Which candidate do you prefer, at this point?

[Lerkfish]

for those who have a preference, and picking this one moment in time.
Whom would you most like to see in the white house in 2008?

[AtomicKitten]

1. Al Gore, please.

[Lerkfish]

4. ok, I added Gore

[AtomicKitten]

9. thanks!

[trueblue2007]

46. DARN!!!! I wanna switch my vote from EDWARDS to GORE

I didn't see him there.

Gore for PRESIDENT and Edwards for VICE PRESIDENT

[speedoo]

112. President Al Gore, CURRENTLY not running.

He gets my vote. Again.

[mikelgb]

2. .

[NMDemDist2]

3. kick to check later

[quinnox]

5. I decided on Hillary

She is the most experienced and the brightest who will make a excellent president.

Edwards - he is good too but I wonder if he has what it takes to win sometimes, maybe a bit too nice.

Obama - too green! He is not ready by a long shot. I feel Obama is not even ready to fill the shoes of Jesse Jackson for example, much less the presidency.

[soulcore]

106. She does have a lot of experience

taking that healthcare lobbyist money.

[ncsoapmaker]

113. I Choose Hillary

I agree quinnox, if I had to vote now, she would get my vote, I feel shes the most experienced and could hit the ground running.

[PatSeg]

Obama came across

as awkward and as you said, "too green". He is not ready. The other candidates were light years ahead of him in multiple ways. Also he had a really pissy look on his face when Dodd criticized him, hardly a presidential look.

Overall, the candidates came across very well and there was a lot of energy in the audience, almost like old-time politics.

[Clovis Sangrail]

6. they all suck

well... I actually like Kucinich, but I think he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

[PatSeg]

127. And he was really funny!

He is a sharp guy, but as you said he doesn't have a chance.

[momzno1]

7. i can't believe I am saying this but

ron paul

[NMDemDist2]

21. other than the anti-abortion and homophobia stuff I guess n/t

[RadiDem]

48. And eliminating all social services, the IRS, the FDA, EPA etc etc

[Bill McBlueState]

29. not that he's a Republican or anything...

Which Underground is this, again?

[MaineDem]

68. Gee, I wonder why he wasn't included in the poll?

:sarcasm:

You're exactly right. (not sarcasm.)

[Usrename]

61. haha, I understand exactly what you mean.

I do seem to be agreeing more and more with Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul these days.

Even ranting xenophobic bigots are better than this pro-fascism movement.

I know, I feel like I should get a checkup or something.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

122. Check out Gravel first! I was almost going to register to vote for Paul in the primary

At least Ron Paul answers the questions intelligently. He is the only Republican I have some respect for! :patriot: You are brave to say what you believe! We all must fight to save our Constitution before it is too late :patriot: Check out Gravel's legacy: Thirty-five years ago, Beacon Press lost a Supreme Court case brought against it by the US government for publishing the first full edition of the Pentagon Papers. It is now well known how the New York Times first published excerpts of the top-secret documents in June 1971. But less well known is how the Beacon Press - a small, nonprofit publisher affiliated with the Unitarian Universalist Association - came to publish the complete 7,000 pages that exposed the true history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Their publication led the Press into a spiral of two and a half years of harassment, intimidation, near-bankruptcy, and the possibility of criminal prosecution.

Today, we hear the story from three men at the center of the storm: Former Pentagon and RAND Corporation analyst, famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times. Mike Gravel - the former Alaska Senator who is now a Democratic Presidential candidate - who tells the dramatic story of how he entered the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional record and got them to the Beacon Press. And Robert West, the former president of the Unitarian Universalist Association which owned the Press and agreed to risk publication of the Pentagon Papers. Amy Goodman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05OXzvBrcwc

[calteacherguy]

8. Clark.

He hasn't said he won't.

[willing dwarf]

10. It's not easy

Edwards keeps hitting the nails I want to see hit, hammmering out an agenda that sounds like it would mean progress. Obama sounds good, and I like him, but I hear he's the most funded by big money Wall Street Corp types which has me worried.

I don't mean to, but everytime I hear Clinton talk, I feel like she's lecturing me. We've had 6+ years of the idiot W. lecturing anyone who will listen... I just can't take anymore lecturing.

So, Edwards is my choice.

[Laurab]

89. Where have you heard that about Obama?

I heard that most of his funding came from small donors, and I know he has a lot of larger donors from politically active people in Los Angeles and places like that (musicians, producers, actors), but I've never heard the Wall Street Corp donors rumor.

I think Edwards is the most polished candidate because he's been practicing for 4 years now. I wouldn't mind if he won, but I think Obama would be the better choice. I've studied up on him, and his background a bit, and I like him the most out of the "top three".

That's at this time. I don't think anyone can change my mind about Edwards or Hillary, but Gore may enter, or Biden (very experienced), or Dodd (experienced, too), may move up in the polls - there's a long ways to go.

[willing dwarf]

94. I believe I heard it on NPR

Now I'm not one to believe everything I hear on NPR, nor alas am I one to recall every source I've come up so it may not have been NPR, but it was a source I believed to be quite credible.

I don't think this undercuts Barrack Obama's huge number of small donations, but it was startling (if true) that he would have so much Wall Street backing.

I'll need to investigate further. Didn't mean to be playing in to false rumor-mongering, but the way I heard it, I figured it was common knowledge.

[flvegan]

11. I'd like to see Kucinich/RFK, Jr in the white house.

I don't think that there's any better ticket.

[ronnykmarshall]

12. I want a woman for president ....

Therefore I present to you .......




If she can run a household full of kids and Pa .... she can run this country.

[eleny]

13. Ma!!!

[ElizabethDC]

14. Hillary. n/t

[Fiendish Thingy]

15. Kucinich is the only one in favor of impeachment and withdrawing troops now

If Edwards took an unequivocal position like Kucinich, I'd vote for him instead.

[Lerkfish]

16. don't know if you're allowed to reccmd polls, but if you are, please do

so it doesnt get buried

thanks.

[Adelante]

22. Done

Still Clark for me.

[JDPriestly]

17. Edwards. Thinks American. Talks American. Is American.

He is the only one that absolutely is not bought by the big corporate interests.

[david_vincent]

19. Well, maybe not the only one, but the only one who has a chance

he's the one to back, as far as I'm concerned. First time in my life I've ever sent money to anyone running for office.

[redqueen]

83. He's very much not the only one. n/t

[MrSlayer]

18. Clark is who I would most like to see in the White House.

Of the overall slate of declared candidates I like Kucinich. If we have to go with one of the so-called "Top 3" I'd like Edwards.

[Lerkfish]

20. interesting results thus far..

at this second:

Edwards: 27
Clinton 12
Obama 11
kucinich 9
Al Gore 5
other 4
biden 1
dodd 0

[SharonRB]

23. Gore, Gore and Gore!

If he really doesn't run, though, Richardson is my next choice.

[spud]

24. Ron Paul

for me to. registered repuke here. Don,t worry i will vote for the democrat in the general, so pick a good one. LOL i even voted for harry reid 3 times.

[Colobo]

25. O-BA-MA!!!

[sofa king]

91. I'm with you and the Big O.

Al Gore's is quickly reaching his "sell by" date. If he's not in by the end of September, he's not in.

I'm also giggling a little to myself as I watch the mindless press and the Clinton camp snipe at Obama for his lack of foreign policy experience. It is exactly reminiscent of 1991, when the press had labeled Bill Clinton as one of the "Seven Dwarves," bothering only to mention his lack of foreign policy experience.

Even if he's not your first choice, Obama is a superb consensus-building second choice. He deserves the first slot, but he'll be offered the VP slot if he doesn't get it.

[Mass]

26. Ok, I will give a vote to Dodd - He is my favorite, but he has no chance.

Among the top three, Obama no contest!

[zazzle]

80. Are you voting for a 'no chance' candidate in the primary?

[Jack Bone]

27. I think Sen. Boxer should run!

She would be my 1st choice, then Gore..neither have announced. I hope one of them do!

[Clintonista2]

31. Boxer would never win

As much as I love her, she would mobilize the right, probably more than any other possible Democratic candidate

[Hippo_Tron]

59. I don't see why she'd have any less of a chance than Hillary

Most voters view Hillary as "liberal" and yet she's still polling even or better than the Republicans. And as far as mobilizing the right goes, I think pretty much anybody we run is going to mobilize the right.

[cascadiance]

40. I'd like her too, but a few things work against her...

First, she's already came out and pretty much stated earlier that she wouldn't entertain the thought of running but would work hard to support a good progressive candidate. I don't have the audio clip handy, but it would put it to rest like Russell Feingold has.

Secondly, we'd have Arnold pick her replacement for Senator if she were to win (which also unfortunately from my point of view takes her off the VP selection list too). The prospect of an Arnold-selected Republican and DiFi as our two senators here would probably have me move to Oregon for sure!

[Hippo_Tron]

60. It is ridiculous that her possible senate replacement is a major consideration

If you are suggesting that she shouldn't run for President because she would have to vacate her senate seat if she won, I don't think you realize just how much power the President has to change things and just how much good she could do for this country as President.

It may be a consideration with a cabinet post (Clinton got criticized for handing Lloyd Bensten's seat over to the GOP by making him Treasury Secretary) but not running for President.

[AndyTiedye]

28. Gore!

[LBJDemocrat]

30. Looks like Edwards is giving Obama a run for his money

He gets twice as many votes as the next best candidate.

[emilyg]

32. Senator Clinton.

[Green Mountain Dem]

33. Can you imagine.....

Pres Bernie Sanders !!!

[On the Road]

34. Edwards Has Been Saying All the Right Things

and he hasn't gotten involved in the ridiculous pissing match over who has the itchiest trigger finger. (I agree with Mike Gravel: 'Some of these people scare me.')

Edwards didn't start out as my first choice, but he's hitting the right notes to win the base. And it seems as if he's winning DU over, too.

[Lerkfish]

35. its looking like any ticket with edwards will win.

any combination of coalition with edwards by kucinich or Obama would be formidable.

[Clark2008]

74. Not in my state.

I can't stand Edwards. AT ALL. I think he's a "smart" Bush - all opportunist.

[Lerkfish]

76. I'm just saying that based on this poll

[last_texas_dem]

77. But of the announced candidates

are any of them actually likely to win TN?

[Meldread]

36. I like this poll. It says a lot.

Obama and Hillary are head to head with Obama having a one vote lead. I knew Edwards was well liked but not as much as he seems to be by this poll. He seems to have literally the combined support of both Hillary and Obama. It's unfortunate that he doesn't seem to be translating the same in the media, but on the bright side I think he will do well in Iowa (maybe even win).

Edwards supporters are definitely the silent majority.

I wonder what the poll would look like if it were just Edwards, Obama and Hillary with no other options?

[ruggerson]

37. Edwards would win handily

n/t

[CTyankee]

69. Interesting poll but too small a sample to say too much.

I "like" the poll, too, because I am leaning Edwards at this point but I don't know what meaning to assign it because it hasn't involved too many "voters."

I'm going to be looking for the national polls of likely voters inclusive of all political parties, so that won't be for awhile. The larger the poll sample the smaller the Margin of Error. Such polls, done correctly, are very indicative of who has the most support across the country (and who vote, of course).

I voted for Edwards but I want to see if he continues his quick responses to attack (to me very important), his continued good judgment on the issues and his electability (which is where the polls come into play).

[ericgtr]

38. At this point I am too undecided

I have been an Obama supporter until the recent comments, I am just so tired of hearing people threatening other countries all the time. "I would do this.. I would do that.." and it's just discouraging. I understand that foreign policy is an important issue but I am sick of muscle flexing and want to see a real diplomat for a change. Today, I am sad about it. Hopefully tomorrow I will find more inspiration in a candidate.

[Rene]

39. I'm not endorsing anyone who says they'll increase the H1B visas

There's a war on the middle class going on over good paying jobs. We must draw a line and stop the influx of foreigners taking away our incomes.
Let's DRAFT CLARK !

[crazylikafox]

41. Edwards/Clark....... Perfect!

[Virginian]

119. I'm not endorsing her either, but if she is the candidate, I will have to vote for her.

I prefer Edwards.
He understands people who work for a living.

[Hart2008]

42. Restore the Republic and end the empire! Vote for Gary Hart!

Hart is the foremost authority on combating domestic terrorism, and firmly rejects the neo-imperialist agenda.

20 years later the issues he raised in the issueless '88 campaign are still relevant, i.e., the need to limit consumption and invest in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, and reducing our dependence on imported oil.

Unlike another Clinton, Hart will hold the Bush crime family accountable in our courts.

[flyarm]

43. Gore /Edwards

Run Al Run!!!!!!!!!!

[Lerkfish]

51. yup, I bet that would be a winning ticket.

[stillrockin]

44. Edwards, definitely.

:thumbsup:

[Hydra]

45. Since this Fisa mishap

Edwards is saying a lot of the right things. I wish he would say the rest of them, but you can't have everything.

HRC would be my prefered candidate, but with her corp sponsorship, I can't tell if she'll pay back all the people supporting her campaign with favors, or she'll tell them to go to hell, since she's the prez.

If I thought for a moment that she was willing to be her own person in the WH...

[Meldread]

50. I'm in a similar boat.

I have two main problems with HRC. The first is the combined problem of both her husband and herself. I still refuse to forgive them for supporting DADT and DOMA. Of course, there are other blunders made as well during the Clinton administration. However, those are the two that were aimed at me personally. I don't care what tortured political reason is given, selling my human rights away was wrong. It was unforgivable. There is no excuse. They made me a second class citizen. Hillary has recently just reaffirmed her support for DOMA for basically what amounts to strategic reasons. I can't forgive her for that.

The second is that while I think as a person she might be inherently good, at least in part, I fully believe that she has sold herself out. When I look at Hillary I look back on who she was in the past, before the White House and I am amazed at her. I am proud of her. She was a real liberal back then. However, over time it just seems that she has become so focused and ambitious. She wants to become President so bad that it seems to be almost an obsession.

I believe she has sold herself out, her true values and beliefs, in an attempt to win elections. She's taken middle of the road or right leaning positions that harm the country and that I know that SHE KNOWS (because she is a VERY intelligent woman) that are wrong. But she takes them because she thinks they will get her elected.

I think the Hillary that once existed is dead. She's been replaced by an empty shell of a woman who is consumed with an urgent need to fulfill some legacy she believes she is owed. I almost feel bad in a way for opposing her but I simply can't trust that she'll do the right thing. I don't trust her. That is my fundamental problem. I have no faith in Hillary.

I am supporting Obama not necessarily because I agree with him on all the issues but because he is forceful and seems authentic. When Obama talks about the issues I get the feeling that he is telling me what HE thinks and not just what he thinks I want to hear. Sure, I am not naive enough to believe that Obama doesn't take some positions because of politics. He is a politician.

However, the things people call blunders are things that I find refreshing. To take an example, he said nuclear weapons were off the table. He wouldn't use them. He was attacked because of it. Hillary assaulted him by saying that it was irresponsible and that a president should neither suggest that they would use nuclear weapons or take it off the table. I wasn't clear on where Hillary stood on the position. I sure as hell don't want to hand the presidency to some whack job that wants to push the big red button. I also don't believe we should threaten to use nuclear weapons unless we have an actual intent to use them. Eventually someone will call bull shit and you will be forced to show your hand. I want to know up front that I am voting for a mentally stable person for the White House, and anyone who wants to use nuclear weapons is not mentally stable in my book. They should be kept as far away from the White House as possible.

Then there was the issue of going after Osama Been-Forgotten in Pakistan. Obama bluntly said that either they would hand him over or he'd send in troops to get Osama. I saw no problem with that. Apparently, neither did Clinton or Edwards who rushed to proclaim that they'd do the same. Then Clinton turned around and attacked Obama over it once Pakistan got upset. (Yeah, well sorry Pakistan, but we're kind of upset that you're harboring terrorstic mass murderer who happens to be involved in killing United States citizens. Hand him over.)

So, yeah in the end I am not sure if Clinton supports going after Osama or what. Of course she'd say she'd go after him, but I am not sure how she intends to do that if Pakistan intends to protect him. While we are there we should call for Pakistan to disarm their nuclear weapons program considering that we don't want it in the hands of religious fanatics and they've already sold nuclear technology to other rogue states.

Anyway, if this were some time before the 1990's I could stand with Hillary but she has changed. I didn't. We've parted ways and she went in a direction that I do not believe is for the better.

[fujiyama]

47. Anyone but Hillary

I lean towards Obama, but I think Edwards might have a better shot in the general election. I'd be fine with either of them.

Hillary's the "I don't want another Alito on the bench" vote come election day...and that's it. She'd receive the vote simply because I hate all the republican candidates that much.

But c'mon why is Gore included on the poll? We may as well focus on announced candidates. I think this obsession with unannounced candidates is getting sort of silly, especially when he's said so many times he's not really interested. The same goes with Clark. Not that I dislike either of them. I'd definitely consider voting for them over the current front runners.

[YOY]

71. Pretty much sums up my feelings now as well.

n/t

[daninthemoon]

49. Bill Richardson is by far the most capable. Current governor,

4 time nobel prize nominee for his diplomatic work, energy secretary, UN ambassador...He's the best guy to fix the shipwreck we're currently on.

[eggman67]

52. It's driving me nuts that he's not getting any

media attention. I've read that he's campaigning hard in Iowa & NH but he's getting nowhere near the coverage of the "big 3"

[Midwestern Democrat]

53. Edwards by far.

I trust Edwards the most - like others have said, he is sounding all the right notes - he has the most substantive policy proposals and is the best on traditional Democratic economic issues. Beyond this, I think he is probably the most electable: Worst case scenario - he would likely do the least harm to our downticket candidates; Best case scenario - he would possibly put the most number of red states into play.

Still, I'd be happy with Obama, Clinton, Richardson, Biden, or Dodd as the nominee as well.

[Buck Rabbit]

105. And yet with me, trust is my big problem with Edwards.

Welcome to DU by the way.

I love the platform of Candidate Edwards, but I question if he believes in it. Senator Edwards was as big a DLC war hawk piece of shit as Lieberman while he was a senator. And when did he go from Hawk to Dove? When Hillary let it be known she would be running and the centrist political machine started lining up behind her, Edwards suddenly saw the progressive light.

My lack of ability to make leaps of faith will someday undoubtedly damn me to hell, for now it just makes me too cynical to support Edwards despite his adoption of a wonderful progressive platform. Well that and he is Karl Rove's wet dream as an opponent.

So I picked Gore in this poll, who I don't think is going to run but whom I think is the most electable in the general. In reality I will probably end up voting for Kucinich on progressive principal in our meaningless primary here in Oregon. If the nomination is still somehow in play when Oregon finally votes I would go for Obama over Hillary,

[PatSeg]

129. I don't trust him either

and I haven't quite put my finger on it. Aside from that I don't think he has what it takes when it comes to foreign policy. He is not a well rounded candidate and has so little experience.

[tomreedtoon]

54. If not Gore, than Obama...

I wish there was a way to do a complex poll on DU - that would allow us to choose second choices. And maybe some kind of statistics software to compare people who would choose one set of first-and-second choices to see if one set won out.

[UrbScotty]

55. Obama has what it takes to be a true LEADER.

He is a true progressive, and is genuine, telling it like he sees it. Sure any politician has his/her talking points and stump speeches... but Barack is much more genuine in the way he approaches issues. And by 'issues' I don't mean merely tax policy, nuclear proliferation, war, etc. (though he's right on in those cases). Obama, more than any other candidate, is concerned with the deeper problems America is facing, i.e. a distrust in government, etc..

That might be what's ticking off the establishment - and many DUers.

[tex-wyo-dem]

56. Okay, so I didn't notice Gore's name at the bottom...

And I would have voted for him, but too late.

Anyway, if Gore were running, he would be my first choice hands down.

But considering those who actually are running: my favorite is kucinich, because more than anyone else I feel he is the most Progressive and, more than anyone else, he speaks the truth. Unfortunately, he doesn't have a chance in hell to win against the rethugs much less the Dem nomination.

With that in mind, I cast my vote for Edwards. Over the last few weeks and months he has really caught my attention with his populist stance and consistent message for change (reminds me quite a bit of JFK), plus I believe he's very electable.

My dream ticket...Gore/Edwards

[Mythsaje]

57. Edwards...

I think he's breaking trail on the economic issues and everyone else is trying to keep up.

[Norrin Radd]

58. Clark.

And if Clark doesn't get in it, Kucinich.

[DarkTirade]

62. The juvenile in me wants to respond with...

'your mom' or something like that... must resist childish urge... must... ah, too late.
Your mom. :)
Seriously though, if Gore isn't running, then I'd hope for an Edwards/Obama ticket... never gonna happen, but I think A) They're the best two of the 'popular' candidates, and B) together they'd have the best shot. And while normally I wouldn't go for someone just because they have the best chance at winning... we REALLY can't afford to have another Republican in office. So I'd be willing to sacrifice my chance at a candidate that I agree with more in favor of a candidate who has the best shot at keeping a Republican out of the white house.
Hell, if a penguin put on a tuxedo (oh wait, he's already got one...) and ran for office, I'd vote for him... it would be better than letting a republican in office again... and he'd probably try to help fight global warming too. :)

*edited to add...*
I'd vote for a female penguin too, I'm not sexist. :)

[bklyncowgirl]

63. Gore, if he doesn't run Richardson. Experience trumps beauty. nt

[Smarmie Doofus]

64. Edwards appears to be the most electable.

And perhaps the *only* electable of the bunch.

Gotta carry some southern states.

[FloridaJudy]

65. I voted for Kucinich, but I'm a realist

I know he doesn't stand a chance of being the candidate in the general election. I still send him money, and am working for him in the primary, because his ideas need to be in the public eye, and maybe he can keep some of the other candidates honest.

Since he is unlikely to win the primary, my other top choices are Edwards and Richardson: I think either would be likely to be a fine POTUS. Obama is too unseasoned, and Hillary's made a few too many Faustian bargains - though either could be a splendid activist Veep. Who ever wins the primary will get my vote in November, even if I have to put a clothespin on my nose. Nobody could be worse than the field the Repuglicans are running: there's not one of them I'd trust to watch my coat while I went to the restroom.

[Triana]

66. Edwards it is for me , and you know...

...I find this poll more reliable than one of those trumped-up, paid-for-by-god-knows-who-or-what lamestream media polls.

Not because this one has Edwards in the lead, but because there's NO corprat agenda behind THIS poll.

[redqueen]

84. I only wish this were more reliable...

unfortunately, the way I see it, is this poll is answered by people who (mostly) know what the hell's going on... while the vast majority of the electorate has hardly a clue.

[Triana]

86. yea you have a point there..but that's exactly why...

..the plutocracy controls the media. So we DON'T have a clueful electorate. That would be one of their worse enemies.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

67. I'm for Kucinich

but Richardson is also a great canidate (though he has done terribly in the debates) and Gravel gets my all riled up (in a good way). But Kucinich just kind of blows my mind. (also in a good way)

[GreenArrow]

70. Hubert Hoag

though I'd also vote for Kucinich or Gravel. After that, fuck 'em.

[slick8790]

72. How thoughtful of you.

:eyes:

[GreenArrow]

133. I refer you

to your own sig line:

"It's like going into the Senate. You know, the first time you get there, you're all excited, "My God, how did I ever get here?" Then, about six months later, you say, "How the hell did the rest of them get here?" - Mike Gravel

[Clark2008]

73. Thankfully, the way DU votes isn't the real world.

I wouldn't be able to vote for that flip-floppy Edwards in the general election. I don't trust a man who says "Ooops" to his entire Senate record.

For the record - I didn't vote in this poll. I don't have a candidate. I'd go Clark, Gore or Feingold, but good people simply don't run anymore. Instead, we're left with triangulators, flip-floppers, opportunists and elfin.

[redqueen]

85. Was the Kucinich slur just for good measure?

:wtf:

:puke:

[last_texas_dem]

75. John Edwards

Of potential Democratic Presidential nominees, I think Edwards would perform the strongest in the general election and be a very effective President as well. The tough part for him is going to be getting the nomination in the first place, but we're still months away from the first primary and anything can happen.

I'll probably vote for Kucinich in the primary, since by the time the Texas one rolls around our nominee has generally already been determined. But of the candidates that I believe have a shot at the nomination, Edwards is my choice.

[daninthemoon]

78. I just hope DUers are neither going with the pretty candidates,

or accepting the narrow choices the msm is showing them. This interesting survey makes me wonder.

[sniffa]

79. what's with aLL the choices? there's onLy 3 running

my preferences are kucinich, richardson, dodd, in that order. if gore jumps in the race, he gets the nod.

[bvar22]

81. Kucinich is RIGHT on all the issues!

How can someone who studies the issues, and calls themselves "Liberal" or "Progressive" not support Kucinich?

I don't believe that Kucinich can overcome the Media Megaphones and the entrenched Corporate Owned Democratic Party power brokers, but I will send him money, and all the support I can give to keep him in the running. Someone need to keep telling the TRUTH to America and the World.

If DK is eliminated from the campaign, who will tell America that:

*Single Payer Universal HealthCare is not only possible, but cheaper.

*that "For Profit" HealthCare is obscene

*that Mandatory Health Insurance is NOT REALLY Universal HealthCare

*that the Democratic Party and American taxpayers should NOT be forced to subsidize some of the richest CEOs in history by subsidizing the HealthCare Insurance Corps and HMOs.

*that the USA SHOULD give the Imperial Palace (Green Zone) back to the Iraqis, close the permanent bases, expel all Corporate Consultants, withdraw ALL US Troops, and begin paying reparations NOW.

*that redeploying some troops at some future date is a PRO-WAR position.

*that the "Oil Law Benchmark" supported by the Democratic Party is a War Crime.

*That we can have election accountability with "Paper Ballots publicly hand counted at the precinct".

*that we CAN cut $Billions$ from the Defense Budget.

*that the RICHEST Corporations in history do NOT need $Billions$ in welfare subsidies.

*that NAFTA (Free Trade) has not been a good thing for Americans who have to work for a living.

*That giving MORE Media Control to FEWER rich white men is a bad thing.

Dennis Kucinich is the ONLY candidate who has a CLEAR & CONSISTENT record on ALL the above issues. He is not a campaign season jail-house convert. When Kucinich is forced out of the Presidential race, most of these issues will also be forced out.


After Kucinich, I have to go with Edwards. He is saying some of the right things. His HealthCare proposal is very good, even more practical then Kucinich's, and will eventually transition to MediCare for All.


If Hillary or Obama is the nominee, I will be leaving DU as per the rules.
I cannot vote for MORE WAR, MORE Corporate Influence in DC, or MORE MONEY for the Pentagon/MIC.
I will sleep better working to change things instead of voting for more of the same.

[Hollow Shells]

115. Excellent post

Kucinich is easily the best candidate, but people don't want to hear it. There was a quiz floating around on the threads where you said where you stood on the issues, and then it would match you up with the closest candidate. Many people got Kucinich as number one, but instead of looking at him a little closer, they said that the test must of been messed up. To me, this is evidence of people putting there hands over their ears and eyes just for the reward of voting against their own personal interests. It is an interesting phenomenon to behold.

http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/Senate2006.asp#sec0

http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html

[redqueen]

82. I'd take Edwards or Richardson, but I voted for Kucinich in your poll.

Because Kucinich is the ONLY one who ticks all my boxes.

[Auggie]

87. Edwards. Though I prefer D.K., Edwards has a better shot at winning.

[kay1864]

88. GORE GORE GORE GORE GORE GORE GORE GORE GORE GORE GORE GORE GORE GORE GORE GORE GORE GORE GORE GORE

Me, I kinda like Al Gore. :D

[Uncle Joe]

97. What are you trying to tell us kay?

If you're subtly suggesting Al Gore is your favorite candidate, I heartily agree.:)

[jenmarie]

90. Clark!

Waiting for the best. Second choice = Kucinich.

[Pawel K]

92. Why would anyone here vote for someone other than Kucinich if not Gore?

It truly is mind boggling. Its as if you people don't pay attention to anything that is posted on this web site and rely on the MSM instead.

I will vote for whoever the nominee is in the general election, but what you guys are doing in your support for these DLC democrats is down right immoral, IMO.

[derby378]

99. Kucinich is a great guy, but I have my own problems with him

Bill Richardson is a more comfortable fit with me.

[LostInAnomie]

93. Edwards

I just wish the media would actually cover him and his policies.

Obama's support of teacher merit pay lost him my vote.

[pacalo]

95. Gore or Clark.

[Sparkly]

96. Clark.

Or Gore.

[Flabbergasted]

98. Edwards

[GreenPartyVoter]

100. Gore, Kucinich, Edwards...

[Az_lefty]

101. Edwards/Clark

:kick:

[laugle]

102. It's nice to see a poll with all the candidates!

Wow.....we have a lot of Edward's supporters!

I think he may very well win in Iowa and then his numbers will begin to rise........

[laugle]

103. Hillary/Edwards in 2008!! nt

[goodhue]

104. At this point, Kucinich! But Gore & Edwards are my 2nd & 3rd choices respectively

So I'm liking these poll results

[robinlynne]

107. I'm Edwards Gore. I count that as one vote, though I can't type it in that way.

[Roland99]

108. Kucinich!!! Hands down!!!

[smoogatz]

109. Not running. Yet.

A boy can dream...

[Mister Ed]

110. My favorite candidates are the ones who aren't running: Al Gore and Wesley Clark

As non-candidates they aren't (yet) beholden to any enormously wealthy campaign contributors. If there were only a way, some way, any way to get someone into office who owed nothing to anyone but the voters. Howard Dean's candidacy made a good start. Maybe the Dean grassroots strategy can be built upon, enlarged upon...

[Mister Ed]

111. Kucinich, of course, can boast the same virtues. And he's actually running.

Gotta love that guy.

[skids]

114. Unlike any poll on "who won the debate"...

...this one actually asks the same question as the results are for. :-)

[Jai4WKC08]

116. Clark n/t

[Limelight]

117. I break it down like this

Clinton- I think she's smart and intelligent, but won't make sweeping changes because she's so adept at playing the game she doesn't realize that at some point you might have to say "f*ck you" to the establishment and risk their alienation to do what you know is right, not just what you know you can get done fairly easily.

Edwards- To me his two Americas argument and the tour of poverty stricken areas sells it for me. Just cuz the guy has money or managed a hedge fund doesn't mean he doesn't get that most people aren't as lucky as he's been. I wish he'd go a little far and start talking about abolishing NAFTA and the WTO, because his support of unions without doing that will only mean more companies will want to send their work overseas rather than investing here. That said I think he'll have no choice but to realize that so I believe his has a genuine want to do the right thing here. What can I say? I believe him.

Obama- I see a lot of potential, truly believe he could be the first black President, just not this go around. I don't think he has the experience to get it done, though I like his convictions. He'd be a great VP for someone.

Kucinich- I like him genuinely as a human being. I think he is a good hearted guy who has a lot more courage than most, standing for his convictions even when he knows it will hamstring him. My thing with him is this "Strength through Peace" deal he keeps talking. I'm a Democrat and I don't even wanna hear that. I know what he means, but this country doesn't want to hear that. It sounds too much like pacifism, we'll never lift a finger in our own defense. I know it's not what he means, but he has to temper his message like Obama did. Obama said he would make a huge push at diplomacy, but then made it clear that he would use military means to go after our enemies like Bin Laden in Pakistan, stating if they didn't have to balls to go after the man that killed 3000 Americans he would. Seeing as I was all for the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Queda I very much support that position as would most Americans. If Kucinich keeps sounding like he doesn't have the guts to fight if it's needed this country will not vote for him. Period. That being said if he did change his message that way he'd be my candidate.

Richardson- I think he'd make a great Secretary of State.

Biden- Meh... good guy, but I don't see what he really brings to this.

Dodd- Same as Biden.

Gravel- He just comes off like a grumpy old man every time he speaks. I'm just waiting for him to tell us all to get off his lawn.

All things considered I'm supporting Edwards. For now.....

[PatSeg]

130. Richardson, Biden, and Dodd

all are the most qualified and the most experienced. Clinton would probably do a good job, but I don't trust her. Obama and Edwards don't come across as ready, and this election is far too important to take any gambles.

[mopinko]

118. al gore will run

i am taking bets.

[IndyOp]

120. Gore, Edwards, Obama - those are my picks... (n/t)

[Lena inRI]

121. Presidential Wesley K. Clark. . .

:kick: :loveya: :kick: :loveya: :kick:

[tactics]

123. ron paul??

i would be shocked and greatly disappointed if al gore didnt run. i am a combat infantryman and i know theres more than the war. few people see the oncoming environmental crisis. the corporate capitalistic pigs currently controlling government ensure we stay in the dark before we stay in the burning sunlight. imagine a gore/obama or gore/clark ticket. UNSTOPPABLE. oh yeah about ron paul. i love the guy to, about most things(poor health care view ,but would legalize marijuana ) but the real reason hes such a good man is because hes really not a republican, hes a libertarian (research!). although i realize democratic is the only way to get things done right now, i too am a libertarian at heart, and if people REALLY knew what that meant they would be to.

[Imagevision]

124. Wasn't Lieberman Gore's running mate? wtf was that about?!!

[rosesaylavee]

126. It was about the times in which he was chosen...

7 years wasn't that long ago but here ya go...

There was a severe swing to the right during Clinton's last term and it was felt that choosing a right leaning DEM would bring right leaning voters on board. I think it was more the DLC's choice rather than Gore's personal choice. I wasn't there but that is what I understand to have happened.

Lieberman didn't lose the election for Gore. Gore/Lieberman won. And by the largest number of votes ever in any election. The SCOTUS delivered the position to Junior anyway.

[rosesaylavee]

125. Gore if he runs

Dodd if he doesn't

[Bryn]

128. Kucinich

:)

[JANdad]

131. Kicking

[eowyn_of_rohan]

132. I voted for Edwards before I saw Big Al's name on the list

Retract one Edwards vote and put it in the Gore column.