "total war" on a scale dems haven't seen from our party in a while.
The SEIU's endorsement, due to be formalized at a Nov. 6 meeting of its 63-person executive board, would shift the labor winds decisively to Dean. He could get an even bigger boost if the 1.3-million member American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees swings behind him. AFSCME President Gerald W. McEntee considered backing Senator John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), then flirted with retired General Wesley Clark. But insiders say Clark's early missteps soured McEntee, who was the first major union leader to back Bill Clinton in 1992 and who wants to play kingmaker again. McEntee was miffed when Clark decided not to campaign actively in Iowa, where AFSCME's 28,000 members spread across all 99 counties could make a crucial difference in the Jan. 19 caucuses.
Continued conflict in Iraq, in other words, needn't always be bad news. It may be a sign that we are drawing the terrorists out of the woodwork and tackling them in the open.
i am a dean-head to the end, but i feel nothing but joy when one of the other candidates hits bush where it hurts - his codpiece-protected, "strong on terrorism" balls.
i am not sure anyone else in the race (besides graham) has made such a direct comment about bush's responsibility for 9-11 (not the act itself, but the failure to act). please correct me if i'm wrong...
I have little to say about this, except that I think it's a remarkably stupid strategy. My reasons for that may be more appropriate for another thread.
What I feel is important to remember here is that EVERY Dem candidate supports civil unions. This is an issues that the GOP will use on ANY of our folks.
That being said, what do you think the most apporpraite response is?
