Those who are NOT fond of Hillary Clinton AND Barack Obama, check in please

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

To me they are both the same sort of pretty-smiley-platitudinous Third Way neoliberal-yet-nice-image candidate that has been ruining our party ideologically and policy-wise.

This is a thread for those of us to see whether we are as alone as we feel we are. Pro-Clinton/Obama folks, we can debate elsewhere.

[LBJDemocrat]

1. *Raises hand n/t

[Gloria]

2. Moi

[John Q. Citizen]

3. Actually, I'm disappointed in the so called three top tier candidates. They all seem

to kowtow to the military industrial complex and are all in favor of American Empire.

This is very good for them and their well heeled backers but we are going to be the peasants their empire is built upon.

If I wanted to have Imperial Rome as a model, I'd vote for Cesar.

[Elidor]

69. The 3 Mediocrities, I call them

They're not mediocre people, but as wanna-be statesmen, they are bland beyond words, and deliberately so. Packaged and sold like soap. Platitudes and pleasantries. And all three admit they will keep some level of troops in Iraq for years to come. The only thing they have to offer is a better economy and somewhat less rabid appointees to federal positions. And that is the only reason I'll vote for any of them. The national party is all but dead to me.

[Like It Is]

147. You're looking in the wrong place!

The best person for President in 2008 is without a doubt Joe Biden of Delaware. A real moderate with a great Plan for Iraq. See link.

http://www.planforiraq.com/

[murbley40]

168. Best is Biden

:hi: Hi Like It Is:
Glad to have another Biden supporter here.

[demommom]

176. Don't settle

Don't settle for "packaged and bland." Check out Joe Biden.
www.joebiden.com

[The Count]

134. If Gore, Clark don't jump in, beter these two than "I sponsored IWR - don't tell anyone"

Edwards - who loves war more then some GOP candidates.

[TheFarseer]

139. how can you not like Edwards?

I understand he voted for IWR, but his commitment to labor and working Americans is hard to doubt.

[John Q. Citizen]

141. It would be much more authentic sounding if he disavowd the American Empire.

It's hard to help the poor when they are needed to fight your war.

And it difficult to pay for povery reduction and buy enough missles at the same time.

[Morgana LaFey]

143. Seriously, I always end up reminded that Edwards is an

incredibly clever lawyer.

Don't get me wrong: I love attorneys. I'm not one who bashes them, never have. BUT I also realize that because of their training, they operate by a different set of "values" or "standards" than the rest of us do. They typically can argue both sides of an argument persuasively -- and passionately. To attorneys, it doesen't matter if someone is innocent or guilty -- the accused and their attorney get to claim they're "not guilty" in court anyway. Most of the rest of us prefer the REAL truth, not a defense truth.

Edwards was a trial lawyer and that's how he earned his wealth. I say more power to him. But I also say: when is it you're being opportunistic and saying the right thing at what you perceive to be the right time, John? I've seen him be opportunistic -- and the IWR vote was definitely one of them. And I really, really don't like that side of him. Nor do I trust it.

Compared to Hillary or Obama, he's better. But he's definitely not my candidate at this point.

I really, really, really want Gore to run -- NOT because I backed him last time (because I didn't, really). I want him to run because he's had one of the most profound trials by fire anyone can endure in this day and age (losing an election and in the way he lost it), and come out of it, like the Phoenix Rising from the Ashes, a new man who knows who he is and knows what's what. He would be a formidable opponent, and a brilliant, principled, visionary leader.

[w4rma]

4. Hillary is by far the worst choice for President but Obama is not what he is selling himself as.

WP: CEO funded Clintons' travel "Gupta is a well-known figure in the high-tech world in India"
The Clintons' strong connections with this corrupt CEO (and Hillary's six years as a Wal-Mart board member) tells me exactly how they feel about outsourcing skilled high-wage American jobs.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18874222 /
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3284764#3284769

Clinton Is Quiet on Her Past Role With Wal-Mart
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3271407

Hillary Clinton was once a board member of Wal-Mart.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0312-01.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x923108

The Obama Illusion
Presidential ambitions from the start

• lent his support to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and “other Wall Street Democrats” to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party
• lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman
• supported other “mainstream Democrats” fighting antiwar progressives in primary races
• criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
• voted for a business-friendly “tort reform” bill that rolls back working peoples’ ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation from misbehaving corporations
• oppose the introduction of single-payer national health insurance on the grounds that such a widely supported social-democratic change would lead to employment difficulties for workers in the private insurance industry
• expressed reservations about a universal health insurance plan recently enacted in Massachusetts, stating his preference for “voluntary” solutions over “government mandates.”
• voted to re-authorize the repressive PATRIOT Act
• voted for the appointment of the war criminal Condaleeza Rice to (of all things) Secretary of State
• opposed Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) move to censure the Bush administration after the president was found to have illegally wiretapped U.S. citizens
• distanced himself from fellow Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin’s forthright criticism of U.S. torture practices at Guantanamo
• refuses to foreswear the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran
• makes a big point of respectfully listening to key parts of the right wing agenda even though that agenda is well outside majority sentiment
• joins victim-blaming Republicans in pointing to poor blacks’ “cultural” issues as the cause of concentrated black poverty
• he claims that blacks have joined the American “socioeconomic mainstream” even as median black household net worth falls to less than eight cents on the median white household dollar
• “If the Democrats don’t show a willingness to work with the president, I think they could be punished in ‘08”

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html

Obama rallies state Democrats, throws support behind Lieberman
By Stephanie Reitz, Associated Press Writer | March 31, 2006
…
Lieberman, Connecticut's junior senator, is under fire from some liberal Democrats for his support of the Iraq War. He was key in booking Obama, who routinely receives more than 200 speaking invitations each week.
…
"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it," Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered in a ballroom at the Connecticut Convention Center for the $175-per-head fundraiser.

"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," he said.
…
http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman

[nickinSTL]

46. this is a great summation of Obama...

and helps me a great deal.

Based on his performance in the debates, I've been less than happy with him. Heck, in the first, it seemed like he and Clinton were trying hard to out "war-hawk" each other.

Seeing this laid out, showing his pro-corporate, pro-war history helps a lot.

Definitely makes Edwards my favorite among the media-annointed "top 3", not that he's perfect, either.

[cascadiance]

55. Add to Obama's list that he's actively promoting funding coal lifquification energy efforts...

... which reflects him working with the coal lobbyists and prioritizing their interests over funding REAL non-carbon-based energy resources. Unfortunately we also have folks like Dick Gephardt helping out these lobbyists as well.

One thing that I DO hope isn't a smokescreen, and if he is serious about it restores some hope is Obama's cosponsorship of the Free Elections Now Clean Elections Bill along with Dick Durbin and Arlen Specter in the Senate. I'd like to see something get started on that, no matter who sponsors it. I just want to make sure it's a real serious effort and not just an effort for them to market themselves as some way to appeal to progressives like us without meat to it.

[NCarolinawoman]

178. And Edwards voted for Mountaintop removal while in the Senate.

I'm sure he doesn't want the coal miners of West Virginia to know this.

See post #143 on this thread as a possible explanation.

[driver8]

5. Me, me, me, me, me...!!!

I agree 100% with your description. These two candidates seem to say what needs to be said, when it needs to be said. To me, they are all style and no substance.

If Hillary is our candidate, I am going to have a hard time voting for her.

[Miss_Underestimated]

6. More importantly, I think the Rethugs want Hillary to be frontrunner

because that will be a slamdunk for their candidate with all the vote rigging and caging. No other candidate will polarize the nation enough to make it a close race at this point.

[wryter2000]

59. Welcome to DU

:hi:

There are enough people who won't vote for a woman in the country AND enough people who hate anything named Clinton (some overlap there, I'm sure) to make her very vulnerable to "loosing" to a Republican. I use "loose" to indicate that some vote tampering would go on, as well.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

116. Amen !! Why else would they be pushing her for the last two

years? They want her to win the nomination. BUT, what I want to know is why every poll shows her ahead and I have yet to meet anyone who likes her?

[Like It Is]

148. Hillary, Obama and Edwards are all losers.

Joe Biden cannot be beaten by the Republicans. He is the man!

http://www.planforiraq.com/

[silverlib]

7. Consider me checked in (eom)

[unkachuck]

8. I'm in....

....I want a candidate who comes from and represents the people, period....I am no longer going to vote for servants and representatives of the corporate state....

[Jim Sagle]

9. They both SSSSUCCCCCK!!!!!!! Edwards RRRRAWWWWWXXXX!!!!!

[EVDebs]

79. On to IOWA, and then the nomination !

I wish he were more Kucinich on health care. But that's my only complaint.

[Phredicles]

10. I like Obama better of the two but I'm REALLY tired of the spitwad-fest between

their respecitve backers on this board.

[nono]

11. Both scare me.

H.C. most

[rhino47]

12. Moi.

Though I am for sure not voting in the primary for hilary I am somewhat on the fence with barack.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

13. Enough Third Way corporatism nt

[knight_of_the_star]

14. Waiting for the General to jump in

He's the only one who really says what he means and means what he says.

[AllyCat]

99. Ah, if only knight, if only

I'd back him in a heartbeat. I'm so NOT in favor of either of the two subjects of this post. I could really get behind Clark.

Right now, I like Richardson and Kucinich.

[knight_of_the_star]

111. He still might jump in

I can always hope.

[saracat]

15. So far I am not sure what either bring to the table but race or gender.

And that is NOT enough basis for my vote. They need to prove themselves to me! I haven't decided on a Primary candidate as yet.I have not eliminated either but am thus far not leaning in their direction. I will vote for whomever the eventual nominee will be and all our guys are way more impressive than the GOP!

[Vincardog]

16. Raise hand here nt

[OneBlueSky]

17. that would be me . . . given the fact that Kucinich in unelectable, the only candidate . . .

I feel I could enthusiastically support is Al Gore . . . while I have some reservations about his ability/willingness to stand up to corporate power, I'm betting that his reluctance will be overridden by his in-depth knowledge of the environmental crisis and his understanding of the major roles mega-corps are playing in destroying the planet . . .

[OldschoolDem]

18. Where is Harry Truman when you need him?

End the war (non-nuclear this time) and bring our country into a new wave of prosperity.

[sneakythomas]

51. You beat me to it.

I was impressed with Obama when he spoke at the convention, but I think he needs some time to season before we throw him at the biggest job in the country. HC worries me, I can't shake the feeling that the only thing she really stands for is getting elected.

We need a Harry Truman, when he decided to integrate the military he gave them an order. And it would be fun to watch the first time he called a reporter an SOB at a news conference.

[wryter2000]

61. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[wryter2000]

60. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[Discord]

36. DK only becomes unelectable...

if you believe it.

[arKansasJHawk]

108. Really?

You believe that we can elect Kucinich on our collective will alone? When 2/3 of the American populace believes humanity was created in its present form no more than 10,000 years ago?

Sorry. I love Dennis Kucinich. I wish he could be president. But I promise you that, no matter how fervently we here at DU believe he can be president, it just ain't so. "The Secret" doesn't work in life, and it doesn't work in politics.

If you don't believe it's important to support, fully and unreservedly, whatever candidate the Democrats pick, I must point (as I have many times before) to the recent Supreme Court ruling on "partial birth" abortion.

We must begin to repopulate the Supreme Court with thoughtful jurists, and the only way to assure that is to get a Democrat in the White House. We can't just cross our fingers and hope that Fred Thompson will nominate a new O'Connor. It's much more likely that a new Republican president will nominate another Roberts or Alito. And that's too dangerous a scenario to even contemplate.

Full disclosure: I think Hillary is unelectable. I currently support Edwards. My second choice would be Obama. My third choice is anyone but Hillary. I do have some reservations about her in general terms, but my main complaint with Hillsy is that I don't think there's any fucking chance she could win even if the Republican candidate was Satan himself. There's just too much Clinton-hatred in the country at large.

So I say now, it doesn't matter who the Democrats nominate, I'll support them, even if it's Hillary, because the stakes are too high. To do anything else is tantamount to flushing the real American Dream down the toilet.

[PFunk]

19. Add me to that list.

[AndyTiedye]

20. Unelectable

Hillary Clinton would turn out the Clinton-hater Repiglicans by the millions to vote against her.
Barak Obama would turn out the racists to vote against him.
Edwards doesn't stand a chance against Thompson.
Richardson, might pull it out, if he does everything right and the Repiglicans blow it.

They'd make decent Presidents, but can they be elected?

We really need Gore!

[TheFarseer]

140. I agree with all of that except Thompson over Edwards

could you tell us what the rationale for that is?

[AndyTiedye]

144. The Repiglickin' Media Will Paint it as Manly-Man Thompson vs. Pretty-Boy Edwards

The Mighty Slime Machine managed to make a deserter look more "manly" than a war hero last time,
what do you think they will do if it's Thompson vs. Edwards?
Look at all the mileage they have gotten out of one lousy haircut!
And Thompson is an actor so the media has yet another reason to go all out for him
(just like they did for Reagan and more recently for the Gropenfuhrer).

Beyond that, Thompson cuts the base out from under Edwards.
The main reason Edwards is being considered is the "must-nominate-Southern-Democrat" mantra --
the hope of taking a Southern state if we do, which largely evaporates if we are running against Thompson.

[Blue_In_AK]

21. I'm not overwhelmed by anyone right now. n/t

[Alexander]

22. Here.

I don't like either one of them. Gore has far more experience, intelligence and gravitas than either of those two.

[cascadiance]

56. Waiting for Al Gore here!

and Russell Feingold as his running mate! We need a pair like that to start a newer progressive dynasty that can correct 28 years of screwing up this Democracy!

[Wesin04]

123. Waiting for Wes Clark, here

If you missed Keith tonight, you missed a great conversation with Wes Clark. Reminded me of the days he and Aaron Brown were on CNN together. You can catch it here, http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12441 if you missed the show.:thumbsup:

[ChipsAhoy]

125. Yes, Wes!!

If we can't get a fresh face out there, I'm backing WES! I've always appreciated him.

[Auntie Bush]

146. Thanks, I was bummed that I missed him tonight! I'm waiting for Wes too!

Waiting is damn hard!

[Auntie Bush]

149. Just watched the video. Now that's what I've been waiting to hear! nt

[nebula]

23. They represent the core of the do-nothing democratic congress

Obama and Hillary are the corporate wing of the Democratic Party. n/t

[NoSheep]

64. Ditto.

[Faux pas]

24. Here and accounted for. Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll

cancel each other out....hope-a-hope-a-hope.

[jessicazi]

25. Me me me.

nt

[some guy]

26. check

:hi:

[dmosh42]

27. They are the results of what 'big money', and the media want..

With all the snow and static generated by these two, it's hard to get the message from others. My favorite is still Clark, and hopefully he'll step up.

[yy4me]

28. I'm not fond of either of them, mainly because they are getting

the lions share of publicity. One would thing there was no other candidate from whom we would like to hear. I know this is media in action but I'm seeing too much of them!

[Clark2008]

29. Not fond of them OR Edwards.

Check.

[GreenArrow]

32. yep,

same sh*t, different package.

[IA_Seth]

41. I'm with you...

Although my aversion toward an Obama candidacy isn't even close to my dislike of Edwards and Clinton's politics.

[Clark2008]

53. That's the way I feel, as well.

Hubby's decided that unless Gore or Clark gets in, he'll hold his nose and vote Obama in our primary because he's the least bad of the three candidates who currently have a shot at the nomination (hubby knows this can change - this is just his feeling now).

I'm not quite there, yet. I can't just vote for someone because they're the least worst.

P.S. What's new on the baby watch? BTW, is your wife having a boy or a girl or do you know? I have some clothes I can send your way for either. I got way more than I need from family and friends who like to shop. :)

[IA_Seth]

63. I haven't decided what I'll do...

I don't want to caucus for someone that I don't particularly support either. Hopefully sometime before next January I will begin to see things differently, or I will be given a better option. One of the good things about a caucus is the ability to arrive undecided and let the supporters of the various candidates tell you why they want you to caucus for their guy/gal. From your precinct caucus (neighborhood) we then do the same thing at our county convention, where if I have changed my mind I can support someone else, and then we repeat the process at the district and state levels. It's quite fascinating really. I had never been involved until the 04 race and I learned a lot.

Now for the fun stuff: It's a girl! We've decided to name her Avery and she is expected to arrive sometime near Jul-16. Our last doc visit included an ultrasound and lil Avery is currently measuring small (she was almost 36 weeks and was measuring at 34 or so), but the doc said everything was proportioned and that for her to be on the small side is somewhat normal (mama is a tiny little thing). Nothing to worry about as far as the baby goes. However, since mama is so small, the doctor thinks that we will most likely have a scheduled c-section, which we'll schedule in about 2 weeks or so. She is to the fairly miserable stage and looks like she is about to burst! She is a trooper though and is handling it like a champ. I truly admire her, and every mother for going through all of that! I am so unbelievably excited! It's our first child so it's all so brand new. Since it's our first, and it's my family's first little girl in a long time we have also been bombarded with the usual pink, purple, and yellow clothes...so much so that we've already given some to her younger sister who is also expecting a little girl in September. I'm even guilty myself, I bought a little dress the other day for 6-9 months because I just couldn't resist. This weekend I am painting the nursery room and if that goes well I am going to start refinishing a toy box that I had when I was younger. Avery isn't even here and I am already wrapped around her little finger. Doh!

[Clark2008]

102. I'm a tiny thing and still had big, no, make that HUGE, children.

I don't think genetics determine it. :) My little boy was 10 pounds, 2 ounces and my newborn baby girl was 8 pounds, 11 ounces. Both via C-Section, of course, since I'm only 5'1" tall and weigh about 125-130 when I'm not pregnant (I'm already back down to within 10 pounds of my pre-pregnancy weight after less than two weeks, btw).

But, in any case, I have clothes - more than I know what to do with. PM me and maybe I can box some up and send them to you.

[AllyCat]

101. Vote for who you want! Especially in a primary

There is no reason to pick the winner in a primary. Just vote for who you like the best.

But wouldn't it be just great if the General jumped in again?

[Pyrzqxgl]

110. Well I think EDWARDS has the best chance!

He's got solid labor support & you put him on a ticket with Wes Clark
(to beef up the foreign policy) and you have a ticket that no Republican
can dent. It'd be a landslide!

[IA_Seth]

172. That won't happen...

Clark wouldn't be Edwards VP, I can almost guarantee you that. And why would we want the VP to "beef up the foreign policy" anyway? Isn't the President the Commander-in-Chief?

Clark shouldnt be anyone's Cheney. If you need to have your foreign policy creds 'beefed up', you need to drop out of the damn race.

[LWolf]

30. Won't vote for them AND

I am not an Edwards supporter.

The Democratic Party can do better.

[Nothing Without Hope]

31. Absolutely. Check out Obama's voting record and you see clearly that

this is a man who will not oppose the DLC machine. I've been assuming that they will "surprise" us with a Clinton/Obama ticket. He plays by their rules, not ours.

[southern_belle]

33. Here!

:hi:

[HughBeaumont]

34. Definitely opposed to Hillary as our candidate.

Opposed to her stances on free trade and outsourcing. Also opposed to her plans of continuing the use of the military as a bully enforcer on nations that have done NOTHING to us. That IWR vote and her continuing defense of it and this occupation = teh suck. She also voted for the Bankruptcy Bill of 2001. Just a general windsock on wedge issues as well; it's like she's so afraid of offending ANYone with money.

The jury's still out on Obama, but I'm not impressed by what I've heard from him so far. He needs more seasoning and more reality grounding.

[EVDebs]

80. Say TATA to your job if Hilary gets the nod ! nt

[HughBeaumont]

81. GMTA!

She'd NEVER stop the offshore-a-thon, talking out of both sides of her face on this issue. I cannot BELIEVE unions give her a high rating. Did they NOT review her positions on free trade or meetings/speeches with Indian business leaders in 2005?

[EVDebs]

82. Tata Consultancy Services, that is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Consultancy_Services

It's money that matters, in the USA
-- Randy Newman

[EVDebs]

180. Ever stop to think about the tech needed to do that offshoring ?

Try the Little Rock company, AllTel:

"Stephens is the chairman of Stephens Inc., the nation's largest investment bank off Wall Street. Its home office is located in little ol' Little Rock, Arkansas. He and his brother, Witt, built the Stephens Inc. empire out of a bible, belt buckle and bond business. In 1994, Stephens Inc. was listed as one of the biggest institutional shareholders in 30 large multinationals including the Arkansas based firms Tyson Food (# 10), Wal-Mart (# 113) and Alltel (# 12). Interestingly, it was Stephens who staked Sam Walton when he started Wal-Mart in 1970, and financed Tyson's takeover of Holly Farms in 1988. (Stephens, Tyson and Walton (1917-1992), all billionaires from Arkansas.) Stephens sold a 275 phone exchange to Alltel when they broke into the phone market, and guaranteed in 1990 that Alltel would get Systematics by refusing to sell his 10% stake in Systematics to anyone but Alltel. In many ways Arkansas is the house that Jack built. "

http://www.greenlink.org/grassroots/soc/wastenot/97i02784.html

Jackson Stephens was an Annapolis grad in the same class as Jimmy Carter and Stansfield Turner. Well connected.

[Discord]

35. Count me in.

Neither will be getting my money or support in the primaries. I'd vote for Obama in the general if he did win, I would NOT vote for Hillary in the general.

DK represents US!!! He stands by his word, stands up against the Repuke hate machine and doesn't flinch. He stands for the convitions of me and many dems and libs. He doesn't sell his votes to the highest bidder. He doesn't sell his votes to Repukes in backroom deals to sell out this country.

DK for Pres!!!

[CTD]

37. Me

[Maven]

38. Me. I don't trust either of them.

And your description of them is perfect. :thumbsup:

[elehhhhna]

39. Present and accounted for.

[watercolors]

40. I'm still waiting for a GOOD candidate to emerge

at this point I'm not sure of any parties candidates. Just might sit this one out, tired of it all! We will all have politcal fatique before this election is held!

[Larkspur]

49. Me too

but I'll definitely vote Dem on the down ticket candidates. If I can figure out how to write-in a candidate for Prez, I'll do that.

[hippiechick]

42. Aye

:hi:

[jsamuel]

43. I am an Edwards supporter. I am not a fan of either of the other two.

[OHdem10]

44. Timing is everything in Politics--

I do not dislike HRC or Ovama. The Third Way, New Democrat
or DLC have created the impression that Democrats should
always concede issues to the GOP. Fair or unfair the perception
is not much difference between them and a Rockefeller Republican.
Call them Republican Lite. They drank the Regan Kool-Aid.
Therefore, their primary loyalty will be to Big Business.

Fairly or unfairly, it appears they believe in the same
elitist society as GOP. That is, the only people who rally
count are those who earn over 75,000 per year and therefore
they are happy with the present situation. A Rich Ruling
Class rnn8ng the country.

Timing is everything. I want the Democrats to win.
I have to ask this question. The Country is in one "mell
of a hess" . Are we conceding the election now with
our candidates? HRC and Obama are excellent candiates
(ecen with their philosphical positions) but is this their
time. This has been my concern from day one.

[bobthedrummer]

45. Howdy.

[bonito]

47. Yep n/t

[Drifter]

48. My thoughts ...

Clinton - As much as I don't like it, she is as polarizing as Bush. I see bitter partisan politics continuing with another President Clinton.

Obama - Not enough experience. Put Obama on the ticket as VP, and it can not lose.

I like Richardson and Biden.
Gore trumps everyone.

Cheers
Drifter

[bunnies]

50. both hands raised here. nt

[wryter2000]

62. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[bunnies]

105. Thank you!!

Ive been reading this board since 2003, figured it was finally time to join! :hi:

[Adelante]

52. Clinton and Edwards; Clinton and Obama

This past January Congressional Quarterly did a voting record analysis comparing Edwards to Clinton and then Obama to Clinton for periods they were concurrently serving in Congress.

In brief:

Clinton and Edwards: 91 Percent Synchronicity

According to the CQPolitics.com analysis, Clinton and Edwards agreed on 899 of 992 votes — or 90.6 percent of the time — on which they both cast an up-or-down vote from 2001 through 2004.

-snip

Clinton and Obama: Even More Aligned

In 2005 and 2006, Clinton and Obama sided on 576 of 618 votes — or 93.2 percent of the time.

Full article:

Virtually all major candidates for president will hire “opposition researchers” to delve into their opponents’ records and personal histories in hopes of finding political vulnerabilities.

In the contest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, the officially announced campaign of former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards — the party’s 2004 vice presidential nominee — likely will indulge in such research. So would Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, regarded as a near-certain candidate, and Barack Obama of Illinois, a rising star whose presidential prospects have been subject to much speculation of late.

But if these three end up in contention, they may have to put their opposition researchers to an unusual task: ferreting out differences among them on the day’s major issues.

That is because all three of these current or former officeholders are generally in agreement on fiscal and social policy. They all side far more often with the positions of labor unions than those of business federations. And all have expressed some misgivings about the Bush administration’s handling of foreign policy and especially its current strategy in Iraq.

So, then, where do these three Democrats — who polls show at the top of their party’s likely or possible ranks of president ial hopefuls — actually disagree?


http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/01/ethanol_taxes_among_major_issu.html

[IA_Seth]

76. Interesting read, thanks! n/t

[Mark Twain Girl]

54. Both hands waving wildly here

I'm homeless re: a candidate.

Neither Hillary nor Obama impress me -- it's all subjective, I suppose. I think some of the attacks on HRC go way, way over the top, but that doesn't mean I'm a supporter of hers. As well, the whole "Obama opposed the war" doesn't move me either, since I don't think his statements at the time say anything definitive about what he might have done in the Senate in Washington. He's no worse or no better than most triangulating politicians who will say whatever is necessary to fit their ambitions/interests, and his only claim to "new politics" is not having as much of a track record yet.

What I resent the most, however, is the feeling that there is no choice. We get Clinton or Obama, Obama or Clinton... and the MSM barely even mentions the others, and policy issues take a back seat. Though perhaps that is the whole point -- no one not groomed and acceptable to power structures would ever have a chance at leading the executive branch. If you get to that level, you necessarily "fit" with the military-corporate-media complex.

[wryter2000]

57. Not fond describes my feelings pretty well

Esp. about Hillary. I'd support either one in the general election, but I'd much rather have someone else. Specifically, Al Gore.

[petunia.here]

58. I don't support any corporate party member

even those with a D printed behind their name.

More of the same.
More of the same.
More of the same.
More of the same.
More of the same.

And we fall for it every time.

[Robbien]

65. Still don't understand the poll numbers. What are people thinking?

We need people to correct all the corruption the RNC has incorporated into DC. Neither Clinton nor Obama appear to be even aware of any RNC problems.

Neither one has even said word one about any of the congressional investigations. They are aiding and abetting the RNC by not helping to shine a light on how rotten the GOP is.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

66. I think

it's just too early to decide this stuff. If only we could have a law athat says NO CAMPAIGNING, or even talk of campaigning until 6 months prior to the election. Then the candidates could continue to wrok to show us why they should be elected and we'd be spared polls, endless talking heads on TV discussing the election that is still 17 months away............

[michaelwb]

67. Oh, yeah.

It's like a bad 50s sitcom.

We're coming up on the prom (Primary), you're hoping for a dream date.

Instead the press is saying: "Well your cousins Obama and Clinton, don't have a date. Why don't you just take one of them?"



:(

[corkhead]

68. Count me in...two triangulationists. a luke warm vote in November is still a vote

better either of them than the puke alternative, however.

[sojourner]

75. truth.....

but i wish for someone who can stand up in spite of the media's efforts and galvanize the people -- someone like al for instance.

[corkhead]

77. ditto. I would be proud to support him and wouldn't have to hold my nose in the voting booth

Gore/Clark would be my dream ticket.:toast:

[bvar22]

70. DK is the ONLY candidate I align with on "the Issues".

The Money Festival between Hillary and Obama and the Corporate Media coverage sickens me.


They will dance with whoever gives them the $MONEY$.
Their "Weasel Performance" every time they are asked a direct question is embarrassing.
Neither will do anything to end the Corporate Looting and Murder in Iraq.



If Hillary or Obama gets the Democratic nomination, the USA will continue the WAR/Occupation/Privatization with a probable expansion of The War into Iran.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- If elected president, Sen. Hillary Clinton said, she would likely keep some U.S. forces in Iraq in a supporting role after 2009 because America has "a remaining military as well as a political mission" that requires a presence there.
However, in an interview with The New York Times published Thursday, Clinton said the American troops would not play a role in trying to curb sectarian violence.
Rather, they would be positioned north of Baghdad to combat terrorists, support the Kurds, counter any Iranian moves into Iraq and provide logistical, air and training support to the Iraqi government "if the Iraqis ever get their act together."

Obama outlined a plan for maintaining a U.S. presence in Iraq similar to Clinton's.
"Withdrawal would be gradual, and we'd keep some U.S. troops in the region to prevent a wide war, to go after al Qaeda and other terrorists," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/clinton.troops/index.html

*You cannot be Anti-War and support either Hillary or Obama.

*You cannot be Pro-LABOR and support either Hillary or Obama.

*You cannot be Pro-Universal Healthcare and support either Hillary or Obama who are selling a "Mandatory For Profit Health Insurance" scam and calling it Universal Healthcare.

Edwards is only marginally better. He is saying some of the right things, but I have trouble trusting him based on his record.

Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate that matches up ISSUE for ISSUE, and has a clear and consistent record to prove it.

[L0oniX]

115. ah "Murder in Iraq" ...yep that's it. We are also guilty of murder...

since we pay for the war machine with our taxes. That makes us accomplices and in a US court of law, if you pay someone that goes and murders another human you are also guilty of murder. We are all murderers! If we knowingly vote for someone who we know will keep the war going then we are guilty of first degree murder.

I hate all these damned ass carrots!

[bpeale]

71. ::raises hand here:: i'm an edwards supporter

i supported edwards in 2004 & i haven't changed my mind since then. he's THE ONE.

can't stand hillary & her triangulating & obama doesn't have enough experience.

[Jai4WKC08]

171. Obama has more experience in govt than Edwards

More executive experience too.

Personally, I don't care so much for any of the top three, but Obama is probably the best of the lot. His biggest problem is that he either thinks he can actually work with the other side, or he's figured out that most voters want to believe that someone can and he's telling them what they want to hear.

If someone better doesn't jump in, I will take consolation in the fact that my vote, whether primary or general, won't matter in this state.

[bpeale]

173. i am for edwards

edwards has definite ideas. so far obama has done nothing but speak in generalities. i have been for obama since 2004. nothing i have seen or heard has changed my mind.

[motocicleta]

72. Two thumbs up.

I believe we need a candidate who will articulate the very real dangers we are facing and present solutions, not pander to lowest common denominator thinking. Obama and HRC? Not so much. Unfortunately, I'm not sure anyone else in the field fits my description either, but things might get a little more interesting if Gore checks in.

[emmadoggy]

73. Checking in.

They are both far down on my list. Not a fan of either. As others have said, I feel they are being shoved down our throats by the media and I'm afraid we are going to be stuck with them. Of course, either would be better than a Repuke, but I just don't get a feeling from either of them that they have a grasp of the enormity of our predicament. There's more, but for brevity's sake, suffice it so say neither one of them has what I am looking for.

Edwards is ok, but I have some problems with him too. I really, really like Kucinich but his invisibility to most of the public (and the derision he receives from nay-sayers when he does get some attention) means he will probably never be in the top-tier of candidates.

Right now, all my hopes are riding on Gore. If/when the day comes that he announces he is definitively not running, I will be depressed and much less excited about the campaign. I will most likely throw my support to Kucinich and will probably have to hold my nose when I vote in the general (since Kucinich will likely NOT be the candidate).

If Gore DOES jump in, well I can't even tell you how happy and excited I will be!

:party:

[sojourner]

74. adding my name here.......the media is choosing them and that

makes me suspicious.

[riona]

78. NOT fond

:kick:

[Vidar]

83. I consider Obama the lesser evil, but Kucinich has my vote.

[Labors of Hercules]

84. You aren't alone on this one...

Just don't go trying to add Gore to this list because then I'd have to open up a can-o-whoopass.

:rofl:

[waiting for hope]

85. My hand is raised....

[TheWatcher]

86. Reporting For Duty.

:patriot:

[redqueen]

87. They both kowtow to the insurance industry.

Don't need much more than that to know where their allegiance lies...

[Hun Joro]

88. Hi!

:hi:

[RestoreGore]

89. So what are you doing to change it?

Or is getting on the rec list of a message board the pinacle of it?

[road2000]

90. Only One For Me

I've been so focused on Al Gore for so many years, I barely pay attention to the others. Not particularly enamored of HRC or Obama. I like Kucinich and Edwards, but...

I'm the number one fan of the man from Tennessee!

[Pooka Fey]

91. Checking in. n/t

[Skittles]

92. me

they just do not impress me

[ChipsAhoy]

93. I said that before and got slam dunked here!

Look what a few months will do. When I said basically the same thing about Hillary and Barack you wouldn't believe the nasty replies I got. Well, maybe you would.

As I said before, my MAIN problem with the two of them is that neither of them will ever get to the White House. Any time and effort placed on them is wasted and we lose again.

[peace frog]

94. I'm underwhelmed

and patiently waiting for Gore. He will declare, it's just a matter of when.

[ChipsAhoy]

96. Sorry to say

he is not the answer. He is also not a viable candidate. I think we need a fresh face, I really do.

[peace frog]

174. Great cookie

but otherwise we'll agree to disagree regarding "fresh face(s)" - Hillary can hardly be categorized as "fresh" and Obama's freshness is rapidly turning stale. Gore has the name recognition, the credentials and the staying power to win the nomination and election.

[ForeignSpectator]

95. I am just a foreign spectator...

...but I must add to this thread.

Clinton is over for me since she voted for the war ( plus didn't even admit this as a mistake as far as I know, ??? ). This alone would be enough for me to not support her.

If the account of Obama in reply #4 is correct, Obama is over, too. As a lawyer (he was, right?) voting for Patriot Act...crazy??! Case closed.

Kucinich, Clark and of course Al Gore are the ones. Kucinich is just right about everything I heard him talk about, Clark seems solid, too and Gore knows what needs to be done and undone for sure. I am reading his book and he's definitely aware of all the damage done.

Since Kucinich or Clark probably wouldn't end up as Dem candidates I am very much hoping for Gore... ( he'd need to lose some weight though ;) )

America needs a president that radically changes course, otherwise... (don't want to continue that sentence)

[katsy]

131. Spot on.

Welcome to DU :hi:

[Lorien]

97. Not a fan of either

too pro-corporate rule for me. I'm still hoping that Gore will run against them.

[Bo]

98. I can not stand either one of them

Hillary and her voice uugh

[AllyCat]

100. Hear! hear! Add me to the list

I so want a woman or a minority to be President, but NOT THESE TWO!! Far too corporate and well, wishy-washy.

[lwesty]

103. I'm writing in Gore

in the primaries. Unless Clark jumps in.

[KansDem]

104. I don't know...it's not that I *don't* like them...

It's just that it seems like they're being selected for us by the media...and that tends to worry me.

[neuvocat]

106. I'm inclined towards Dodd or Leahy

[Hart2008]

107. Aye! Working on drafting Gary Hart!

Gary Hart was the original "New Democrat" and was leading the party in a different direction before he got slimed in '87:

Q. You were seen as the original New Democrat in 1984. What were you about, and how did it differ from the Clinton-Gore version of "New Democrats"?

A. Our goal was to move the party forward without compromising its principles. These guys have gained power, but I'm not sure they maintained the principles.

What I had in mind was to expand the party beyond a shrinking New Deal base of basically organized labor, some minorities and old traditional Democrats. It wasn't to abandon those people, by any means. But it was somehow to appeal to young people and independent voters. I believed that there was an emerging new economy. We sought to capture people who understood that the economy of America was shifting away from processing raw materials into manufactured goods, and towards information technologies, communications and so forth.

Where the New Democrats went wrong:
Gary Hart says Clinton and Gore abandoned their base to expand the party...
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/08/15/hart/index.html

Hart was one of the first to speak out against the war in Iraq:

Iraq and American Unilateralism
By GARY HART

“If we are at war against terrorism, that war's most visible battlefield for most Americans today is the luggage check at the nearest airport.

Meanwhile, 9/11 offered the first central organising principle for foreign policy and military action since the demise of "containment of communism" and the collapse of the Soviet Union eleven years ago. Now those whose ability to comprehend the world requires a villain are happily planning a new mission for the United States in the 21st century - eradicating evil from the world, starting with Saddam Hussein. Having helped to dispatch fascism in mid-20th century, and then successfully faced-off against expansionist communism in the late 20th century, those requiring a messianic purpose for America's role in the world have found it in the "axis of evil" - Iran, Iraq, and North Korea - and more vividly in the personification of evil, Saddam Hussein.
…
Having stagnated somewhere along Afghanistan's craggy border with Pakistan, the war on terrorism has migrated to Baghdad. If Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, the ability to deliver them and the will to do so, there will be a broad consensus among the American people to undertake military operations to prevent him from carrying out his will.
But some better showing must be made than has hitherto been done that those conditions have been met. Though US presidents find it inconvenient to remember this, the Army still does belong to the people. And as bereaved and furious as we still are post-9/11 at the attacks on unarmed civilians, political leaders must still make the case for potential loss of thousands of American military personnel, and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives.
…
Yet, it is a minor irony that those in America who ridiculed Jimmy Carter's human-rights beliefs as the basis for a "realistic" foreign policy have now trumped him by seeking to make America the world's avenging angel.”
http://www.garyhartnews.com/hart/writings/columns/columns/columns_09_11_2002.php

(You be may excused for not knowing this since it was published in The Times (of London) in the U.K.)

Having served as the Co-Chairman of the Hart-Rudman commission which preciently predicted the terrorist attacks on 9-11, Hart is again leading a bi-paritsan task force on national defense policy, The American Security Project:

"Letter from The Honorable Gary Hart

The American Security Project has been created to develop a national security vision and strategy for the twenty-first century, building on America’s strengths, restoring its international leadership, and seeking solutions to the new realities of the 21st century before they become crises.

American national security policy is adrift. In the five years since the attacks of 9/11, the United States has toppled autocratic regimes, cast-aside collective security alliances, put its military into the field, expanded its covert battle against terrorists, and simultaneously lost its moral standing in much of the world. While American activism has not always met with approval in the international community, there once was a time when American action made us stronger. Today, however, anti-Americanism is fueled by actions that are seen as diversions from America’s historic path, accepted standards of international behavior, and common sense.

The issue at hand is the appropriate purpose and use of American power. Where the United States has needed strategy, we have been offered tactics. There has been little development of grand strategic thought since the end of the Cold War.

The so-called “war on terror” has dominated every discussion of national security since September 11, 2001. But the war-paradigm—while convenient for political mobilization—is dangerously imprecise and counterproductive in the fight against extremists. The American Security Project seeks to clarify the nature of the struggle the United States faces against violent-extremists in order to produce more effective policies and strategies to meet the threat."

http://www.americansecurityproject.org/about

[rucky]

109. I'm not going on record..

because I'm pretty sure one of them will be the nominee, then I'll have to eat my words.

[pacalo]

112. Here!

It's not that I dislike either, but sure don't care for either as president.

Both provide a recipe for disaster as the Democratic presidential candidate. I'm not willing to give up another 4-8 years to the Rethugs.

[L0oniX]

113. they both can go f*ck them selves ...I & the Crypt Keeper will vote for Gore!

:grr:

[fwiff]

114. Yup, that's me.

I want a traditional Dem, with integrity and dedication, not who the media's selling.

I'm hoping for Gore this fall.

[Dervill Crow]

117. I'm certainly not crazy about either of them.

Edwards or Gore would be my pick, and Gore would be most desirable. Though it hurts to admit it, I really don't think anyone else stands a chance against the repuglican machine.

Edited for clarity.

[rjones2818]

118. Go Dennis!

The top three, to me, are three flavors of the same pop. I think Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate that speaks for progressive values who will have the courage to fight to implement them.

He's been right on the war and the supplementals, having not voted for any of it.
He's right on Universal Single Payer Not for Profit Health Insurance for all Americans.
He's right on the environment and on a green economy.
He's right on labor issues.
He's right on GLBT issues.
He's right on impeachment.

Go Dennis
www.kucinich.us
:evilgrin:

[robinlynne]

119. me too. Gore or Edwards.

However, when compared to a republican, I would be happy to see obama as president. but not when compared with real leaders of honesty and courage. as in Feingold, Gore, Clark, et al.

[venable]

120. checking in - Edwards nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

121. 34 recs...Can we forward this thread to the CMSM? nt

[crud76]

122. Present

I hate to have to say it, but if it comes down to it, I will hold my nose and vote for Clinton.

But I'd rather have a better choice.

[Auggie]

124. One more

[Warren DeMontague]

126. If Al Gore doesn't get in, I'm voting fror Kooch. That's how it stands right now. But it's clear

that "we" are not alone, not here on DU at least.

...So--- just out of curiosity; Who are you supporting? And why- what issues?

[Peregrine Took]

127. I'm here - husband, too!

[Dora]

128. Gore.

[peace13]

129. Consider me checked. n/t

[eridani]

130. Agreed--and either would be better than any of the Republicans

I like it that Edwards is running further to the left than he did last time, though.

[Bryn]

132. If Gore or Clark isn't running then

1) Dennis K

2) Edwards

Neither Hillary nor Obama has my support.

[The River]

133. They Are "Novelty" Candidates

I don't mean that in a bad way (like cheap clever trinkets) but
rather as "new" or "First of".
Is 08 the year to risk running a "First" ___________ for President?

I'd vote for a black, woman, hispanic or gay candidate IF they were
worthy of the office but not simply because it would be a "first".
Not this election cycle, it's just too damned important for the
Country and the Planet to risk it on a novelty candidate.
Obama and Hillary are good decent (Junior) Senators but not "presidential" material
or the type of real leader we need now.

These much too early in the election cycle "True Believer" types
remind me of 28% ers who defend shrub despite his obvious flaws.
That said, see my sig

[emlev]

135. Kucinich.

[liberal N proud]

136. If they are the nominations, I will vote for either or

But my 1st choice is John Edwards.

[Mrspeeker]

137. Kucinich

The only good one!

[TheFarseer]

138. I can't stand Hillary

She is a phony pro-corporate, pro-outsourcing triangulator that stands for nothing and panders to everyone. I fear Obama *could* be the same but it's too early to make that determination. If Hillary wins the nomination, I will definitely vote Bloomberg (not because I like him, just in protest) or if he's not running, Libertarian.

[JFen]

142. Here I am

Count me in, as well.

[CoffeeCat]

145. Hillary is just AWFUL...HORRIBLE....

There are not enough adjectives to describe how devastating it would be to me--if Hillary
were the Dem nominee.

She hasn't challenged Junior at all. She's remained silent while he has destroyed our
democracy and treated our Constitution like a scrap of toilet paper stuck to his shoe.

I really liked the Clintons--and Hillary. Bill had my utmost support--even through the Monica crap.

However, the Bush Administration was a litmus test for me. How Dems reacted to this
sickening, vile, unAmerican administration showed me who is toeing the political line
and lining up with the corporatists and warmongers. There are very few Dems who are
willing to go out on a limb and challenge this pResident. However, it is imperative
that ONE of them be the Dem nominee.

If you can't stand up to the worst pResident in US history who is destroying our
civil rights, enacting torture as our national pastime, running a disastrous war,
failing to catch bin Laden, wiretapping us illegally, stealing elections and wielding
power as he is some kind of sorcerer---then you STAND FOR NOTHING!! You certainly
don't deserve the Dem nomination, that's for sure!

Hillary is just awful. I've never seen anyone toe the warmongering neocon playbook--
and in the same breath--pretend to be a Democrat--like she does. She said that war
with Iran is "on the table". And that's ok because...she's pro choice? It's not ok!

Hillary is part of the elite Dem-power contingent that meets with the elite Rep-power
contingent. They all plan their schemes and windfalls--while America erodes. They
chuckle---as they pretend that there are differences in two political parties. These
elites are corrupt, self-serving and they are unpatriotic--because they are not
interested in the well being of this country. They're out for themselves, their
money and power.

Hillary epitomizes this political hedonism. Anyone who can't see this--has their head up their arse.
Tonight, I heard her argue for the "safety of our troops" by suggesting that an Iraq
timetable would put our troops in harms way. That's a page torn out from the
neocon playbook! Who cares how she feels about abortion, or the environment
or what she says she'll do about saving forests. If we have no civil rights and our
Constitution becomes meaningless--social issues are irrelevant. We can't stand up for
social issues, if we don't have a country!

I'm sorry I'm on a soap box here, but I am terribly concerned for this country. It's
bad enough that 30 percent are still hanging on for Junior. To think that Hillary
is the supposed leader for the Dem nomination--burns out hope for me.

We need a true progressive. We need someone who will stand up to the corruption,
cronyism and to those who use war to make profit and control the masses. We need a
trailblazer and someone who will shake things up.

Hillary has been mute on all of this. She's a disaster as a Senator because she
was not a force for change---when it came to Junior and his antics. She would be
an even-bigger disaster as the Dem nominee. AWFUL. Just AWFUL!

[Locrian]

160. agree

With Hillary is "democracy for sale to the highest bidder".

[Duppers]

150. the subject line of another thread

Howard Dean to Mother Jones: "the netroots are incredibly sensitive to people who are phonies "

[Hissyspit]

152. Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

Bingo.

[Mind_your_head]

151. There are a whole lot of people that I *like*.....'love' even....

...but I sure wouldn't want to see them as the POTUS.

So, M_Y_H checking in here. :hi:

[proud_Kucitizen]

153. definitely can't get behind either of these candidates

I like Biden but there is no replacement for kucinich. I like Edwards better then Hillary or Obama but he is for capital punishment and voted for the war which turns me off a little.

[Phrogman]

154. They're both double-dealing con-artists, they'll bullshit us till the cows come home.

not the troops, the cows.

[undergroundpanther]

155. Dennis Kucinich is the only one worth voting for

As far as I'm concerned. DLC is infiltrated by neocons.

[Boo Boo]

156. Yup. /nt

[ima_sinnic]

157. I'm with ya--good characterization (nt)

[KT2000]

158. Checking In!

Wish Clark would run. We need some expertise - now!

[lies and propaganda]

159. Run Gore Run! n/t

[PurpleChez]

161. Me

I'm not a Hillary Hater, but neither am I a supporter, and I've been pissed off about her Iraq vote and other Chimp-enabling behavior since long before it was cool. And I'm just neutral on Obama. There aren't any specific points I can point to and say "that's why I love this man." And I don't know if he's had enough experience to president (not like the Chimp had ANY).

Gore '08!

[localroger]

162. Me Too

I'll vote for them if they end up on the ticket -- Satan himself would be better than any of the Republicans running -- but let's not forget that it was Clinton repeatedly screwing the left wing of his own party that caused so many of us to stay home or vote for Nader in 2000. I expect more of the same from Hillary, and I'm getting nervous about Obama. If Gore doesn't jump in (PLEASE AL PLEASE) I would probably favor Edwards.

[sendero]

163. I was starting to warm up to Obama..

... but now I'm realizing my first instincts were correct.

"Audicity of Hope". That says it all to me. Just another happy-talk pol trying to glad-hand his way into office. The people he associates with tell the story. No thanks.

I never thought much of HRC, who is famous for being famous. She is the Paris Hilton of politics. No thanks either.

God I hope Gore decides to run.

[Triana]

164. Edwards fan here - not saying much else at this time (n/t)

[iamahaingttta]

165. I don't like either of them.

I don't like any of them.

Al Gore is the only person who would get my unwaivering support.

[freebrew]

166. Count me in...

Can't stand HC(repub in drag), and Barack is too new to the program, too much pandering from both of them.

[prismpalette]

167. leadership= GORE

Neither HC or Obama exhibit any leadership capabilities. They have NOT championed any cause nor philosophy while in the Senate, nor have they taken a strong stand on the war or mess in the middle east. They hand out 7 bit platitudes and expect money and votes for nothing. It seems they have decided running for prez is their job. Edwards is not seasoned enough and whatever his best intentions, we frankly do not need another unexperienced leader in this perilous time.
Gore! for all the right reasons and because his leadership qualities are simply exemplary. Clark is good as is Kuchinich, but again they haven't been able to capture the media attention which will be so important in the coming months.

[Larry Ogg]

169. A vote for Dennis Kucinich is a vote for a change in direction…

For what it’s worth Hillary is a conservative; Dennis Kucinich is a liberal… big difference… It would be a victory for the neo-cons If HRC or any other conservative wins the general election… All neo-con Nazi’s will walk scot-free and will remain the very worst and most powerful and terrifying influence throughout the world, and no conservative will stand in their way or bring them down. They will not stand in there way now; they will not stand in there way ever.

Conservative Democrats like the Clintons will continue the direction this country has been going in far too long, which has been to hand over our country our assets and our welth over to the corporate elite.

It won’t be long before the corporations are the only superpower in the world and the only functions of our new one-party government ruled by neo-conservatives, will be to hunt down and kill real liberals, and to collect taxes and police the poor with terrifying force, and enforce the draft because wars will escalate as the rich will get richer and richer and the poor will get poorer and poorer and slaughtered…

[ChiciB1]

170. I'm In... Go, Johnny. Go!!!!! n/t

[Spoonman]

175. I have no use for either of them.

[EndElectoral]

177. I fear we will lose to Thompson unless Gore or Clark enter the race

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

179. they are both enemies of social justice

puppets

[Atmosphere]

181. They're both neocons

I don't see either them avoiding a future war with Iran than any of the republican candidates, hell even if Bush was allowed to be relected I think the chances of war with Iran would be the same. Obama and Clinton are both already slaves to the big corporations and lobby groups (AIPAC)

[Paulie]

182. X marks the spot

People first, corporations second. How hard is that?

[SergeyDovlatov]

183. here here. I would add Edwards to the same list too.

Skilled politicians. Yes. Absolutely
Principled, willing to fight for their convictions. Don't think so. It is in direct conflict with "skilled politican"

[Hawkowl]

184. Gutless Wonders

That is the number one impression I get from both these candidates. Never get out and LEAD on any issue. Just always hold your finger up to the wind and jump on the bandwagon. They won't challenge the corporations that are turning our country into a banana republic.

By doing this they appear WEAK. This is the worst possible quality to project as a candidate. America, hell baboons and chimpanzees, NEVER EVER pick a weak leader. We will pick a fucking, obtuse, corrupt, moron, who is 100% wrong--as long as he makes a lot of noise and looks strong. It is the way the animal kingdom chooses it's leader. Make no mistake, picking a leader for most of the electorate taps into one of our deepest primal urges: survival. Hard to survive with a terrible leader.

So, I want a strong leader. Loud, vocal, compassionate, tough, just, pro-worker, progress AND vindictive towards those who seek to turn our grand 200 year old republic into the fourth Reich or Nazi Amerika. Then this candidate will appear strong and will get elected and will have the moral authority to make us a country of laws by, of and for the people.

Right now the only candidates I see out there are Edwards, and Kucinich, who has a snow ball's chance in hell of getting elected.

Al Gore, of course would be perhaps the strongest candidate