|
Edited on Thu Jan-29-04 07:30 AM by cryofan
I started out supporting Dean. Then I found out the truth about him (see www.mylinuxisp.com/~cryofan/dean.html ) and saw that he was not only basically conservative, but also born of the Eastern Establishment.
So then I decided Kucinich was the most anti-status quo. And he still is. But his campaign has been a disgrace, meaning he is not a viable candidate; he got a total of one percent in NH (and still his supporters here go on about how he will win....WTF?!). So I no longer support him.
Then came Iowa, and I had to decide which candidate was the most populist, the most anti-status quo, the one most likely to resist corporate power. So Gephardt got my vote. THen he quit. But Kerry looked really good in Iowa, and he said the right things on the stump. But now after looking at his record, his background, and his plans for the presidency, I do not see that much of an anti-status quo, populist candidate. His record is liberal, but it seems to be focused mainly on somewhat minor, token liberal issues, like the enviroment--the kind of issues that Hollywood types support. These are typical limousine liberal issues. Real hardcore progressive issues like progressive taxation and minimum wage are ignored by limousine liberals. I can find no indication that Kerry cares much about hardcore progressive liberal issues.
And then there is the media. Tell me they don't love Kerry. THey do! Just like they loved Dean until they turned on him (and remember that they did not turn on him until he lost Iowa).
I deeply distrust the media.
So Kerry is on the back burner for now. And I would rather see someone other than Kerry (except Dean or Lieberman (Lieberman seems to be pretty much a conservative, except for his tax plan)).
So who are we left with? Basically Clark and Edwards....
Clark is someone who has apparently let his advisors craft a policy plan for him. His policy plan, as many people have noticed, is like a textbook liberal template. From his interactions with the media, it seems as though he does not seem to have a great interest in domestic policy. He seems to mainly be interested in foreign policy and the military. Maybe I am wrong about that. But I like Clark because that aspect of him could be good. Maybe he would leave the domestic agenda to advisors, and he seems to choose liberal advisors. Clark's policy plan as crafted by his advisors seems to be the most liberal of all the viable candidates. Clark could up being like a liberal version of Bush, except that Clark is apparently some kind of intellectually curious genius, as opposed to Bush, who is a well educated idiot.....
Edwards is in some ways like LBJ and Roosevelt, which could be great, obviously. I mean like LBJ and Roosevelt, Edwards seem to really care about the domestic agenda. And like them, he is about "economic justice" -- that is what Edwards's rhetoric is built around; that is his rallying cry. However, the actual details of his policy plans seem less liberal than Clark's policy plans.
Another factor is that the media seems to dislike Clark. That means that he should be our top choice. Right now, for me, it is Clark at the top, then followed VERY closely by Edwards, then Kerry well after those two. The ways things are going right now, all three could beat Bush EASILY.
But what we really want is a populist rhetoric bidding war between these three candidates. Whichever one ups the ante on the core hardcore liberal progressive issues, like universal health care, corporate regulation, progressive tax agenda, that is the one we should support.
Do not get attached to any one candidate, people. Make them EARN your vote!
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(62 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
