Campaign 2004 News Blog News and analysis of the 2004 campaign for president of the United States.
Official Candidate Sites
Democrats:
John Kerry

Republicans:
George W. Bush


Ex-Candidate Sites
Carol Moseley Braun
Dick Gephardt
Joseph Lieberman
Wesley Clark
Howard Dean
John Edwards
Dennis Kucinich
Al Sharpton

Official Candidate Blogs
George W. Bush
Wesley Clark
Howard Dean
John Edwards
John Kerry

Campaign News Sites
ABC News
American Prospect
Associated Press
Boston Globe
CBS News
CNN
C-SPAN
FOX News
MSNBC
New Republic
New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Salon
Slate
Washington Post

Polling Sites

American Research Group
Annenberg Center
Gallup
Polling Report
Rasmussen Reports
Survey USA
Zogby

Other Sites

Campaign Desk
FEC
Fundrace.org
Rhetorica
State Primary Dates

Archives

Blog Home
Contact

Thursday, May 29, 2003

Amy Sullivan argues in the Washington Monthly that Democrats need to talk more about religion if they want to have a chance in 2004. While they don't have a chance of winning the Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson bloc, they could capture the votes of evangelicals who are less committed to the Republican party. She notes that the two Democrats who have been elected in recent years--Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton--both used religious rhetoric during their campaigns.
--Posted at 6:11 PM | link

Wednesday, May 28, 2003

William Saletan of Slate claims that Democrats are becoming more comfortable with "liberal themes," as they demonstrated at an EMILY's List forum. Well, maybe. It's interesting that Saletan considers recent praise by Democrats for Bill Clinton as a sign of "turning left." The Republicans tried for eight years to portray Bill Clinton as some kind of extreme leftist radical, and apparently they fooled Saletan as well. But that aside, two of his four signs of "turning left" pertain exclusively to Dean, and Dean has always positioned himself to the left of the other candidates. Perhaps the Democratic party is swinging slightly to the left now that the Iraq war is over, but Saletan's article doesn't prove this very convincingly.
--Posted at 10:01 AM | link

Tuesday, May 27, 2003

Adam Clymer has two articles in the New York Times: one about the state of the Republican party today, and one about the Democrats.
--Posted at 3:02 PM | link

The Washington Post reports that the Green Party is seriously thinking about staying out of the 2004 presidential race and backing the Democratic candidate instead. This is still not a very popular opinion within the party, not only because of ideological objections to the Democrats, but also because of practical concerns:

The party could lose its ballot status in some states if it doesn't run a presidential candidate. The public might assume the Greens' time has come and gone, without someone at the top of their ticket, and it could hurt Green candidates running for other offices.

The decision may be largely influenced by which candidate the Democrats choose. The article also says:

"It is unclear under what circumstances the party could agree to support a Democrat. Many of its officials adamantly oppose supporting any of the more centrist Democratic candidates. "There is no possible way that we would ever support someone like a [Connecticut Sen. Joseph I.] Lieberman or a [Missouri Rep. Richard A.] Gephardt," said Anita Rios, one of the party's five national co-chairs.

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (Ohio), one of the most liberal Democratic candidates, appears to have gained the most traction among the Greens. But he is considered one of his party's longest long shots -- and it is uncertain whether the Green Party would pass on its own presidential race to support someone with such a slim chance of winning."


No "hard decisions," however, will be made until July.
--Posted at 11:20 AM | link

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours? Site Meter