If I had to rank order which of the Democratic candidates I would vote for and in what order, it would currently look something like this:
1.) Lieberman
2.) Edwards (who, IMHO, looks better every day)
3.) Kerry
4.) Dean
5.) Clark
6.) Kucinich
7.) Sharpton
I put a space in between 3 and 4, because once you are past Kerry, the other candidates just aren’t worth my serious consideration.
Ksec
Doesnt matter. A recent poll had any Dem beating Bush.
ABB. Anybody but Bush.
M. Scott Eiland
“Doesnt matter. A recent poll had any Dem beating Bush.”
Unfortunately, the rules require you to run a specific Dem–and they’re all way behind in head to head matchups–and GWB hasn’t even seriously started campaign ads yet.
James W.
Well Ksec, I happen to agree.
Naturally, speculation at this point is meaningless (if prognosticators can be wildly wrong one week outside of an event, consider 10 months).
I agree that John Edwards is looking more and more appealing. Just saw him on Bill Maher’s show, and he projects the same confident, magnetic optimism that critics have been applauding. I’m loathe to compare him to Bill Clinton, but in terms of sheer charisma, charm, and ability, he’s got it. The rags to riches story, his seemingly genuine concern for ordinary Americans, all speak well of his campaign and his character. In terms of policy, he’s staked out pretty moderate territory, and fleshed it out well (with the exception of the DMA… can’t be perfect). That my wife sees him as charming and presidential bodes well for his appeal nationally.
Excepting his service on the Senate Intelligence Committee, he lacks foreign policy experience. Not a deal-breaker for me, but will factor in. VP selection would be especially important for someone like Edwards.
Most disappointing has been Clark’s pandering to the left – first with his rediculous abortion position (why on earth he wouldn’t just say “pro-choice, against late-term abortions” is beyond me); then with his sharing the stage and endorsing someone like Michael Moore as a “great American leader” – again, rediculous. Finally, and perhaps most aggregiously, his attempt to belittle John Kerry’s military service was just in such poor taste, I can’t begin to say how disappointing his campaign has been. Lehane is such a liability, and a little putz to boot.
That said, you can count me among those fence-sitters waiting for someone to rally behind. I suspect there’s a tremendous amount of pent-up energy and money ready to roll for whomever gets the Democratic nomination.
I’ll have my say on Feb. 10th, when the rest of my fellow Virginians cast their votes.
Dave_Violence
I’d vote for Kerry. First of all, I think he is honest in his liberalism, unlike the rest of the clowns. (Lieberman isn’t a liberal.) Secondly, he’s tall, has a good voice, presidential hair and is brave. Like all Viet Nam vets, he’s a little fucked up, this I respect.
That being said, I’m going to vote for George W. Bush, like I did in 2000 because I vote guns first, foreign policy second and the other stuff third.
And that being said, I can honestly vote against Kerry because I do not agree with most (not all) of his positions. I do not, however, think that a Kerry presidency would “destroy” the country like a Dean presidency would (I’m reading Ayn Rand’s “We the Living,” and imagine that a vicious burocracy created and run by Dean’s supporters would be pretty terrible). Kerry is a good American. But he is a flaming liberal – and what he offers up is liberalism, no secrets. though we all shold check out his official web site for a taste of his ideas for America, like REQUIRING “service” as a prerequisite to graduating high school. Thus, the liberal become a pro-slavery candidate in my eyes… http://johnkerry.com/issues/100days/education.html
Scott
My list is the same.
The most telling thing about the ‘Anybody But Bush’ crowd is what that sentiment means. First, it says Democrats don’t care about a candidates ideas, they just want the power. Second, it says more about the lack of belief in any of the Democrats than it does about Bush. Are the candidates really interchangeable? Are Kucinich and Lieberman both the equal in their qualifications in the minds of these people? The truth is that if no one really stands out and captures the Democrats hearts then the primaries will select a sacrificial lamb not the next president.’Anybody But Bush’ is a cop-out by people whose party is unable to produce anything other than cookie cutter candidates.
Harry
Lieberman I can agree somewhat agree with If I had the insane desire to pay higher taxes, but the fact that most of Edwards’ campaign money has come from trial lawyers scares the livin’ bejeebus outta me.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Hey, Scott, I’m sorry for the Godwin’s Law violation, but it’s 1933 and the last election of the Weimar Republic. I’m voting ABH. (Let’s pretend the election was structured a little more like ours, with a primary.)
Wanna tell me I’m some fool not comparing all of the candidates, or will you concede that any of them are better than the Austrian corporal?
I would vote for Bush over Sharpton or LaRouche. (Well, I’d probably emigrate before November.) Why can’t I think that every single one of the other Dems would be a better President, different as they all are?
M. Scott Eiland
“Hey, Scott, I’m sorry for the Godwin’s Law violation, but it’s 1933 and the last election of the Weimar Republic. I’m voting ABH. (Let’s pretend the election was structured a little more like ours, with a primary.)”
Well, that’s certainly your right; in fact, I’d like it if everyone who felt like you did announced this in every forum available, using precisely that rhetoric. However, if you think that every response to a poll pitting “generic Democrat” vs. GWB means the same thing, you’re obviously broken into the monkey crack supply. The head to head matchups pretty strongly establish this.
CadillaqJaq
Frankly, I don’t like any of them… As a Bush supporter, I’d rather see Hillary receive the nomination in an old fashioned draft during the convention. The campaign would then turn into a real dogfight, closer than in 2000; one extreme viewpoint v. the other. Maybe we’d get it out of our systems.
Probably not though, the country is way too polarized and I don’t see much of a chance that we’ll ever ‘come together’ again. Whatever, it should be interesting to watch.
Andrew J. Lazarus
M. Scott, one of us doesn’t understand the point of Plain Scott’s post on ABB. I don’t think it’s me.
Hipocrite
I would proudly have voted for anybody but Hitler. That Scott wouldn’t have goes a long way to show what the face of the modern conservative movement is. You can decide if I’m impuigning intelligence or morals, but I can’t lose!
Dean
Hipocrite:
Neither Scott nor M. Scott says anything about voting for or against Hitler.
Scott says ABB (that’s B as in Bush, not H as in Hitler) is a cop-out. M. Scott says nary a word about Hitler.
But, hey, apparently defamation is part of the order of the day.
Carry on.
Hipocrite
Dean – reading, it’s fundimental. Read the post exactly 3 above my first post and tell me that that isn’t M. Scott saying that he would not have voted ABH.
Dean
Hipocrite:
You read but do not understand, evidently.
What is M. Scott referring to? It is the right of Andrew Lazarus to configure this situation as (sort of) similar to Nazi Germany in 1933. (Note the quote that M. Scott cites IN THE SAME POST above that blockquote.)
Did you notice the comment about using the same rhetoric? THAT is referring to the Nazi-equivalency aspect. I mean, IN THAT VERY BLOCKQUOTE M. Scott refers to head-to-head polls pitting generic Dems vs. Dubya. Less I’m mistaken, that’s not a Hitler reference.
Take a deep breath, calm down. Just b/c a person’s conservative doesn’t necessarily make them a Nazi—hard though that is, apparently, for you to believe.