Why oh why can't I decide on a candidate?!

[JanMichael]

Seriously dammit.

I lean heavily to the Left, so DK (?) is is prolly the answer, but I simply can't commit...

Anyone else just tied up in knots over this candidate cluster f*ck?

Sure Dean is great, so is Clark, Kerry is pretty Liberal and Edwards is the very cool darkhorse...

Honestly? I simply can't WAIT until the primaries are over. Just give me reason, and giant killer, and I'll commit!

[ThirdWheelLegend]

1. DK...some reading...

Prayer for america February 2002.

http://www.kucinich.us/speeches/speech1.htm

snip>>
"How can we justify in effect canceling the First Amendment and the right of free speech, the right to peaceably assemble?
How can we justify in effect canceling the Fourth Amendment, probable cause, the prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure?
How can we justify in effect canceling the Fifth Amendment, nullifying due process, and allowing for indefinite incarceration without a trial?
How can we justify in effect canceling the Sixth Amendment, the right to prompt and public trial?
How can we justify in effect canceling the Eighth Amendment which protects against cruel and unusual punishment?

We cannot justify widespread wiretaps and internet surveillance without judicial supervision, let alone with it. We cannot justify secret searches without a warrant. We cannot justify giving the Attorney General the ability to designate domestic terror groups. We cannot justify giving the FBI total access to any type of data which may exist in any system anywhere such as medical records and financial records."
snip>>>
"Because we did not authorize the invasion of Iraq.
We did not authorize the invasion of Iran.
We did not authorize the invasion of North Korea.
We did not authorize the bombing of civilians in Afghanistan.
We did not authorize permanent detainees in Guantanamo Bay.
We did not authorize the withdrawal from the Geneva Convention.
We did not authorize military tribunals suspending due process and habeas corpus.
We did not authorize assassination squads.
We did not authorize the resurrection of COINTELPRO.
We did not authorize the repeal of the Bill of Rights.
We did not authorize the revocation of the Constitution.
We did not authorize national identity cards.
We did not authorize the eye of Big Brother to peer from cameras throughout our cities.
We did not authorize an eye for an eye.
Nor did we ask that the blood of innocent people, who perished on September 11, be avenged with the blood of innocent villagers in Afghanistan.
We did not authorize the administration to wage war anytime, anywhere, anyhow it pleases.
We did not authorize war without end.
We did not authorize a permanent war economy."
snip>>>>

and there is alot more to it.

This is what inspired me to support Dennis, this is the speech that got people motivated to influence him to run.

Good luck in your choice JM! :)

TWL

[Misinformed01]

2. Vote for Bush

At least you will have fun during the revolution-

I am signing off and going to bed.

[JanMichael]

3. Dobranoc moy kochania!

Czesz i mam blah blah blah...

I love you!

[patrice]

4. I know your problem, but . . . .

months and months ago when all of us were just getting lower and lower, looking around at everything that was going wrong, and wondering "Where is someone to stand up, and say 'That's enough!'?"

Many of us were feeling very powerless, and EVERYTHING was going from bad to worse. The build up to a war, that some of us thought was such a BAD idea it wouldn't succeed, went just fine, thank you. Layoffs, corporate coruption, LIARS everywhere!!!!!!!!!!!!

My anti-war friends and I were gathering publicly every week, getting some pretty bad language from our "neighbors". I started having hope for sanity when I heard about Howard Dean. Yes, Kucinich was against the war from the start, but it was Dean who made more of an impression on that issue because he is a "centrist".

I like most of our candidates quite a bit, each for different reasons, and there are things I don't like about all of them too, but Dean always comes out clearly as #1, when I test my decision as I frequently do.

When people are troubled, they like being able to do something about their problems. Dean and his advisors understood that too. Being asked to do something besides, or in addition to, giving money makes a person feel real.

[Mairead]

11. "it was Dean who made more of an impression on that issue"

No, it was Media Inc. who handed it to him on a plate. The wealthy elites were so happy to have a 'safe opposition'--someone who's going to keep refilling their hog trough if elected--that they couldn't wait to inflate him. If he hadn't been 'safe' they would have given him the same treatment they gave Dennis. Consider: Dennis made his 'Prayer' speech that electrified tens of thousands of people by word-of-mouth. That's newsworthy all by itself. But he got no coverage. Why not? Why should the governor of a minor state suddenly be annointed The Anti-War Candidate when he wasn't anything of the kind? Can it all be explained by appeal to 'journalist error'? That doesn't sound persuasive to me.

[Eloriel]

17. It's one thing to oppose a candidate like Dean

and I have no problem with that. It's another thing entirely to make up shit in order to oppose him:

No, it was Media Inc. who handed it to him on a plate.

Yeah, it had absolutely nothing to do with the longterm retail campaigning he's done for longer (I think) than any other candidate. Or his campaign's savvy and effective use of the internet. Or the fact that his message and policies and persona resonate with voters and new voters and people across the political spectrum. No, it was just a media blitz. And he's peaked now. Or something. Imploding, maybe.

The wealthy elites were so happy to have a 'safe opposition'--someone who's going to keep refilling their hog trough if elected--that they couldn't wait to inflate him.

Is that why the corporatist DLC bigwigs went after him so aggressively and often? Is that why he's gotten so much campaign money from corporate America? Is that why they had to send in Clark as part of the "Stop Dean" effort?

If he hadn't been 'safe' they would have given him the same treatment they gave Dennis.

I'm sorry to have to say this, but the treatment given to Dennis is because he can't win. He's simply not a candidate that projects a presidential persona. He's also too far left to swing at this point in our history (given the fascist state we're currently in, the demonization of all things liberal, etc.). Hell, his politics are closer to my own than Dean's, and yet I can't stand the man. I probably wouldn't vote for someone who appears to be a full-out pacifist anyway. And if he were elected, I think he'd be less effective as a President than Jimmy Carter.

Eloriel

[Mairead]

25. "It's another thing entirely to make up shit"

Yeah, it had absolutely nothing to do with the longterm retail campaigning he's done for longer (I think) than any other candidate.

I can document Dennis's complete opposition to the Iraq invasion and massacre back to Feb 02 without breathing hard (in fact, TWL has already done it upthread). How about you for Dean? I believe he's on record as being in favor of it through Conason's interview in mid-Feb this year.

And he's peaked now. Or something. Imploding, maybe.

Do you really think so? I don't, worse luck. I hope you're right.

Is that why they had to send in Clark as part of the "Stop Dean" effort?

As Chomsky and others have often remarked, some of the bad guys are opponents of one another as well as of us. When Dean changes his policies such that they don't go on hoovering our pockets, then I'll be happy to agree that he's no longer applying for the position of Gamekeeper Royal.

his politics are closer to my own than Dean's, and yet I can't stand the man

That's truly saddening, and I don't mean that in a sarcastic way. I at least don't have that sort of conflict in my opposition to Dean, which makes my life much easier I'm sure.

I think he'd be less effective as a President than Jimmy Carter.

Well, you might be right. Or completely wrong; I have no solid way to judge that speculation. But there's no way for you to have anything behind it, either, since the only things we know is that (a) he did his damnedest to disrupt 'business as usual' in Cleveland, including some things he laughs ruefully about now; (b) he was willing to sacrifice himself to keep his promise to save Muny Light; (c) he succeeded; and (d) people who've worked with him, including the GOP committee chairs in the state Senate, find him "philosophically awful" (from a conservative perspective) but trust-worthy; straightforward; hardworking; not divisive; a good lawmaker and desirable committee member; painstaking in working for his constituents; and someone who never, ever gives up.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. Pictures on the wall and darts?

_______________________________

[jobycom]

6. Maybe same reason I can't

Because they all suck. Each has his or her own qualities, each is a good person, none of them look the least presidential, and so far they are all defining themselves by what they don't like or agree with. There's no Clinton or Gore or even Reagan (may his feet develop painful, oozing sores) to create a feeling of hope and promise, real or imagined. There's no man from Hope.

None of them can even excite all of us here, how are they going to beat Bush in 2004? Hopefully someone will figure it out in time.

[fujiyama]

7. Actually I believe...

it's the exact opposite. We have plenty of well qualified candidates with stellar records, and in any sane society any one of them would win over Bush.

To the original poster:
Here are the positives and negatives of each:

Kerry, positives: solid liberal voting record in the senate for many years now. was a prosecuter earlier. led investigations into BCCI scandal and Iran contra during reagan's admin. war hero, later came back to oppose the war. has been on those committees that give excellent foreign policy credentials.

negatives: Voted for IWR. Has convoluted reasoning for his vote. some claim his personality could be an issue. looks french (haha this is the funniest criticism). voted for patriot act.

Clark, positives: intelligenct -- rhodes scholar. supreme allied commander of NATO during bombing of Serbia. opposed the iraq war. has defended liberalism, progressive taxation. has held no political office (many like outsiders)...

negatives: seemingly flopped on IWR at begining of campaign, but later has clarified position. has praised the bush administration on several instances, though the most recent was 3 months after 9/11. has held no elected polical office, so there is no real political vote record to judge from.

Dean, positives: doctor. served as vermont gov. for 12 years (I think it was for about a decade. not too sure). was able to provide health insurance for all children in his state, and most people in general. has a sensible health care plan nationally. opposed iraq war from begining and has been consistent. is for a balanced budget. passed civil unions bill in vt. creative ways in raising money by using the internet.

negatives: can sometimes come off too negative and has tendency of 'putting his foot in his mouth'. has seemingly flopped on free trade.

kucinich, positives: well, he's voted and been vocally opposed to iwr and patriot act. is liberal in most other respects...

negatives: has an anti-choice voting record in congress (including against stem cell research and funding of abortions overseas), but has apparently changed his mind on it. voted for the flag burning ammendment (wtf?!!). no chance of getting nomination.

edwards, pos: trial lawyer, helping ordinary folks. one against a swimming pool manufacturer, which had a profuct resulting in a child's death. has a very coherent economic message. mostly center left voting record. has charm and charisma. first one in his family to go to college "son of a mill worker".

negatives: is a trial lawyer ('nuff said), has voted for iwr and patriot act. still thinks going into iraq was a 'good idea'. campaign hasn't picked up much steam.

gephardt, pos: consistent union supporter. mostly center left vote record in house. was party leader, both minority and majority. came from humble background.

neg: has also supported iwr (not sure of patriot act). has also flopped somewhat on abortion (i heard he was much more moderate in the past). campaign hasn't been very inspiring.

lieberman (ok, most people won't bother but what the hey) pos: has a mostly center-left vote record in senate. was also conn. state atty. gen., was gore's vp. voted against bush's tax cuts, "partial birth" abortion bill.

neg: was gore's vp, sanctimonious, preachy, and can come off shrill. one of the biggest dem. supporters for iwr. voted for patriot act. big whore for corporations (especially pharma. corpos)

mosely braun, pos: was first african american women voted for the senate. seems like a nice lady. ambassodar to new zealand.

neg: some scandal during her ambassodorship (don't really know what that was all about). has no chance in hell of winning either nomination.

al sharpton, pos: quick wit. is entertaining during debates and provides sharp one liners. lot of activism for various social causes...

neg: history of race baiting, something about tawana brawley rape case and him not being very honest. also has no chance in hell of nomination and of being elected.

[Eloriel]

18. Boy, the nerve it takes to blame YOUR lack of information

on the candidates. Unbelievable.

There's no Clinton or Gore or even Reagan (may his feet develop painful, oozing sores) to create a feeling of hope and promise, real or imagined. There's no man from Hope.


All I can say is, you haven't been looking at Dean who IMO has the best and most hopeful message. But all the candidates have policies and rhetoric they believe is hopeful. It's YOU who hasn't been doing your homework. So don't blame them.

Eloriel

[elperromagico]

8. Maybe because the primaries

aren't until February.

Don't worry; you'll settle on one before it's too late. Until then, happy hunting.

[ComerPerro]

9. Don't sweat

Any one of the candidates we have could beat the tar out of Bush, assuming that no election laws are violated and that we don't have some "national emergency" that makes Bush look like a leader or hero.

[radfringe]

10. you are in the same boat as alot of people

we are looking for someone we can really get behind and support

a true leader that puts the needs of the people and country above politics and personal gain

the partisan political battle lines were several years ago

repugs upped the ante with the "get Clinton" politics and tactics

going into the 2000 election - the country was divided, there was an opportunity to "unite" the country - but that was lost in the political wrangling

September 11 - also gave us another opportunity to unite - that was squandered

and now we are looking at a choice between bush and a yet-to-be-named-Dem

In my estimation - Dean, Clark and Kerry stand the best chance of being nominated. My political/social/personal concerns and views mesh fairly well with any of these candidates. However, none of the Democratic candidates truely excites me - I have concerns about all the candidates

soooo - that leaves me firmly in the ABB camp. I'll support whoever gets the nomination, but I see more partisan battles and personal agendas being played out over the next four years

and that is a sad statement and a pretty piss-poor endorsement of any of the Democratic candidates

We are looking for a "political messiah", given the current political mess - I doubt we will find one any time soon

[Mairead]

13. "a true leader that puts the needs of the people and country above... "

...politics and personal gain

How about a true leader who put not merely his job, but his very livelihood on the line for the people? Try to find another candidate or for that matter another politician who's done that.

[TSIAS]

12. I'm glad you have favorable opinions about lots of candidates

That's a good thing. Here in Florida, it's debatable as to whether our March 9 primary will mean much. For sure, by the time it comes around it will be pretty clear who the leading contenders are.

[LWolf]

14. You don't have to decide yet.

But if you really want to, here's my take:

You like Dean, Clark, Kerry, and Edwards. That means you'll be ok with voting for any of them in the General Election, should they be nominated.

Personally, you lean to Dennis. Because you pay attention, you have heard people, many times, say something like, "I like Dennis best, but I'm voting for ________________."

If all of those people voted for him, he'd win. If you like all of the eventual possibilities, why not cast your vote for the person who most closely represents your take on the issues? We are a healthier system if the issues count for something.

Decide on Dennis. If he wins, we all win. If he doesn't, you still like whoever will probably end up in the general election. It's a win-win situation.

[maha]

15. Decide when you're ready.

Just keep watching the campaigns, and then when your state's primary rolls around, vote as your instincts are telling you to vote, and you'll be fine.

You don't have to get married to anybody just yet!

[Iverson]

16. be calm

I haven't decided on one either.

As one who leans heavily to the left, you should answer the threshhold question of whether you are planning to support a Democrat or not. If yes, then your most obvious choices are Sharpton and Kucinich.

You may have other criteria that can help you narrow down the field.
It's no rush. Doing a good job is more important than doing it quickly.

Cheers.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

19. There is another legitimate heavily-left candidate

Carol Mosely-Braun. I'm very impressed with her. No, she won't get anywhere, but that's not her fault. Anyway, I thought she was worthy of a mention.

Thanks.

[Iverson]

23. good point

She does deserve a mention, so I'm glad that you did.

[eyeontheprize]

20. Pragmatism will be my only guide.

When I make my choice it will be guided by who has the best shot of beating Bush. If these weren’t such dangerous times I would afford myself the luxury of voting for the candidate who supports the issues I do, or the most honest, but all I care about is defeating Bush. The future of the world is at stake, the rest are details.

[dmr]

21. You're not alone, Michael

but I haven't really tried to find a candidate to support. My head is wrapped up in the potential for electronic voting fraud, and hoping the activists, (me included in my small way) will help bring us some sort of solution.

Anyway, I read and listen to all the candidates and I'll make my decision when it's time to vote. Unless I'm forced to, I've never been one to make seriously important decisions quickly. The older I get, the lefter I find myself - or maybe I was always this far left and the 2000 coup with DU's help has brought this realization to the surface! I did, however, send a few dollars a while back DK's way because I want him to keep talking.

The Bush* administration has fucked us all up so badly, it'll take a miracle to correct the course, while the media and VRWC works against any progress we try to make.

I just depressed myself. < sigh >

[George_Bonanza]

22. I find Kerry inspiring

Despite Sen. Biden's chastizing the field of not having positions. Maybe it's because this is the first election I've cared about. Back in 2000, I was just a clueless kid. I actually wanted Bush to win because I thought he looked like a nicer man. I had no idea what liberal and conservative meant, nor what Democratic and Republican meant. I didn't even know there were two sides to every issue. I thought there was one universal agreement and each candidate sought to achieve it by themselves. How wrong I was.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

24. stop your lamanting ease your mind there is only 1...KUCINICH

the end of fear and the begining of hope = kucinich!

[David Zephyr]

26. My Heart is With Kucinich & Braun

But Howard Dean is more than good enough for me.