Do we actually LIKE any of our Presidential candidates?

[Nikki Stone1]

Everytime I visit DU, I am amazed at how every tiny issue is used to disqualify our '08 candidates, and we're not even that deep into 2007 yet! Here's a summary of what I have seen thus far:

Hillary Clinton: Too much baggage (husband and her own image), DLC, fuzzy on Iraq, dynastic feel

Barak Obama: "Rock star" status (distrust this), not "seasoned" enough, DLC connections

John Edwards: Rich lawyer, has a big house, was on losing ticket last time (even though there was electronic voting machine fraud)

Al Gore: Connected with Clinton, was on losing ticket last time (even though he won popular vote), DLC connections, has gained weight

Wes Clark: Was fired from his NATO post by Clinton

Dennis Kucinich/Russ Feingold/Barbara Boxer: Great on issues but completely unelectable


I could go on and on, but you get the general picture. Sometimes, I think the only candidate we'd all be happy with has not yet been born. I say we look at things this way:

Hillary Clinton: Intelligent, well-spoken, lots of experience dealing with pressure, worldwide presence, like her on healthcare

Barak Obama: Intelligent, well-spoken, lots of buzz and excitement ( a good thing!)

John Edwards: Fought legal cases for the little guy, actually seems to care about issues, great wife!

Al Gore: The comeback kid, great on the environment, experienced

Wes Clark: Has a clue about how to run a goddamned military (unlike our current "decider")

Dennis/Russ/Barbara Boxer: Let them run, for godsake! They'll bring important ideas to the table.


I'm sure I've missed somebody, but let's give our candidates a fighting chance before we tear them into little pieces.

[derby378]

1. Aye, there's the rub...

How in the Nine Hells did George W. Bush managed to pull the wool over everyone's eyes the way he did? Because pollsters found that people considered him "likeable." They actually wanted to sit down and have a beer with him.

Russ Feingold was my choice for '08. Unfortunately, he chose to sit this one out. But I'll tell you one thing - I think I like this Al Gore fellow. We have disagreements, yes, but I think I could sit down and have a beer with him. And he won in 2000, so he might as well take a seat in the Oval Office like the people demanded he do seven years ago.

[Nikki Stone1]

6. Yeah, that likeable thing is a real pain in the ass

It's like choosing a surgeon based on his or her golf score.

[derby378]

10. You'd be surprised...

The pettiness of mankind never ceases to amaze me.

[Nikki Stone1]

28. I'd like some of the "I could have a drink with him" people to get a lousy surgeon on that basis

Are we that dumbed down already?

[madmunchie]

62. Sitting and having a beer with Bush.....Ugh, isn't he an alcoholic?

AND since when does being able to have a beer with somebody a serious qualification for POTUS???? Actually to me it is almost the opposite. I want to sit and admire, respect and generally regard POTUS as a person way above me in many many things. When I think of some of the people that sit around and have beers, well, I cannot even imagine them being a Precinct Committee person.

[LiberalEsto]

2. I don't care if Gore's gained weight

I love every ounce of him!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

79. lol! Me too!!!! eom

[hashibabba]

3. Ahhhhh, some sanity, finally. I agree with you. I'd rather

listen to some positive things about our candidates. They have strengths and weaknesses and I'd like to see more about their strengths instead of tearing them all apart all the time. After all, the great majority of us will vote for ONE of them!

edited to add: I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss the shortcomings our our presidential candidates, but I think things like Gore's weight are ridiculous subjects. I can say that I disagree with John Edward's choice of house, but really--there were so many supposititions made, its unreal. Focus on some of the things they're all doing right.

[still_one]

4. I will vote for any Democratic candidate running in 2008, except one

but whether I like them or not is irrelevent to me. It is how capable I think they are to take back the republic, and get us out of Iraq

[Neshanic]

5. No.

[Nikki Stone1]

8. Any positive suggestions, then?

Seriously. Who would you like to see out there on the campaign trail?

[Neshanic]

12. I really like Clark. I really like Gore.

[Nikki Stone1]

27. Ok. That seems constructive to me

..

[emulatorloo]

31. The problem with that is they aren't running! EOM

[Neshanic]

37. Yup...Does not matter who I like, I vote Democratic. Gay=no choice.

[Nikki Stone1]

38. Not yet

It's still early.

[emulatorloo]

47. So true -- (fingers crossed) n/t

[skipos]

7. You missed Richardson- 4 time Nobel Peace Prize nominee

for his foreign negotiations, congressman, ambassador to the UN, sectretary of energy, the most popular governor in the history of NM.

He is kinda chubby though.

[Nikki Stone1]

9. I KNEW I missed somebody!

Still only on my second cup of coffee. It's 8 am on the West Coast, you know. :)

[LaurenG]

11. I was thinking that after reading here today no one likes anyone

not even themselves. What is UP in here lately? x(

[madokie]

13. I'm hanging in there for big Al myself

i'm listening to them but I will hold out making a call for some time now

[IronScorpio5]

30. Took the words out of my mouth.

.

[otohara]

76. Ditto - I Love Al Gore

feel no connection to Obama yet, nor Hill... Dennis Kucinich's rush towards George Bush at the SOTU speech was disappointing.

[Raskolnik]

14. What are Obama's "DLC connections" again?

I know that accusation gets repeated a lot around here, but he doesn't actually have anything to do with the DLC.

[tammywammy]

16. But it's fun to say and keep repeating

"Obama has DLC connections." "Obama has DLC connections." "Obama has DLC connections." "Obama has DLC connections."

See try it. It's fun to distort reality and not tell the truth. :evilgrin:

[Nikki Stone1]

19. Good question. I've seen this accusation many times here on DU

It's like the kiss of death. If someone has proof, I would like to see it.

[mopinko]

77. he specifically denied this in '04

and made them take him off their website. there was a story the other day about him kissing up to ford, tho.
i think he is an actual centrist, tho, not a con in centrist clothing.

[TomClash]

15. I like all of them

and I have problems with all of them too. And I'd vote for any of them over any Republican or independent or third party candidate.

What's wrong with that?

[Nikki Stone1]

21. Nothing wrong with that

In 2004, I would have voted for a banana slug with D after its name rather than let this current administration continue on its destructive path.

[PATRICK]

17. failing perfection

The main alarms are still ringing and it is NOT personal. All leadership, even beyond politics seems crappy and engulfed by a Biblically warped "The World" made rosy by economic hopes and kinder, democratic ideologies. They cannot see and do not fight unjust overall policies, the suicidal evils of triumphant greed(capitalism),deliberately warped information services, high crimes, rigged elections, the dangers of institutional choices involving big money and non-democratic presumptions of power.

And they have been had, slow on the take, angry in unaware impotence, fearful of change in doing the job,
blind to the obvious in equal measure to simple wisdom, guileless at the wrong time, telegraphing, weak in the ruthless edge of political skills. And then been had again. Had on wars they later turn on. Had on new wars planned openly under their noses. had on being co-opted. Had on being distracted. Had on accepting impotence and trying every idiotic trap and conventional move on for size.

Criticize one, criticize all. Criticize the people too as the fish continues to rot. We need a winner with wisdom and commitment. If those are separate things spread among separate candidates they should learn to share THOSE things rather than the money. There ARE signs, despite unchanging flaws, that this is happening. All of those flawed candidates are the people's servants and change comes in all directions if it is on target.

On target to change the human response to a changing world and repress the worst examples of humanity and their worst, openly revealed perils, on target to restore law, peace and prosperity, on target to meet the real crises of this century. If these people fall short, as they all have, the greater "we" will keep this up together. The next generation of leaders will not so likely be starry-eyed bent idealists looking for celebrity and the stiff heritage of dangerous myths. Not so convinced that blood and toughness and greed must be the way of the world one compromises with or submits to- while thinking this can be sustained without extinction.

[pdxmom]

18. Thank you. This is what I've been feeling, as well. We're not even

into primary season, most aren't fully declared yet, and we're eating our own. Let's look at them all closely. See what they each have to offer. Then let's promote the one we most identify with and support, instead of tearing down the ones we don't like. Personally, at this point, I'll take a Democrat that is really a Democrat over any Repuke, regardless of who it is. I believe it's way too early for me to settle on one, until I see who is truly in and who is truly out.

[Nikki Stone1]

23. You're welcome. I think we should look to see how much good a person could do

not how "perfect" they are according to our standards.

[pdxmom]

34. There isn't going to be any candidate that I agree with 100%. Heck

I don't agree with myself 100%! None of these are "bad" people. Any one of them would be better than what is out there on the Repuke side. We seem to live in a political environment that can only focus on the negatives of others, rather than the positives of those we support. No, I don't live in a "Kumbaya" world and I know that it makes sense to contrast the views of one candidate to another, but we are coming close to eating our own, and that isn't going to get us anywhere.

[Nikki Stone1]

40. Yeah, if we destroy them before we begin, we've done the GOP's work for them

Not that there aren't legitimate concerns; there are. But we should be civil in discussing them and not give in to destructive tendencies. I'm personally on the Kucinich/Feingold/Boxer side of the aisle, but I'll vote for Hillary, Obama, Al, or anyone else (with the exception of obvious turncoats, like Zell Miller.)

[murielm99]

20. Too bad

God isn't running as a Democrat in 2008.

We are stuck with imperfect humans, several of whom have serious flaws, but might be capable of getting us out of this mess.

You just have to decide how much of this crap is important when you vote in the primaries.

Get involved at the grassroots level. That is a good way to have a say in things. I have been doing that for several years. It is amazing how different it can be out in the trenches, as opposed to listening to the purists here.

I learn a lot from DU. But times like these make me cut back on my DU habit.

[jobycom]

22. Keep in mind that different people are trashing different candidates,

Most people have their favorites, and feel that they should trash those who aren't their favorites in order to help their own candidate. Bad thinking, but with Rove as an example, one can see how that mentality sprung up.

However, you know as well as I do that some, in my opinion many, of the ones posting all these negatives aren't here for the same purpose as you or I.

There is a difference, too, between a legitimate, informed, disagreement--candidate 'x' has voted against stem cell research (fictional example)--a myth that sounds like a legitimate disagreement--Hillary is pro war, for example--and an emotional complaint meant only to hurt a candidate--Edwards lives in a big house, for example (when you find yourself trashing a candidate for the same reasons te Republicans trashed candidates, as in Kerry and his house flap--you may want to reevaluate your opinion, as well as the source from which your information came).

There is also a difference between someone saying "I am not comfortable voting for candidate X because he/she voted for (whatever)," and "No one better not no how no way vote for Candidate X because they are an asshat Bushkisser who all the Republicans want to vote for!" The first inspires legitimate discussion, the second makes me want to grab my gun.

Just my thoughts. I'm sticking to them.

[Nikki Stone1]

26. I agree that there are legitimate reasons to disagree with certain candidates

But the wholesale trashing without thought is getting old and depressing. I like your formula: I am not comfortable voting for candidate X because he/she voted for (whatever)"

[jobycom]

33. And it is just beginning. Wait until 2008.

You'll have to start drinking or meditating just to handle an hour on DU. :)

[Nikki Stone1]

41. Well, I don't drink much, so I guess it will have to be meditation.

:)

[Rosemary2205]

24. I like all of them.

they all have something to bring to the debate and something unique to offer the country.

[nevergiveup]

25. I do not dislike any of the

candidates and this includes Hillary, although I do not think she could win the general. I like your post and think you should make this a weekly update for the next two years. At the moment Obama has my attention but I am flexible and terribly forgiving when it comes to Democrats.

[Nikki Stone1]

29. Maybe we can get Skinner to pin a positive candidate thread to the top of GD

Just to counteract all the crap

[patricia92243]

32. You're right, but this is a discussion board, and we are all going to discuss at the top of our lung

lungs.

And yes, we do like our own candidates - it's the other guy's candidate that we don't like. :crazy:

Hopefully it will clam down eventually. The real trouble makers get tomb stoned.

[BlackVelvet04]

35. I don't see it as tearing them into pieces......

discussing the negatives of a candidate, as well as the positives, is part of the process of deciding who will make the best candidate. To be blind to a candidate's negatives is to be a republican. Hero worship is for 5 year olds. I think this whole process should be about the best possible candidate not the one that I happen to like the best for whatever reason.

Blind acceptance of a politician is what brought us bush.

[Nikki Stone1]

54. I don't think I'm asking for blind acceptance. The positives are part of the truth as well

I think the tenor of the conversation needs changing. It gets way too personal and destructive. We need to have a way of really looking at the candidates' backgrounds without trashing them completely.

[BlackVelvet04]

60. I agree....

although I haven't seen anyone trashing Edwards completely, but I'm sure I've missed some threads and posts.

[Nikki Stone1]

68. It's been a damned flame fest on this house business

....

[juajen]

36. Amen, Nikki, Amen!

N/T

[Nikki Stone1]

43. Bless you, my child. :)

NT

[NoPasaran]

39. You forgot Poland!

And you also forgot Rockin' Tom Vilsack!

:dem: :dem: :dem:

[Nikki Stone1]

42. Man, I need another cup of COFFEE! Vilsack it is!

I don't know as much about Vilsack. If you have a thumbnail sketch of the guy, I'd appreciate it. (Remember, it's early on the West Coast and I have to make more coffee.)

[NoPasaran]

58. To tell the truth, I really don't know all that much about him

He's the governor of Iowa.

He was the chair or grand mufti or whatever they call it of the DLC.

He apparently does not possess a WMD development program.

http://www.tomvilsack08.com/

[Nikki Stone1]

61. The DLC has a grand mufti? (Who knew!)

Thanks for the link

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. They're all asking us for a job. Scrutinizing them is our duty.

The question isn't whether we "like" them or not, it's about how they are likely to do the job we're hiring them to do.

Questions about their character, their behavior, their honesty, their past, their competence, are all on the table.

I don't "trust" politicians in general, and I certainly don't trust what they tell me about themselves. According to them, they are all saintly paragons dedicating and sacrificing themselves for "our good". Unfortunately, history shows us that much of what they do for "our good" has led to catastrophe.

As citizens we should be highly sceptical, and willing to haul the candidates over the coals of careful scrutiny.

In a democracy, we the people, are responsible for the people we hire. Woe be to us (and, the rest of the world) if we fail in our duty.

[Nikki Stone1]

45. I agree that we must scrutinize, but we can't lose the positives in a sea of negativity

That's more and more what I see happening.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Scrutiny produces negativity when their are negatives.

It can, and does, also produce "positives".

[Nikki Stone1]

53. I'd like to see more of the positives. They get lost in the mudslinging

Just my take.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. Well, politics has seldom been known to be dignified or civil.

As someone once said, "Getting into politics is like stepping dogshit." It's the nature of the beast.

[Nikki Stone1]

59. No, but we'd like to preserve some dignity for our own candidates

:)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. Better yet, some dignity and honesty FROM out own candidates.

But, "honest politician" being, in most cases, an oxymoron, my expectations are very low.

Call me jaded and cynical, but after 20 national election campaigns that I've endured, dignity, honesty, civility, are not generally high on the priorities of those running for office.

As Bob Dylan said in one of his songs, "..he's eatin' Pizza, he's eatin' Bagels, he's eatin' chitlin's..ewwww!"

[Nikki Stone1]

67. Is there anyone in politics that you ever respected? (Serious question)

I think for me, it was Paul Wellstone.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. Sure, Nelson Mandela, J. William Fullbright, , Mikhail Gorbachev, Gene McCarthy,

Wayne Morse,George McGovern,..to name a few.

[Nikki Stone1]

71. The Americans are pretty far back in the past. None of the new breed?

McCarthy would have been great. I always liked McGovern, too.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

90. Ted Kennedy, Kucinich, John Lewis, Maxine Waters.

Al Gore is improving with age.

But, as an Anarchist, I'm not overly fond of "leaders".

Here's some people I really respect and admire:

Desmond Tutu
Noam Chomsky
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
Arundhati Roy
Muhammad Yunis
Krysztof Kieslowski
Susan Sarandon
Rohinton Mistry
Jared Diamond
Bonnie Raitt

and, many more.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

92. Russ Feingold.

:loveya: MKJ

[TorchTheWitch]

97. VERY well said!

Frankly, I'm astonished at the number of supporters of Candidate X who can't even seem to provide any information as to what they're about other than "I like their message". Well, big woopdeefreakindoo... what candidate runs with a bad message??? Every politician from high school cheerleading captain to the president of the country is going to tell the people what they want to hear to get the votes. That's a GIVEN. It's OUR responsibility to delve into their record, their past, their personal lives, check under their beds and riffle their closets to find out what they are REALLY about.

We MUST have a candidate that can win the general but ALSO do what needs to be done when they get there. I don't think people here fully realize how perilously this country is dangling on the edge of a cliff on both foreign affairs and domestics. We are in FAR worse shape now than the last pres election, and it's getting worse. We can't settle for mediocre because mediocre is not going to get us out of the SERIOUS mess we're in. This is no time to throw away a vote on someone because you like the way they speak or you like their message or they make you feel warm and fuzzy -- ESPECIALLY IF THEY HAVE ALREADY BETRAYED US. It is IMPERATIVE that we put forth the candidate that not only CAN do the job but WILL.

All we HAVE is our votes. If we throw them away we deserve what we get, and 2012 will be too late.

[emulatorloo]

48. I can find something good in most every Democrat

Thanks for the thread. . .

[marlakay]

49. Love the spin

I read more than I post here because of all the in fighting. I agree we need to hash out candidates but tearing them apart only gives the other side great ideas on how to fuck us up.

My stance is I will vote for any dem but only fight and get involved this time for Gore. I am battle weary after the Kerry campaign where I still can't believe after 2000-2004 anyone could lose to Bush.

[Nikki Stone1]

51. There's evidence that Kerry did win, but that voting machines played a role in the "loss"

I can understand being battle weary, though

[JNelson6563]

50. Well now there it is

None of these candidates is perfect. Every one of them has a flaw or two! It's like they are all mere mortals or something!

*sigh*

[Nikki Stone1]

52. LOL! (Do we need an immortal for president?)

Yvonne De Carlo (Lily Munster) has just passed into the great beyond. Maybe she'll run. :)

[Lilith Velkor]

55. We all want Bush replaced so badly we're fighting out who now.

Just think what it'll be like in a year. :hide:

[Nikki Stone1]

56. That's a scary picture

:wow:

[FrenchieCat]

64. Well actually,

"Wes Clark: Was fired from his NATO post by Clinton "

is incorrect, or I'm sure that Clinton would not have awarded Wes with the Medal of Freedom after the fact if this was the case!

[Nikki Stone1]

66. Hey, nobody said the slams were factually correct. (What was the real story?)

And if you know about Obama and the DLC rumors, I'd appreciate that too.

[Time for change]

65. I agree

That is a superb bunch of candidates, and I believe that several of them would make great presidents.

[WilliamPitt]

69. Don't worry.

DU is not America.

We had this in 2002 for the midterms.

We had this in 2004 during the primaries.

We had this last November.

We will have it again, and you will participate. I guarantee it. It's a gravity well.

But it will affect approximately 0.000000027% of the election outcome.

No worries.

[Clark2008]

72. Of the ones currently running?

Not much - except maybe Kucinich, who doesn't have a snowball's chance in h e double hockey sticks.

But I do like Gore and Clark; however, neither of them have announced.

[Nikki Stone1]

73. Give it time. We're early in the election season yet.

It might actually be smart to keep in the wings until the declared frontrunners have taken the heat.

[etherealtruth]

74. I actually like a number of them

I haven't identified anyone that I actively dislike, which is quite different than in years past.

I am waiting for them to clearly solidify their stances on some issues.

[The Count]

75. I like all candidates who stood up against the war - would vote for any of them

It's easier if you have an issue rather than an "idol".
My other issue is in my sig line: no one who helps conceal a stolen election can dream to get my vote. It's that clear. Nothing personal.
"Likability" and "electability" are MSM concocted terms for "we want you to vote for" or "against". Pure BS!

[Clark2008]

83. Your Count sig always makes me smile.

That - and the fact that I agree with you on a lot of issues.

:hi:

[The Count]

93. I like yours too!

:hi:

[ray of light]

78. thanks for sayin!

They've already eliminated Feingold and Kerry.

So who's next?

[cascadiance]

80. Perhaps rather than focusing so much on the candidates themselves focus on the most important issues

... and characteristics that we want to have our eventual candidate to have. That way we're not bashing anyone yet, but we're trying to put in perspective what most of us feel are the most important issues we want to evaluate our choices on.

I think we're at the start of a very emotional period where many people care a lot on where our country goes in 2008 and want so badly leadership to fix many problems in this country. Each of us have a different set of things that are important to us, and in many of our cases we project that on to whomever we want to run.

For me, that would be things like:
1) Have little or no ties to corporate influences, and be more about representing the people's voice and be consistent with that. DLC members need to be ex-DLC members or have to explain themselves and have actions to show they aren't bought off for me to accept them.
2) Tied to the first is someone that would champion public campaign financing as a means to deal with item 1.
3) Take on the notions of corporate personhood and "free speech rights" to restore balance in society and more voice to our citizenry than our corporate oligarchy.
4) Come down on the media and look to restore or put in place a TRUE free press who is held accountable to serving US rather than their corporate owners in dissemination of information.
5) End the Iraq war and other wars this administration are trying to take us on.
6) Find ways to protect our country's middle class from the outsourcing and illegal immigration that is being used to drive down our wages.
7) Solve the health care crisis by getting in single payer health care.
8) Be able to win of course. There are many that speak what I believe out there, but we need someone that can do that AND rally enough support to beat the Republicans as a nominee.
9) Someone who has a history of action to back up their words. I also want someone that speaks well, but more importantly, I want substance to back up their words. That means I'm looking for experience, not just a fast-rising "rock star".
10) Someone I can trust. In this time where we have so much corruption and violation of our civil liberties, we need someone that will be straight with us. Sometimes that will be to tell us that there are some things that he can't tell us out of interest for our national security, which in some cases is the right thing to do, but I don't want someone trying to use that to be deceptive and manipulative towards what America and the world knows vs. what they are really doing. This is especially true in the time of the media being corrupt as hell too.

If we get together a set of issues and qualifications that we want to see in our candidates, then we can have a checklist that we can all measure the candidates more objectively instead of getting into a fest of bashing each other's candidates, which in some cases gets to be less constructive than it should be and does in those cases the damage you're talking about.

[Nikki Stone1]

81. You should make this its own thread. Really good ideas in here and I'd hate to see them lost

I think the hardest one to get is #10.

[cascadiance]

86. Thanks... I'll try to get it to it later tonight or tomorrow...

I've got a lot of other projects I'm trying to get going some of them on DU, and others outside. I also want to get to the protest activities of today and to see Daniel Elsberg speaking here.

[The Count]

82. I just posted the same thing but as I gave an example, was ihnored by OP

who was trying to score candidates points

[Nikki Stone1]

88. Huh?

Not sure I understand the accusation.

[donco6]

84. A-Effing-Men! n/t

[justiceischeap]

85. I like a candidate and a possible candidate

You won't hear too much about other issues from me. :)

[LiberalUprising]

87. Um no....

Bottom line is all the front runners and most others are corporate shills and PNAC enablers.

So to answer your question, no.

[Solon]

89. No, I tolerate some more than others, but I don't like any of them...

All of them are corrupt in various ways, and various degrees, sometimes its hard to tell where the lies start and the truth begins.

[stranger]

91. Good post! save your ammo for the GOP (Gay Old Pedophiles)

The true dems on this board have the good sense to realize that regardless of
whether any candidate pisses us off, we also realize he MAY become the running mate for our favorite candidate-so its not
smart to give repubs ammunition to use on any dem candidate.

Moral of the story: Never criticize any dem on this board-no matter how much they piss you off. it could come back to bite YOUR candidate-unless of course you are a member of the GOP (Gay Old Pedophiles) GOP acronym copyright Jay Leno)

[Raffi Ella]

94. oh yeah.

I am more than happy with the candidates we have up for election.I am ecstatic that we have a woman and a black man as viable candidates!It is an historic moment in time for the Democratic Party and for America.

I am SO excited about the election and am going to enjoy the hell out of watching it unfold.I don't think we can lose if a Dem wins office.

08 here we come!! :kick:

[Hekate]

95. Actually I do. I think we have a great line-up of proud Dems to choose from

Whoever thinks we are going to find a candidate who walks on water, turns water to wine at weddings, and heals the blind with his/her spittle is deluded.

You want ultimate ideological purity? Check out any of the radical/utopian religious or political movements throughout history to see how badly that can turn out.

Most voters are wise enough to look for a human being to lead them, and human beings have flaws. Somewhere a compromise must be made.

Do I like our candidates? Hell yes. Each and every one of them brings great skills and talents to the table. And none of them is a Neo-Con or a theocrat. They are Democrats.

I'll have a hard time choosing among my top three -- oops make that four -- no, five. And I'm glad of it. How nice to have a field that rich.

Hekate

[NuttyFluffers]

96. hate 'em all. will only accept Avatar of Progressive Purity (tm) as my candidate.

and you should tolerate nothing less than ideological perfection either.

*clouds part, glorious Hosannahs of the Tetragrammatron ululate forth*
O8)