Help....I'm not sure I like any of the candidates....

[suziedemocrat]

I'm not looking for a flame war, just some hope that there is a good option out there.

For one thing. I was for invading Afghanistan, but I was against going into Iraq from the beginning. I was for kicking Iraq out of Kuwait in 1992, but I thought Bush (senior) was smart not to keep going after the Iraqis left Kuwait. I worked with a European guy who said to to me that "the Russians couldn't beat Afghanistan and the US will fail there too." But, at the beginning, we did a terrific job there and I think it made the US look strong and powerful to the rest of the world. We don't look strong anymore though.

I wasn't alone about Iraq. Howard Dean was for the invasion of Afghanistan but not Iraq. I think most of the votes for the Iraq war were politically motivated because the congressmen thought no American would support a "wimp" after 9/11. I think they were wrong, and I don't want to support anyone who supported the war in Iraq. Hillary is rewriting history it seems to me and I don't respect that.

I don't know enough about Barack Obama, but I think he should be VP or stay Senator. I don't think he has enough experience to be President. Same thing for Edwards, with one senate term and years as a trial lawyer, he isn't ready for the big job - imo.

I really liked Richardson, but people have said he wouldn't allow a recount in New Mexico and wiped the machines clean or something. I wrote an email to his campaign to ask about it and didn't get a response. Election reform is one of my pet issues and I couldn't support a president who thinks otherwise.

Biden is too in bed with the credit card companies and banks, from what I understand. And I think he voted for the Iraq war too. Although he does the best job of explaining his vote. While I probably agree most with Kuchinich, I don't think he has a chance in hell of winning.

And if I wanted to cross over to the dark side, I might have chosen Guilliani, until I actually read one of his speeches where he says we are at war because we were attacked, not because we were the aggressors. (I may be stupid, but even I know Iraq didn't attack us.) And McCain is way too cosy with the devil currently in office to even consider. I think he has lost his marbles. And, unless you want to bring back the Salem witch trials, the other GOP candidates are too scary to even consider seriously.

So, my top choices are Biden and Richardson. But my dream candidate is Dean. I LOVE Dean. I agree with almost everything he says. I like that he has a smart wife who has her own career as a doctor. I like that he is a doctor when the Medical system is broken. He is my dream candidate.

So tell me nicely, who is my best choice?

[ray of light]

1. Kerry/Gore...Gore/Kerry!

http://www.draftjohnkerry08.com/
http://www.draftgore.com/

They both won it once and now people are ready for their forward thinking.

[jakem]

16. Kerry is done.

Fork ready. not gonna happen.

I would also state that Gore is not running, but what is the point?!

[politicasista]

21. Not as a senator he isn't

Why are you so quick to tear down the few dems that are on our side? To promote another candidate?

[jakem]

22. You are right, absolutely.

I think he has eaned that position until he is tired of it.
I am in MA, voted for him for president, but his presidential potential is gone.

Just another Dukakis now.
'Mericans don't vote for losers.

(not that I think Kerry is a loser mind you, just stating my observations)

[politicasista]

25. There are people that will disagree

He got more votes than any other presidential candiate in history. He didn't lose like Dukakis in a landslide. He is one of the few people that speaks out against this criminal administration. :hi:

You guys in MA are lucky to have him and Uncle Ted representing you. Here in TN, we have Alexander and Corker. :puke:

[wisteria]

56. Right you are politicasista. n/t

[wisteria]

54. Yeah, they are your observations and many people don't share them.

Just so you are aware of that fact.

[jakem]

58. Ooohh! I though you all would just agree to anything i say on DU...

Is that not how it works?

;-)

[jakem]

59. And, many people would share this opinion...

judging from his early polling numbers.

Look. It isn't personal. I like Kerry.

I like Dean, but he isn't making a presidential comeback either.

[wisteria]

53. Senator Kerry is far from done- nope, no way, no how. He still has so much he wants to accomplish!

Try following the Senator, you will see that I am right.

[Sensitivity]

28. Kerry/Gore...Gore/Kerry! If Dems really care about their country

I have be, frankly sickened by how horribly the country has treated
their great political leaders -- leaders who whould be cheared in most
other countries around the world.

[wisteria]

57. So sad, isn't it. Only in America are we unwilling to acknowledge our great leaders. n/t

[Prophet 451]

61. The restoration ticket

Gore/Kerry (Gore won first so he heads the ticket) says clearly that The Long Night is over, democracy is restored.

Aside from them, I think Dennis Kucinich is accurate about almost everything, compassionate, dedicated and not in bed with any big money interests. Translation: He doesn't have a hope in hell but he'd be the best of teh rest.

[HereSince1628]

2. There is no need to make a decision at this point

Not all the players know where they want to be yet. Gravel has made left of center a whole lot larger and campaigns are exploring colonizing that space.

The problem with all this is that primary candidates are notorious for first playing to those who show up for primaries and then shift their positions toward the center in the general election.

Watch how they move, be critical of whether their movements are sincere. Postpone your choice until you are comfortable...

[dave_p]

3. Kucinich? Gravel?

Both opposed the Iraq war. I seem to recall there was a Dean-Kucinich crossover vote in '03-04.

I don't think you should be swayed too much by the experience argument. You might say Iraq isn't the only thing Bush has broken: for me there's a lot to be said for an entirely new approach. Experience isn't always the best thing, and right now prioritizing it seems a recipe for missed opportunities and business-as-usual.

[journalist3072]

4. Honestly, I don't think anyone can tell you who your best choice is. That is a decision

that you will have to make on your own.

I have not made a decision on who to support yet either. And as someone else mentioned, there really is no need to yet. You have time.

Also, I think it's important to remember that you will never agree with any one candidate 100% of the time. And so I believe it just comes down to deciding which candidate just happens to be more in line with your values. And on the areas where you disagree with that candidate, can you live with that?

For example, as a DC resident, the issue of voting rights in the Congress for DC residents is close to my heart. And I cannot support any candidate who does not understand that issue. And so I have pretty much ruled out supporting John Edwards because in 2004, he asked to have his name removed from the ballot here in DC.

So again, I would just respectfully caution you against asking other people who your best choice is. That is something only you can decide, based on your beliefs and your values.

[Mabus]

7. Well said

No one should feel like they have to support someone right now.

I also support the movement to give at least one voting Rep in Congress (I think you all deserve a voice in the Senate too).

[journalist3072]

31. Thank you, and that's exactly right

We deserve full representation in both houses of Congress. We pay federal taxes just like every other American citizen. Yet, we have no voice in the Congress. It's taxation without representation.

Back in 2004, we tried to spotlight that issue by holding a non-binding presidential primary before the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary. We wanted to hold the first-in-the-nation primary, to help spotlight the lack of voting rights in the Congress for DC residents.

So, we held a non-binding primary before Iowa and New Hampshire. Then, weeks later, we held the binding primary (we get 3 delegates).

Anyway, 5 of the 9 Democrats running for President that year asked to have their names removed from the DC ballot. Apparently they did not appreciate us breaking tradition and going before Iowa and New Hampshire. They put tradition over what was right for DC residents.

Edwards was one of the five who had his name removed from the ballot, which is why he will not get my support this time.

[Mabus]

39. I remember that

A friend of ours in D.C., Paul McKenzie, was livid when some of the candidates pulled their names out from the early primary. To tell you the truth, I hadn't given the issue much of a thought in years. It was the 2004 DNC that woke me up to it. There were a number of people handing out "Free DC" stickers. I talked to a couple of them and got really pissed.

I wish this were more of an issue. To me, voting is right up there with the environment on the issues of interest to me as a voter. It just makes no sense that D.C. voters have no representation in Congress. Believe me, I know how it feels. I'm Cheyenne-Arapaho and I feel as unrepresented as you do sometimes.

Did you know Paul? I was shocked to hear he passed away. We stayed with him a couple of times when we visited D.C. to attend the Take Back America conference.

[journalist3072]

40. Unfortunately

The delegates from DC who attended the 2004 DNC had to fight to get the issue of DC voting rights addressed during the Convention.

The DNC was not going to give Eleanor Holmes Norton a prime-time speaking slot to address the issue. So the delegates had to threaten to nominate Eleanor Holmes Norton for Vice President, in order to get the DNC to give her a speaking slot. She ended up speaking on the issue during like the 7:00 PM time slot, if my memory serves me correctly, on the same evening John Edwards was nominated as VP.

And no, unfortunately I did not know Paul McKenzie.

[Mabus]

44. By that time I was hanging out with the Progressive Caucus people

and gave up my floor creditials to my alternate and the rest of the contingent. I had spent the first couple of days going to the Democratic GAIN sessions and found that, except for a few minutes at the end of most sessions, there was no real interaction between the attendees and the panels/speakers. I felt shepherded from session to session. I found out about the Progressive Caucus and where they were meeting and my husband and I spent the rest of the convention there.

I guess I was just upset and frustrated that the whole thing seemed so staged. We kept being told not to say anything embarrassing to the press and to tow the party line. At the Progressive events we got to talk to each other and interact more with the people like Granny D, John Conyers, Dean and Kucinch. It felt like it was people powered and I fit in there better.

Paul was a really nice guy. We met him online in a Gore group a few years ago and kept in contact with him.

As for D.C., I'll do what I can. I can contact the two Democratic reps here in Kansas (I send them letters and call them all the time anyway) and prod them on this. My two senators are Brownback and Roberts. I'll contact them too but I don't think they'll be supportive of it.

[Mabus]

5. Your choice, your decision

If you don't like anyone yet don't decide. There's no deadline for you to sign up. Just read what you can about each of the declared candidates and those that others want to draft and eventually you might find one you like and can support.

Signed, a 2004 Dean delegate and current Draft Gore supporter

[SexyLiberal]

6. As a life long dem I would say...

WTF are we doing caring about the 08 race right now??????

I don't have a choice on purpose. It's too soon for all that. We have a murderer to impeach first.

[Tejanocrat]

8. Obama and Edwards have experience comparable to Lincoln's, and that worked out well.

[Breeze54]

9. To find answers to a lot of your questions; go here--->

Thousands of candidates and elected officials. Who works for you? Who is seeking your vote?
Project Vote Smart, a citizen's organization, has developed a Voter's Self-Defense System
to provide you with the necessary tools to self-govern effectively: abundant, accurate,
unbiased and relevant information. As a national library of factual information, Project
Vote Smart covers your candidates and elected officials in five basic categories:
biographical information, issue positions, voting records, campaign finances and interest group ratings.

What would you like to know?

Access our library of information through either the menu on the left hand side or the links above.

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm

For a quick tutorial on how to find what you are looking for, take a short Interactive tour of the PVS Web site.
http://www.vote-smart.org/tour/index.htm

Issue Positions (NPAT)

About our Issue Positions (NPAT)

Select a state: http://www.vote-smart.org/official_five_categories.php?dist=npat.php

2008 Presidential Candidates

Presidential Candidates

Alphabetical By Party:

http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president.php?dist=bio.php

Presidential Election Resources:

State Presidential Primary Dates

How Does the Primary Process Work?

Electoral College Votes per State

What is the Electoral College?

Political Party Information

Other Internet Resources

[RufusTFirefly]

10. It's too late

The decisive New Hampshire primary is less than 263 days away. If you are undecided at this point, you must certainly be a Communist, a dupe of Karl Rove, or a Hillary Basher. Or perhaps all three.

Seriously, your uncertainty or dissatisfaction with the current field is important. The candidates must meet the needs of the voters, not the other way around. Now is the time not only to learn the candidates' positions but to influence them. Our feedback should help to push the existing candidates in the right direction and if that doesn't work, it might convince some potential candidates who are currently on the sidelines to jump in and fill the vacuum. As Democrats, we can ultimately all line up behind our party's nominee, but that moment is still approximately a year and three months away.

I don't buy this BS that we're supposed to handle the candidates with kid gloves so early in the process. If we object to their positions or think they're too vague or tentative, we should say so!

[aquart]

11. Stop looking for perfect. Or an echo of yourself.

You will not get it. What we require is the restoration of accountable democracy. First. Then the war, healthcare, so much. If we get a tenth, after the deliberate destruction by BushCo, it will be a miracle. All the damage of the past years, plus the coming debacle of global warming and we haven't a dime in the bank.

The Democratic primary slate is an embarrassment of riches. ALL our candidates are intelligent, able people. PEOPLE, not infallible gods.

IMHO, it is better not to worship and adore your candidate. Better not to trust implicitly. We will be handing an unimaginable amount of power to a human. We can't afford to do it without oversight, without checks and balances, even if it's one of ours.

[rurallib]

20. Amen - there are no gods among the candidates

But I believe most would make a great president. We tend to hold our candidates up to very high standards that are near impossible to meet. Republic have low standards and are easily met. In the head to head battle, the repub lies through his teeth and we accept that as normal, yet chastize our guy when even a small chink in the armor is noted.
I have only ruled out a couple and the rest are all acceptable and human.

[seasat]

12. Bill Richardson and the New Mexico Recount

A criticism is that Richardson stopped the recount in 2004 when New Mexico had the highest under vote in the country under suspicious circumstances. A corollary to this criticism is that he did this to gain some sort of advantage in the 2008 election by keeping Kerry from winning NM. Richardson did not stop the recount, but he, the rest of the NM election commission, and the courts required the Green and Libertarian parties to put up a bond covering the cost of the recount before it proceeded. Kerry and the Democratic party did not request a recount in New Mexico.


The election in New Mexico resulted in a large number of under votes for president in 2004. The percentage was less than in 2000 but was still the highest in the nation (3%). Analysis of the voting records noted that there were higher numbers of under votes on the electronic push button type voting machines. The touch screen machines had the second highest under vote and the optical scan machines had the least (LINK). The highest numbers occurred in precincts where the population was predominantly Native American or Hispanic. It was also reported by some that there was an extraordinary high number of phantom votes where the number of votes exceeded the number of voters in a precinct.

On November 29th, after Kerry had conceded but was still questioning the Ohio vote total, the Green and Libertarian party petitioned for a recount of the NM election. Neither the Kerry campaign nor the Democratic Party was requesting the recount of New Mexico. If the recount showed anything that would change the election, New Mexico would have to pay for it. If it did not change the election in any way, the petitioners would have to pay for it. On December 13th the lawyer for the Green and Libertarian parties told the AP, "money is no object." (LINK) The Democratic Governor Bill Richardson and Democratic Secretary of State required the Green and Libertarian Parties to put up the entire cost of the recount as a bond totaling 1.4 million on December 15th (LINK). The Green and Libertarian parties refused to put up that amount arguing instead that a deposit of about $114,000 was all that was needed. A NM court ruled in favor of the State on December 17th. The Greens and Libertarians appealed but the New Mexico Supreme Court refused to hear their appeal. 0n January 14th, the New Mexico Secretary of State authorized election officials to begin clearing the electronic voting machines (Link to Green Party on New Mexico Recount).

One of the flaws in the push button electronic voting machines was that if you select a political party at when you begin to cast your vote, the machine would automatically select all candidates in that party. If you then proceeded to additionally push a button for a particular race, the machine would then deselect the candidate for that race if they are of the same party (LINK). Because the enormous problems with the vote, Bill Richardson shepherded through bill that required a paper ballot with an auditable paper trail along with random audits to assure accuracy http://www.governor.state.nm.us/press/2005/april/040605_4.pdf">(LINK). The result in the 2006 election was a reasonable number of under votes http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4193">(LINK).

The reason that our party focused on Ohio instead of New Mexico is there is little evidence that a recount would have resulted in a change in the presidential election. If you poll an electronic voting machine it is going to give you the same number each time. The number of under votes on countable paper ballots was not enough to turn the election to Kerry and were within normal percentages for elections. Even if Kerry did somehow come out on top in a recount in New Mexico, the five electoral votes from the state http://www.fec.gov/pages/elecvote.htm">(LINK) were not enough to overcome the 20 electoral votes Kerry lost in Ohio where there was greater evidence of actual fraud by Shrub Inc (LINK). I don't see how a recount of New Mexico could have helped Kerry. It would have, however, given a lot of publicity to the Green and Libertarian Parties.

The Secretary of State in New Mexico is an elected position and is in charge of elections. The Democratic Secretary of State had held that position since 1996 and probably should shoulder most of the responsibility for the flawed vote in 2004. Bill Richardson was first elected Governor in 2002 and focused his first years on tax and education reform.

The tinfoil hat theory that Richardson threw the New Mexico election to keep Kerry out of the race so he would have a better chance in 2008 doesn't make sense given that there were likely not enough countable paper ballots with an under vote to make up the 6000 vote margin with Shrub Inc. Also, the five NM electoral votes did not make a difference in the race. Some have claimed that if New Mexico had a recount and it showed Kerry won, it would have forced Ohio to do the same. However, wouldn't a recount showing a Kerry loss in NM made it harder to force a recount in Ohio? Ironically, because of Shrub Inc's US attorney firing scandal, we find that Republicans were accusing Democrats of voter fraud in NM (LINK).

Since New Mexico's vote total wouldn't have made a difference, if Bill Richardson had thought Kerry would have won a recount, it would have made more sense for him to push it through. Bill would have been declared a hero, giving him a major boost for 2008 instead of a point of attack by supporters of opponents. Conversely, a loss of the recount by Kerry would have further fueled conspiracy theories about Richardson and hurt Kerry's chances for a possible recount in Ohio. Bill Richardson, being a pretty savvy politician, probably considered this, realized the chance of Kerry wining NM recount was slim to none, and didn't push for the recount.

[skipos]

13. Richardson has done more for secure voting in NM than most governors

since 2004.

New Mexico Passes Verified Voting Bill Requiring Audits

14th State to Require Voter-Verified Paper Ballots

Santa Fe, NM - Governor Bill Richardson yesterday signed a bill making New Mexico the fourteenth state to require voter-verified paper ballots (VVPBs) for its voting systems. As amended and passed, New Mexico Senate Bill 678 also requires audits to compare a portion of paper ballots with electronic vote tallies.

"New Mexico has swelled the ranks of states requiring voter-verified paper ballots across the country," said VerifiedVoting.org Executive Director Will Doherty. "Election administrators, policymakers, and the public recognize the need to prevent the malfunctions, errors, and failures of paperless e-voting machines that occurred repeatedly across the country during November 2004 and prior election cycles."

"We are pleased to have worked with Verified Voting New Mexico and organizers throughout the state to raise awareness about election system reliability and security," commented VerifiedVoting.org Nationwide Coordinator Pamela Smith. "Passage of a bill that requires voter-verified paper ballots and election audits will encourage public confidence in New Mexico's election results."

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5697

[suziedemocrat]

19. Thanks a lot for the information. He was my favorite until people put posts about the recount.

Do you know where Richardson stood on Iraq back in the days before the invasion? He seems more like a diplomacy first, war as a last resort type. Was this always his position? He has the best resume, and I like hearing him talk. I also just heard Lee Iacocca say on Tim Russert's program that he liked him and might support him.

[Tejanocrat]

26. Richardson's said he'd have voted for authorization, but he's an excellent choice for moderates.

[Clark2008]

14. Hold out and hope Gore or Clark jumps in.

:hi:

[politicasista]

23. That's where I am right now n/t

[acmavm]

15. You've got plenty of time to decide.

[CK_John]

17. It's much early for the "I'm not a decider" meme. n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

18. Maybe you're better off not having a favorite candidate.

During the vast majority of primary seasons that I have lived through, I have not had a favorite, and I think I've been better off for it. The times that I have had a favorite (Hart in '84, Clark in '04) have not been pleasant times for me. This is the second internet era primary that I've been around for, and it's been nice not to have to get involved in all the candidate pissing matches.

Of the announced candidates, I favor Obama. He at least displayed very good judgement on the issue of invading Iraq, which is a test that more "experienced" candidates failed. I don't see myself developing the same kind of emotional stake in his candidacy that I developed for the Clark candidacy though. I'm enjoying the sense of detachment this time around (though I may get more caught up in things as the primary season progresses).

Dean is great, and it's nice to have a dream candidate. It's not always so nice though, to actually watch them getting chewed up and spat out by the primary process. If I were you, I'd be just as glad to not have Dean in it this time (as I will be just as glad if Clark doesn't get in, I think it's probably too late for him at this point anyway).

Might be better to just sit this one out and vote for whomever gets the "D" nomination.

[suziedemocrat]

24. Tell me more about Obama and Iraq? At the time was he against it?

If so, he moves way up my list. That is a sort of litmus test for me.

[Tejanocrat]

27. Obama has always been against the war; critics complain that he's voted to continue funding but he's

always been against the war, even going back to his days as an Illinois state legislator.

[ray of light]

29. Critics complain that he waited until after Nov. 7, 2006 to decide to

vote with Kerry/Feingold/Boxer and instead he voted for the same old crappy Reid/Levin admendment which did nothing.

But we've got another year to see how he handles himself.

[Tejanocrat]

32. Thanks for your spin. Do you have any dispute with the fact that Obama has always opposed the war?

PS - I haven't picked a candidate. I like Obama but have been disappointed with a few of his votes (http://www.drummajorinstitute.com/congress/outerenvelope_senate.htm) so I'm not offering this fact as a partisan Obama supporter. Whose candidacy are you pushing with your spin?

[ray of light]

38. Spin? Doubtful. It's fact. He voted WITH Reid and Levin just last

spring. While 13 people voted on the firmer bill proposal that included a deadline that would have had our troops out of there by now. This is the bill that they went back to this year and added more money for vets. But last year it had accountability, a deadline, and money for the troops. It's like telling your kid, "Go do your chores or you get no allowance." Then when the kid doesn't do his chores, he doesn't get his allowance! That simple. It's called accountability. And last year at this time, everyone was busy trying to not deviate from the Republicans too much because they were afraid.



Obama voted for the Reid and Levin amendment. Reid and Levins had no accountability. And it had no deadlines. It simply allowed Bush to continue on the way he was. It had no power. It's like telling your kid to clean his room by noon. But when he doesn't then they'd just say, "Go clean your room by 3pm." And still when the room wasn't clean, they'd say, "Didn't we say to go clean your room? Go clean it." That's the difference between accountability and none.

There's the facts for you. It's up to me or others if we're going to decide to over look this issue. But it is a fact nonetheless.

To quote Ava: "Peace Takes Courage".

[suziedemocrat]

33. Once the war was started, it had to be funded. But I want someone who didn't want to start it.

I don't see funding the war as being pro-war at all. I mean, once we were in there, we had to try to do it right.

[Crunchy Frog]

30. Statement by Obama on Oct. 26, 2002.

"I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

Seems pretty prescient and perceptive to me. Actually, mostly just common sense, but of a sort that seems to be sadly lacking in most of our politicians these days.

[suziedemocrat]

34. That's PERFECT!! Thanks a lot! Makes a great case for him.

I'll definitely support him now.

[Rose Siding]

60. I haven't settled either, but here's a good rundown on Obama's state experience-

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/6/43637/10666

-and as far as experience goes? That's never really bothered me (I do think work at a state level counts as study for good governance) because, after all, Cheney and Rumsfeld had lots of DC experience and look at them.

[SharonRB]

35. Al Gore

and anyone he wants as VP.

Run, Al, run!

[pscot]

36. I have some questions that i'd like answered before I make up my mind

This decision might be easier if we had some idea who might end up in the new president's cabinet. One of the big problems of the first Clinton term was how long they took to get things sorted out. The president is the face of the government, but the cabinet, the department heads and the hundreds of other appointees matter a lot, as we've learned to our sorrow these last six years.

I would like to have some sense that whoever I decide to vote for has a comprehensive plan to clean out the rats nest the current crowd of vandals are going to leave in their wake. There are a lot of really pernicious rules and regulations that need to be undone. I'd like to know that my candidate has an explicit sense of purpose in this regard, and will turn over every rock and uproot every noxious weed left behind by Rove and Cheney.

I used to believe we could take respect for law and and the Constitution as givens, but right now I feel the need for some explicit reassurance on these points. No more signing statements. No more secret shadow government working in a cave somewhere in the Maryland hills. No more spying on Americans. No more secret renditions. An explicit promise that torture will never again be a tool of my government. Close Quantanamo and turn it into a shrine to human rights. That one is a promise the HRCrefused to make. Wrong answer, Lady.

[illinoisprogressive]

37. If I were you I'd go the the sites and just tour. And don't look for perfection

They are human and politicians. we are not electing god. You probably are not going to agree with anyone 100 percent and so, you look for the one who reflects your views best.
A tour around candidates web sites gives you info and some getting to know you stuff.
Take your time. You don't have to pick right now.
And if there is video on the site take a minute and listen to some of the speeches and look at their issues.

there will only be one Dean. And he has been busy saving the Democratic party and making it strong again. he is doing something more important as it will have a lasting impact.

Check out Richardson and Biden. Richardson is my second choice. He is a cool dude.

[jillan]

41. My advice to you

Is to look at all the candidates. Go to their sites, read where they stand. If they have a record, read it. If they voted for the IWR - read their remarks at the time they voted.

I would love to tell you to support Biden, but it's YOUR choice, not mine.
I like where he stands on most of the issues. I hate that he voted for the bankruptcy bill, but even so, his views are closest to mine.

That's what you need to look for, the candidate whose views are closest to yours...even if they are not perfect.

[proud patriot]

42. you're not alone

I haven't made my mind up yet either :shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

43. Al Gore.

I really believe, I just sense it, that a Gore candidacy would light a fire in the electorate - a fire we desperately need and haven't seen in our lifetime. 2008 will be a battle of ideologies and I believe it will be so horrendous - we aren't going to take any shit this time - that yes, oh, it could happen, the left unites. It will be a metaphysical reckoning, a karmic return to normalcy by setting right what went wrong too damn many years ago.

I don't think Gore is Jesus, I don't care what he looks like, and I know his old sins and crimes, but I also feel the love out there for him. I can't tell you how often when I'm out and about another driver frantically honks at me pointing at I realize shortly thereafter is my Gore 2008 bumper sticker with the happy thumbs-up look. I've worked on a whole lot of campaigns (many moons, grasshopper), and I just feel this is Gore's time if he wants it.

Hi, my name is AtomicKitten, and that is my testimonial for Gore.

[jillan]

45. I agree with you.

Gore should run.
And his campaign slogan should be
"I warned you about everything that you are living thru now"

I could cry when I think of where we would be today if the Supreme court went the other way.

There is a place in hell for this whole administrion.

[rep the dems]

46. I see you've come to support Obama's stance on the war.

As for your other concern, here is what he said at his announcement speech: "I know that I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington need a change."

I myself am not a full pledged Obama supporter yet, though I think if Clark and Gore don't get in, he'll almost definitely be my guy, and maybe even if those two run as well. So like everyone's said, only you can decide who you like the best, but I think Obama does a good job of addressing his lack of experience in Washington. Perhaps that's a good thing for the country.

[Dinger]

47. General Wesley Clark

If you aren't sure about him, check out http://www.securingamerica.com
I think you'll like what you find.

[jenmarie]

48. Your instincts/thoughts

are good. Don't let the corporate owned and controlled press make you think time is running out. It's not. There may be candidates still to enter and you've got lots of time.

Now, if Clark or Gore don't enter the race, I'll be feeling much like you do. Right now, I'm patiently waiting. ;)

[Auntie Bush]

49. WES CLARK is the perfect candidate ...if he'd only run.

He's the only one I have complete faith in and he has all the credentials necessary for the presidency.

[cally]

50. Edwards swayed many at the CA Dem convention

I went wondering if I'd find a candidate. After listening to all the speeches, I'm proud of all of our candidates and I could support any of them. I was totally persuaded by Edwards' speech. He seems to meld the emotion and reason that I want out of a candidate. Here's a link to a long blog post on Edward's speech. Most of the folks around me responded very well to Edwards.

http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=72828735D72014EEDE1A7B890C3A8C81?diaryId=2615

[w4rma]

51. fixed link and more related stuff

fixed link

More related stuff:
Edwards Gets Rave Reviews at the California Democratic Convention
http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070430-ca-convention-reviews/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3243438

John Edwards - SC Democratic Convention Part I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9SLH6w_KLk
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x26914

John Edwards - SC Democratic Convention Part II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1zb21N3j5o
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x26917

John Edwards - SC Democratic Convention Part III
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaNCYwUy5Ig
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x26919

Bonus:
John Edwards speaks at Jim Clyburn's Fish Fry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg5LFLVqOeA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x26190

[snowbear]

52. The advice that there's still "Plenty of Time" is the best I've seen on here..

I was for invading Afghanistan

Heck, who wasn't?

The only person I've ever heard that wasn't for it is Cindy Sheehan. I don't think I've ever heard a DU'er complain about invading Afghanistan; I've only heard comments (and rightly so) about how screwed up Bush was to take his eye off the ball and let things get so wacked out there.

I disagree with you on Edwards and Obama and feel that either of them would do a stellar job. Mister BOOOooSH may have had one plus a partial 2nd term as Texas governor, but he was considered one of the worst governor's in the nation. Senators Edwards and Obama have more experience and credibility in their little fingers than Mr. Bush has in his pathetic, butt ugly, evil little body.

I agree with you that Kucinich doesn't have a chance in hell. And while Biden really comes through on certain issues, I don't think he (or Gravel) have a chance in hell either.

It boggles my mind that you'd actually consider someone like Guiliani over Governor Richardson simply because of voting machine count "rumors". Kudos to Seasat for (hopefully) straightening that out. And as far as his campaign contacting you.. Good luck getting personal responses from any campaign right now.. that is - unless you're writing to ask how to send in your hefty donation.

When my little girl had to do a report on New Mexico last year, I got into an e-mail conversation with one of Richardson's staff members. They were so incredibly helpful, when I thanked them.. I jokenly told them to tell the good governor to run for president. The thank you that I received this time didn't come from the staff member, it came directly from the governor himself! BTW- My daughter got an A+++++++ on her project!

McCain gives me the creeps. He has stubby little fingers and looks like he's having spasms when he moves his shrimpy little arms all over the place while he talks. He's TWO-FACED. I love that "straight talk" video that was going around here about him and think anyone who's insane enough to consider him should watch it.

It's early still Suzie.. .. we've only had one debate.

I don't have a favorite yet either.. Well.. I do have a favorite, but he's not running (so far) ..

Other than General Clark, I don't have a #01 favorite - although I do like Richardson, Edwards and Obama a lot.

I'll support whoever our ultimate candidate is though.

[wisteria]

55. I don't care for any of the candidates either, but I don't think you

or I have to choose someone right now. There may be a dark horse out there or someone that the media isn't hyping right now, might take off. I am not enthusiastic about the lot of them right now. I am just going to sit back and watch what happens for a while.