Clinton. Obama. Edwards. And anyone else who campaigns for the Dem prez nomination...

[Zenlitened]

I'm willing to listen to what they have to say. All of them.

For me, that's the best way I can think of to approach the whole primary process. Sure, I've got a head full of facts and impressions, opinions and insights -- just like everyone here. That's the blessing/curse of being a political junkie, right? :)

But to all the Democratic candidates, I'm willing to say: Okay... let's hear you make the case for why you should be our nominee. And more, importantly, why you should be America's next president.

Then we -- as in We, the People -- will take it from there. The pundit-caste and beltway-boys be damned.

:patriot:

[PresidentObama]

1. Listening is the best option.

Even if my opinion is sour about a candidate, I'll still listen and remain open minded. Because after all you never know if thats the candidate you'll have to put your foot in your mouth to support.

We can't AFFORD a failure in 2008, we NEED to listen to EVERYONE!

[Virginia Dare]

2. Me too, I'm open to listening to all comers..

edit to add:

That's pretty much what I did in 2004 as well. It was a really tough choice, because there were elements of several of the candidates that appealed to me. I won't completely close my mind to any of them.

[pocoloco]

3. Talk is frigging cheap....

they all have had a chance to walk the walk!

[Zenlitened]

4. Very true. And I hope that it will all come out clearly in the primary...

... ALL of it, good or bad. The so-called news shows aren't good for anything but spin, and some days even DU seems that way as well.

So I hope the candidates find a way to cut through the noise. To step up and say in plain language: "This is who I am... this is what I stand for. This is what I've spent blood, sweat and tears working on... this is what I'll work on as President."

IMO, televised, town-meeting style debates are a great way to get at that sort of unscripted, honest conversation. Obviously, with as many as a dozen candidates (that's the number, potentially, I've heard lately) town-meetings might not work very well. But maybe the field could be split up into smaller groups at random, candidates drawing straws to see who's on the stage with whom for a debate in Town A, then mix things up for Town B, Town C, et cetera.

Or some other method entirely. There are plenty of creative people out there, and I expect the Good Doc will guide things along in the months ahead. He's already made a great choice for the convention site in Denver (and I say this as an unabashed, roots-in-Brooklyn, lifelong fan of The Big Apple!) If there's anyone who can help cut through the clutter and get to the heart of the matters before America, it's this guy:



People-Powered Howard, baybee! :D

[ClassWarrior]

6. You have a chance to "walk the walk" too.

As Progressives, we pride ourselves on being flexible, adaptable, and intelligent enough to change our minds when the facts warrant it. Also on being empathetic and understanding of others. We know better than most that redemption is possible.

So why the hardline stance?

NGU.

[Clark2008]

5. Why are people - especially DUers - only mentioning these three?

Haven't we learned that media favorites are necessarily the best thing for our party yet?

[Zenlitened]

7. Oh, I totally agree. Those three happened to be on my mind when I wrote the subject line.

But you're entirely right. That's why I wrote "Pundit-caste and beltway-boys be damned."

FWIW, I was hoping Clark would be Kerry's VP pick last time around. I hope he gets into this new race in the months ahead -- he's got a lot to contribute! :hi: