Who I'll support if THEY get the nomination.....

[Sean Reynolds]

This isn't a my candidate is better than yours. It's simply my opinion and I don't want people to piss on me because they don't agree with it. Anyway, I live in Utah so it doesn't matter if I DON'T support the Democrat that gets the nomination. BUT I will actively support the following people if they were to get the nod:

In order as I support them

Howard Dean - Been a fan since February and have grown to like him EVEN more since. I truly believe he'll win the nomination and hammer Bush in the general election.

Dennis Kucinich - Second to Dean. I like where he stands on the issues (even if he did switch from being pro-lfe to pro-choice) and think he'd make a solid president.

John Kerry - I supported him before Dean. I'll support him if he wins the nomination because I still think he'd make a good president.

Al Sharpton - Might be I only like him because of his attitude.

John Edwards - Young, charming, charismatic. Might not see eye to eye on every little issue, but a solid Democrat.

Carol Moseley Braun - Maybe it's her infectious smile, I dunno. But damn I look at her and get a warm, fuzzy feeling inside. She'd make an awesome leader. Too bad she's already got two strikes against her; the fact she's black AND a woman. :(

Wesley Clark - Not enough information to really say. But I'm sure I'd support him if he won the nomination.
-----------------

[Girlfriday]

1. You forgot Lieberman,

or was that by design? My pick is Clark (obviously) The fact that as soon as he announced today, the cons were all over him. He really scares them: He's southern, like Edwards, has military experience like Kerry; Anti-war like Dean and was Supreme Allied Commander - better than that chimp in chief

Let's not forget a Rhodes scholar, who majored in economics

I think he is a strong candidate, probably our best hope to beat shrub.


:kick:

[no name no slogan]

2. But

Respectfully, Clark is NOT "anti-war".

[Girlfriday]

3. Touche!

This may sound like an end run, but, I do not believe that we would be in Iraq now if Clark had been president on 9/11/03; or ANY Dem for that matter.

[Sean Reynolds]

5. We probably would have been in the Afghan war.

But not the Iraq war - unless Lieberman was in office. Of course I do believe ANY Democrat would have handled it differently and we probably would have gotten bin Laden last year.

[w4rma]

11. IMHO, Gen. Clark was anti-Iraq war. My analysis of the FAIR article.

I think FAIR did a good job, but came to a different conclusion that I did

Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate?
…
Another "plain fact" is this: While political reporters might welcome Clark's entry into the campaign, to label a candidate with such views "anti-war" is to render the term meaningless.
http://truthout.org/docs_03/091803A.shtml

FAIR brought the facts together and really built a very good timeline on Gen. Clark's thoughts about the changing situation. I'm not as strict on using an anti-war label as the FAIR author is. From what I could tell, Gen. Clark tried to do all he could to keep us out, up until the point where he no longer thought that anything anyone did would stop Bush from following through.

Is Gen. Clark a dove? No. He's an owl. Gov. Dean is also an owl. Neither are pacificsts or doves. Neither will hesitate to use military force when they feel it's neccessary.

I do consider Gen. Clark to be anti-Iraq war. He was consistantly against invading leading up to the point that I think he felt was the point of no return. After that and up until it was obvious that the occupation was failing, I think Gen. Clark self-censored himself for whatever reason.

Here is an editorial written by General Wesley Clark, April 10, 2003:
What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory
…
As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

For contrast, Dean wrote this editorial on April 17, 2003:
Bush: It's Not Just His Doctrine That's Wrong by Howard Dean
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0417-07.htm

And posted this blog entry on April 10, 2003:
DEAN PRESENTS SEVEN POINT PLAN FOR IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000359.html

[renie408]

12. I dunno

Clark sounds like he was hedging. Depending on who you are, you could read his words and come away feeling ok...even if you support Bush and the war.

You gotta give it to Howard, you know for sure where he stands from what he writes. You don't have to try to decipher what he was thinking.

[Sean Reynolds]

4. Don't like Gep, Lieberman, and really not a fan of Graham.

I doubt I could support them in the general election. Out of those three, Graham is the only one I like to the extent of supporting him.

[Girlfriday]

6. Don't worry

I don't think you'll have to support any of them in a general election. I do think it will be Dean or Clark for the nomination; however, I will pull the lever for ABB!

[Sean Reynolds]

7. Well if I lived in a swing state I'd go with ABB.

But since I don't, I can be picky! ;-)

[DrFunkenstein]

8. I'll Give It A Shot

1. Kerry
2. Kucinich
3. Dean
4. Edwards
5. Moseley-Braun
6. Graham
7. Sharpton
8. Gephardt
9. Lieberman


Clark is an unknown for me. I have yet to see him on just about any issue. That alone is disturbing for me, so unless it is amazing, I consider him mostly VP material.

[Sean Reynolds]

9. I can support that list.

But by some of your anti-Dean rhetoric I'd of thought he would be 9! ;-) j/k

[molly]

14. Here's mine

1. Kerry
2. Edwards
3. Clark

I will support any DEM nominee, but I think one of these 3 will be it.

[renie408]

10. My two cents

My list would go:

1) Edwards
2) Kerry
3) Dean

and then after that, I don't really care. I don't think any of them could beat Bush, but I would vote for them. I honestly think that Edwards, Kerry and Dean are the only three people who stand a chance against Bush. Edwards because he combines the total anti-Bush package with a good plan of sound ideas. Kerry because he has the foreign policy and over all experience and he has that whole 'war hero' thing going on. Dean because he has proven that he can get people excited, but I am wary of Dean. Excitement is a two way street. He could get Republicans excited, too, in a way that would draw them out in droves to vote against him. I am NOT saying that we need to run a candidate that is a Republican suck up, but we need to run somebody that looks so obviously squeaky when compared to Bush that people can't get excited about hating them.

I am including Clark in my doubtful column when last night I would have had him in third instead of Dean because I just read that he was raising money for Republicans two years ago and that turns me off. I figure if it turns me off, it will turn other people off, too. Also, I just don't know about him as a "real" candidate. His whole deal just seems a little weird to me. Waiting so long to announce, not really having a platform, the shady "Clintons in the background" thing...I will just have to see where he goes with things and what else we find out about him. Cause there will be more to find out. Right now he is looking good, but he has been a candidate for less than 24 hours and stuff is already starting to come up. At least with the other candidates, they have been out there long enough that the majority of their skeletons are out of the closet and people have figured out if it is the kind of stuff that bothers them or not.

[Mairead]

13. Win or lose, I support Dennis Kucinich

If he doesn't get the nomination, it'll certainly prove that the Dem party is not the one it claims to be.

[DemDogs]

15. You need to tell Dean that.

He told the LA Weekly that his supporters were in just for him and were not going to support anyone else if he did not get the nomination.

[genius]

16. Anyone but Dean

Where I live, the Dean people are running the meanest, dirtiest campaign I've ever seen. I don't know if he knows what his people here are up to but I am certain that Rove either knows or will find out and that Dean will be the death of the Democratic Party if he gets nominated. I don't want to go into a list but I am very concerned about this issue.

I would have no problem supporting the other nine candidates.

[JeniB]

18. I'm coming around to this too!

I always thought I'd vote for the dem no matter what, but I am so disheartened by the Dean supporters that I have already decided not to campaign for him if he gets the nod and I'm leaning toward not voting either. I'm starting to feel about him like I do about Bush.

[rucky]

17. Okay, I'll Play...

1) Kucinich - a popular #2 on many lists, including mine (until today), C'mon - everybody secretly wants him in and is afraid to risk the udder dissapointment if he loses. He draws the LEAST criticism of any candidate (see any GD thread), most consistent voting record, and can solidly whallop Bush on any issue. Plus, he's truly, unquestionably and good and sincere human being.

2) Dean - I like the energy he generates. I like that he stands strong. He's running a brillant campaign. Meetups are FUN!

3) Mosley-Braun - The voice of reason. No grandstanding. No nonsence. Always backs up her views with real-world examples. Won every debate so far, IMO.

4) Clark - giving him the benefit of the doubt right now. One thing he has shown is that he'd be *'s worst nightmare in the general election. There's something primally satisfying to have a guy like that on "our" side.

5) Kerry/Gep/Edwards/Graham: Pretty much interchangable for the votes they'll pull in. I'd expect roughly the same out of each of their presidencies... which is all fine by me.

6) Sharpton: Love Him! But even he knows how far he can take this.

6.5) A big long list that includes Carrot Top, Ozzy Osbourne and Spongebob Squarepants

7) Leiberman: ABB, folks. ANYBODY but Bush

[last_texas_dem]

19. Still not sure, but...

The bottom line for me is anybody but the Shrub.

I still haven't decided who I'm going to support. On the issues I like Kucinich the most; I just think he's a really good man and I like where he's coming from. If I factor in who I think has a chance against Shrub, I would probably favor Kerry, but Edwards is a sentimental favorite of mine that I'm standing by, and really hope he can gain some more traction.

After that, at the moment I'd say that I like Clark, but I'd still like to know more about him. (There is already quite a bit available that I just haven't checked into. Probably tied w/ Gephardt, whose stances on the issues I generally favor (though, like so many, I was very put off by his war vote) but I truly worry about him getting "Gore"d- I think he may suffer from the same "charisma" problem- at least this is how I think the media will define him. (BTW, I love Al Gore and was holding out for months hoping he'd re-enter the race...)

In the next tier I would put Carole Moseley-Braun and Bob Graham, who I both have generally favorable opinions towards. I see Graham as an ideal Vice Presidential candidate, though.

I really like Al Sharpton as a hellraiser who tells it like it is, but I'd worry too much about potential "scandals" of his past. I just don't care all that much for Howard Dean. I've tried really hard to like him, but the more I've found out about him the less I've been impressed. I give him credit for running a really strong campaign and coming out against the war when it seemed no one else would. But all things considered, he's just not my guy.

As for Lieberman, while I don't believe, he's a DINO or a right-winger, he packages himself as far too far to the right for my tastes. And for a guy who's supposed to be such a moderate who will produce "unity", he seems to be doing the best job (well, with the possible exception of Dean) of bashing the other candidates. I just think it'll definitely be four more years of Shrub if Lieberman gets the nod... can't figure out why he's still a front-runner.