Is the idea to elect the right candidate or beat the GOP?

[penguin7]

This forum has me depressed as hell.

I read so many of you bitching and complaining that politics is corrupt and dishonest, and then when the honest and not corrupted guy runs you dont support him.

It makes no sense.

I think I may have lost my idealism years ago, but if any semblance of it is left this primary may just crush it.

[Kagemusha]

1. Some argue that precisely because a guy campaigns as honest,

that guarantees that he's the biggest liar of the bunch and the most corrupt.

Go figure.

[rwheeler31]

2. Just go with Edwards ,feel good and be done with the hype,

[PurityOfEssence]

33. Yep. What's the confusion? He's the most progressive and he's got the best chance.

The only argument for Clinton that makes any sense is that she's so "tough", but the only toughness I see is her steadfast ability to not get pinned down on anything. Is this the kind of person who's going to stand up and actually do the right thing? The third way breaks down like this: 1) good, 2) bad, 3) other.

As for Obama, he's getting Deanier by the day with his missteps. Good thing he's got big medicine and Colin Powell to show him the way. His overall impression is much like that in many of his speeches: he starts out great, but devolves into a Kerryishness that makes one glaze over. One can see him go from rock star to professor before one's very eyes, and the lecture is one of sparkling and innovative corporatism-lite.

[Clark2008]

35. Most progressive - he says.

His Senate record doesn't bear that out, though.

Not on the major issues of the day - and certainly not on his "pet" issue of poverty. He did little to stem poverty in the Senate. I can only recall one bill - but I'll grant that there may be one or two more. Certainly not a bevy of them over six years.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

3. For some strange reason over the years, my choice in candidates always seems to be the

one who can't raise enough money to compete. I've never understood why it always seems to work out that way. Maybe it's just me.

[illinoisprogressive]

4. choose the one who you like best and want to support.

[terryg11]

5. sometimes it feels like the goal is to beat the gop

no matter who our guy/gal is.

[AtomicKitten]

6. both -- but the latter is of dire consequence (nt)

[rwenos]

7. A Dem would have to Wear a Sheet

to be worse than a Republican.

[pocoloco]

8. I wish it had been "B" last time.....

Beat the GOP!

[Milo_Bloom]

9. Elect the right candidate.

The GOP has no chance in this next election. The race is between the dems and whatever 3rd party decides to run.

If the dems run a sellout like Edwards, Clinton, Biden or Dodd, the race will likely go to the third party (Bloomberg most likely), which would probably be for the best, since the Supreme Court would be safer under him than any of the sell out dems who would buckle the moment the GOP objected to a more liberal justice.

[Like It Is]

10. And just exactly who is your candidate?

Gravel or Kucinich?

[Milo_Bloom]

11. Neither

I would vote for either in the General election, unlike Clinton, Edwards, Biden or Dodd.

[Like It Is]

15. You still didn't answer my question.

Who is your candidate, Shillary or whom?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. Probably Obama. Notice he was missing from his list nt

[Milo_Bloom]

24. Nope.

Obama has said some things that disturb me, regarding Iran and SS and can't support him in the primary; however, he hasn't proven himself untrustworthy like the others, so I don't object to voting for him in the general election.

[Milo_Bloom]

23. None of the above.

If Gore or Clark enter, I will vote for them in the Primary. If not, i will sit out the primary.

If Edwards, Clinton, Biden or Dodd are nominated, I will vote 3rd party in the election.

If Obama, Kucinich or Gravel are nominated, I would vote for them.

[Clark2008]

36. I agree with your "sellout" point, but I don't agree that the GOP

has no chance.

Probably based on where I live, but I don't see any of our top candidates beating Fred Thompson, should he be the nominee. I hate saying that, but we know how our media is.

[melody]

12. To quote Huffington, "you shouldn't redecorate when the house is on fire"

We have to first take back the country with the strongest candidate we can send out. If we don't
win this one, we'll have no country to care about.

[Like It Is]

13. That's why we need Biden!

You did say the best candidate, not the best organization with the most money, right?

[melody]

14. Gosh, let me guess ... are you a Biden person?

I like most things Biden says. He seems like a good fellow. Now if only his actions
followed his words, everything would be fine.

Personally, I'm holding out for Al.

[Like It Is]

16. You will be waiting till hell freezes over.

Or Shillary wraps it up.

[melody]

17. ;) Oh, I don't think so

Anyway, I still will back Edwards, if Al shocks me and doesn't run.

[sampsonblk]

25. Correction: that was 2004

That was the one we had to win, or else.

Having blown that opportunity very badly, now we need to concentrate on bringing our party back from the fringes of American politics. That means building it from the ground up, based on principles, not on winning the next election. Just my opinion.

[melody]

29. Correction: It's more important now than it was then

We didn't blow the opportunity -- we had it stolen from us. We only won last time because the surge was large
enough to overcome their vote-gouging method. The only people genuinely not worried about our winning the next
election would be the GOP. If we DON'T win the next election, we'll have no country to save.

[sampsonblk]

30. I disagree strongly

We had to win in 2004. There was no alternative. Bush stole the election of 2000, then flouted US and international law during his entire bogus term. Bush was not a legitimate president in any sense. But since he won in 2004 (and he did), he's a legitimate two-term president. His approval ratings were already in the tank, and it was clear he had BSed us into a war. There were no WMDs in Iraq, and all that was known prior to the 2004 election. He should have been impeached for that alone. But our party's effort in 2004 wasn't focused on that. If I recall correctly, none of our candidates would even use the words 'lie' or 'illegal' or 'crime.' So we got what we deserved.

After that miserable defeat, the time came to start our party over. Because it obviously is not a competitive national party. If you can't tell the truth for fear of the public's ire, then its time to look in the mirror.

On edit: I apologize for the rant.

[melody]

32. And I disagree just as strongly

I won't go over the plentiful evidence that 2004 was stolen -- and it was. It's apparent
to anyone who actually looks into the matter.

Beyond that, it's just an argument and time is best spent focusing on other things.

[rucky]

18. Any of ours has a shot against that group of knuckleheads.

so go for the one you want.

[Ken Burch]

19. Did you mean "NOMINATE the right candidate"?

Presumably if you got the candidate ELECTED that candidate would, by definition, have beaten the GOP.

[Like It Is]

20. I'm sure that nominate was meant but not said.

[Ken Burch]

34. I wasn't meaning to be snarky, just wanted to clarify the point

As to what the intent should be, of course everyone wants to elect a Democrat, but, as the last "Democratic" administration, settling for nothing more than somebody who CALLS himself a Democrat is actually worse than losing. And it is not an unchallangeable point that we need to lower ourselves to that devil's bargain again.

It's not asking too much to at least have Democratic president who has a pro-worker(as opposed to pro-corporate domination)trade policy, who will defend the poor, and who will close down the freakin' School of The Americas.

Also, we don't have to nominate anyone who's anti-Hugo Chavez, since that person would have to be in favor of keeping the workers and the poor of this hemisphere in permanent misery.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. Edwards gives us the best of both worlds: the most electability and a progressive platform nt

[Perry Logan]

26. The idea is to beat the GOP. America cannot survive another Republican President.

[venable]

27. Edwards is both NT

[rasputin1952]

28. I should think Choice "A" would lead to Choice "B"

The object is to field the best candidate we can, therefore busting up the neo-con led GOP.

The biggest problem we have is that none of the current candidates are doing much more that raising passions for either support or derision. For me, none of them have come across as becoming "great" presidential material, if anything, they would be "good" to "average".

Of course, leadership is pretty hard to define at this stage, it takes a bit of a crisis before a leader emerges from the fray, and at this point, no crisis is apparent. In fact, by starting the process as early as it has, there was assurance that division would be the product. When one adds to the equation that we are D's and progressives w/widely varied notions of what is primary importance...well, you can see what happens.

Each of the candidates has strong points and weak points. We have to look at things w/an open mind, and understand that saving the nation from neo-cons is the primary drive. Since none of the current candidates have done anything spectacular, (it's all the same old stump speech w/different verbiage), I have not decided to back any of them at this point. We have over a year before things really ramp up, and anything can happen.

I would like to see someone take all of the best ideas and package them into a campaign that could crush the GOP, taking vast numbers of House and Senate seats on the hope that the nation would recover from the last 6+ years. I'm doubting that will happen, but I am hopeful that someone in the relatively near future figures that out....that will be my candidate of choice.

[beastieboy]

31. Both, but I'll take the latter if the nominee is imperfect.

Every one of us is going to have a beef or two with every candidate.