Who do you support for president? Why?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
Okay let’s start with the truth sayers:
Kusinich: he tells the truth and hasn’t got chance in hell.
Gravell: he tells the truth plus, and people are still asking who is this guy?
Now for the liars:
Hillary: even though she got caught numerous times, and is a Neocon to boot, she’s ahead. Why? Because she got a slight lead and then everyone jumped on board fearing they might back a loser. Got news for you: she is a loser.
Obama: Good man laden with the fault of race. Not in America buddy, not yet anyway. Our great liberal democracy is not yet up to it. Come back in a hundred years.
The In-Between Liars: I can’t even remember who they are. The usual third place contenders, although I do believe that Richardson lies less well than the rest. My sorrow goes out to Edwards’ fans, but that $800 dollar haircut just doesn’t cut it with a people that cares about the poor and disadvantaged. Oh sorry, that was Sweden I was thinking of. Ah, well, they are all not getting in no matter what lies they tell.
Moving to Canada and won’t be around for the election.
even over Kucinich. I think Edwards can be brought around to agree on certain issues. I still don’t like the way he pandered to Israel some months back. But like I said, I think he’s reachable.
Plus I think that the Repubs have nothing left other than criticizing his hair. He takes better care of those follicles, as well as his brain, than say, this guy:
I really do think that having a Bush and then a Clinton twice in one lifetime smacks of more than just dynasty. It makes me think that the corporate structure really needs people like this to keep themselves in control and on the defensive against common folks who need a health plan, jobs, and freedom from racism. The time is over that Dems need to out-Reagan Repubs. We need to go back to our roots stretching from the New Deal.
New Deal? That an old song in need of revival, but also in need of a new crooner. Any candidate today who would talk poverty is dead in the water. You have to talk middle-class greed in order to be elected president, even if that means making the richer wealthier with exuberant tax cuts in order to do it. It is called lifting all boats and even after eight years of Reagan failure, the line still works.
i’m still deciding, but so far i keep coming back to edwards.
I almost chose Edwards, but I am going with Kucinich. I know he will not win. I think it is clear that Billary will win the nomination, just like it was clear that Kerry would win it before. I know that Edwards won’t win it, so I would rather put my vote with someone who at least represents most of my views. If Edwards had a chance, I might change my vote. I have no use for Billary or Osama. I would have given anything to have a woman or a minority candidate to vote for, but I don’t vote republican.
Kucinich. And I dont’ give a damn if he doesn’t have a chance. He speaks for me.
Me too, to be honest about it.
Why?
Beyond the obvious, I believe in supporting people who I trust, and I trust Barack Obama – at least to the extent that a politician can be trusted. I believe him when he says that he wants to change the tone of things in Washington and that he wants to work together to fashion lasting solutions to our issues.
As a matter of pragmatism I also believe that he is the best viable alternative to Hillary, who I believe will be an unmitigated disaster for the country and the Party. If Hillary is the nominee then the GOP will not need to spend a penny on GOTV – Republicans will show up on election day three-on-a-mule to vote against Hillary. If, by some act of God, Hillary were to actually win, I can think of no issue where she will substantively break with current policy, and she may even take the initiative to attack Iran just to show that she has the testicular fortitude to be president. A Hillary presidency will make Bush’s foibles American policy, not merely some aberration under the Administration of that idiot from Texas.
I like Obama and I fear a Hillary candidacy/presidency. Edwards lost me last time with his couched appeal to Old-South Democrats, saying to Howard Dean, “We don’t need people like you coming down here telling us what to do!” Phuqm.
Joe Biden would make a fine Secretary of State but he’s too publicity-hungry to be trusted in the Oval Office – if it’s Sunday, it’s Meet Joe Biden. Craving cameras is worse then craving crack, and an addict is easily manipulated. “I’ll do that dance!” No can do.
Richardson says all of the right things, but he comes across like a whiner and I don’t see leadership in him. Management? Yes. Leadership? No. POTUS? Never.
I like Kucinich on the issues but he lost me when he switched from Pro Life to Pro Choice before running in 2003 – not simply because he switched from my position to the default party position, but because it showed that was not the man of principle that I believed him to be. This was validated in Iowa in 2004 when he told his delegates to caucus with Edwards if they weren’t viable alone. Edwards in 2004? No principle.
Gravel? Um, no.
That leaves Barack Obama, and I’m perfectly comfortable with the idea of Barack Obama as my president. Is he perfect? I doubt it, otherwise he wouldn’t be running for president, but he’s good enough to serve as the chief executive of the United States of America, and he’s good enough to have earned my support.
I’m for Obama for several reasons, but one of them is that he’s the only who beats Giuliani in the general. That is reason enough. Fortunately, he’s intelligent enough to learn, and has surrounded himself with some good people.
Does he have faults? Sure. They all do. But for now, he’s got my vote.
I can’t honestly say that I support anyone currently in the field. I’ll go with Edwards if pushed.
I’m with you, boran.
It is a strong group, but I’m not overly excited by any of them. Edwards or Dodd in the current field.
OK- here is how I’m doing it. I have a spinner from one of those kids’ games and I have taped over the numbers and relabled them with the names of the candidates- when I go in to the booth I will take it in with me and I will give it a spin- AND VOTE FOR THE SPINNERS CHOICE!
And ya know why- cause it don’t mean a thing!!!!!! In a country that has a lieberfuck as a dem, bluedogs, wingnuts, and neos and all the rest of the garbage- all they desreve is a “spin the wheel decision”!
my preference, which l’m sure will come as no surprise, is gore. l believe he’s the only person with the credentials, stature, intellect, and potential to facilitate the kinds of major changes needed in this country, and to begin the long process of restoring our respect in, and relations with, the rest of the world that have been so ruthlessly squandered during the past 8 years. l also believe that were he to run, he would have an overwhelming mandate handed to him by the voters. so, until he says: “l’m not running.” l’m holding out hope.
at this juncture, my efforts are about to shift from the local election, happening tuesday, to the statewide races since there’s no one in the current field that l can get behind.
as for the current slate, l cannot, in good conscious support either clinton or obama. l have way too many questions about them and they’re much farther to the right than l’m comfortable with. additionally, from my vantage point, neither of them are electable…certainly not in colorado…and nationally l see a tremendous problem for them both trying to overcome the built-in negatives that are, rightly or wrongly, associated with them. as others have noted, either one of them will bring the ratpubs and the reichwing fringes out in record numbers. if that happens, look for another ratpub president, a dem house, and, most probably, a senate that continues to be largely dysfunctional, with the aide of the left-over bush dogs.
biden, dodd, kucinich, and gravel haven’t a snow balls chance in hell of getting the nomination. richardson, l don’t think so…he would make a good sec state, or maybe a vp candidate with edwards. that ticket would certainly bring the mountain west into serious play, whereas clinton and/or obama are going to basically have to write it off. udall’s senate campaign, btw, is very concerned about a ticket with either of those as the nominee for potus.
right now, if push comes to shove when the caucus comes on february 5th; if gore’s not announced, l’ll go with edwards.
lTMF’sA
Obama. He is reasonable and smart, and I like his rhetoric. I think he could garner support from across the spectrum and after eight years of Bush the country really needs that.
As for Hillary — I hate the idea of a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton sequence, which is a pattern of a banana republic. Very bad for the country. But even forgetting the fact that she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, I don’t favor her on the merits. I find her an uninspiring even insipid speaker, and her cautious tendencies would get her to power with no mandate to do anything except maybe invade Iran. If she does get elected I hope she does okay but I wouldn’t bet a lot of money on it.
Edwards I like for his talk on poverty — thank God somebody is talking about it. But frankly I think he comes across as smarmy. I think it has something to do with his facial expressions which are overemphasized. I suspect this served him well as an attorney, but it looks terrible on television. I hate to be so superficial, and I should clarify that I don’t actually doubt his sincerity, but I think the republicans will slaughter him. The “breck girl” label sticks for a reason. If anyone disagrees I would be happy to be convinced otherwise, as I do have respect for what Edwards is trying to do.
I didn’t have much of an opinion about Richardson, but after the last debate I can firmly say “no way.” He was so awkward in promoting himself that I cannot imagine him as president.
I appreciate that Kucinich says what he thinks, and I’m glad he’s in the race. I also like Biden but there is something forlorn about him and (like Richardson) I cannot imagine him as president.
Obama, for reasons already noted by others, but add that his background in constitutional law will be sorely needed to repair the damage during next administration. My fear is that Hillary Clinton will not roll back as much of the unitary executive provisions as any other Dem. Morevoer, I do believe in the power of the message it sends to the rest of the world to elect a multicultural American. The power of the message of electing a woman is negated by the fact she is running, and will govern as a hawkish man.
they all have problems, but i’m current leaning towards obama. a lot of the criticism directed at him (he’s inexperienced, he’s right-wing) are simply not true. because i lived in obama’s neighborhood in chicago, i think i’m pretty familiar with his politics and know that he actually has more experience as an elected official than both hillary and edwards.
i have some reservations about his pandering to the religious right and his occasional reference to leaving a “residual force” in iraq. but pandering unfortunately is something every one of the candidates has a healthy dose of. and recently he’s talked about keeping the residual force outside of iraq, something i can live with.
more importantly, obama is smart, is not a poll watcher and he is willing to talk to all countries without precondition.