I'm SO glad I'm not a Republican

[Mythsaje]

There are good things to say about any of our potential candidates. And more than a few bad things as well.

My top choice is Edwards. I do have to say that he blinks too damn much. It's weird and a little disconcerting. But I like his attitude, his willingness to take on the entrenched interests in Washington DC and his awareness that the current status quo is dangerous not only to America, but to the rest of the world as well. He can communicate to people on both sides of the aisle, and make even would-be Republicans understand how much they're being damaged by the economic policies of this administration and the system under which they rule.

Obama strikes me as a bit naive. Not so much internationally, because I think he's right that we do need to actually talk with our enemies as well as with our friends. But I don't think he actually knows the lengths the Republicans will go to in order to destroy people that follow an ideology they themselves don't like. He's been fortunate so far, but he'll learn better soon enough, particularly if he becomes our nominee. The Republicans, and their corporate media lackeys, are like sharks--once they smell any blood in the water, they'll go into a feeding frenzy and it'll be sheer luck if he's able to climb ashore before they tear him to pieces. On the other hand, I think he's a charismatic, intelligent man who could do a great deal of good for America if he can avoid being damaged beyond repair by their attack strategies and his ultimate discovery that they're not very nice people at all.

Clinton strikes me as opportunistic. She wants to be President so bad she'll say just about anything to anyone to seem like THEIR candidate. She tries to campaign from the middle, to avoid anything remotely distressing to whomever she's addressing at the time. She'll sound like an anti-war candidate to an anti-war crowd, a pro-labor candidate to union members, and a friend to corporate lobbyists to the people who can make the largest campaign contributions. This doesn't tell us how she'd govern, but it does tell us what she'll do to get there. Despite her pro-corporate persona, she'd be a vast improvement over what's in there now. She'd be good for women's rights, better for the environment, and would appoint judges and justices who wouldn't be RW nutcases.

And just for the sake of argument, let's examine Kucinich for a second. His biggest negative is that EVEN HERE on DU there are people who absolutely LOATHE him. Drop into the Skeptics forum sometime and have a look around. In all fairness, they hate everyone who has even a single "woo" belief, but a potential Presidential candidate with as many new age beliefs as Kucinich has makes them foam at the mouth. The RW and their pet sharks would tear him to ribbons before he could get in a single intelligent statement. Politically he's in my general neighborhood. But there's no way someone with his beliefs would ever have a chance of getting into the White House. Mitt has a better chance, in my opinion.

Flame me if you will, but this is my take on all our candidates. I like Kucinich, but I'm supporting Edwards because I think he's the best choice to go up against the Republican field. But I'd stand up for any of them because they're ONE HELL of a lot better than the alternative. I might not like Hillary for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that I think she's pretty much the Status Quo candidate--the least amount of change when change is PRECISELY what we need, and the more the better--but I'm not stupid enough to cut off my nose to spite my face.

An Edwards/Obama ticket would be WONDERFUL, as would an Edwards/Clark or Obama/Clark ticket. We need these people in charge. Even Clinton/Obama or Clinton/Edwards would be tolerable.

We can do this, folks. The world is depending on us.



Edited because I changed the title of the post and forgot to edit the first sentence before posting.

[puebloknot]

1. The irony, re Kucinich's beliefs...

...is that people will blow him off as a looney tunes kind of guy, but Hillary, Edwards, Obama are "right proud" of their Christian belief in...can you believe it in this scientific age...a literal virgin birth! And the one about Jesus turning water into wine, and cloning a bunch of fish to feed a hungry crowd.

I have to say, I'll vote for anyone who can do any of the above because if they can do *that*, then by George (sic) they can create a voting system where my vote will be counted!

Not arguing your point. Just kind of musing here! :)

[Mythsaje]

2. I agree with the premise

but, unfortunately, the largest portion of Americans believe the same things.

[NavyDavy]

3. and they have the right to believe what they want....we do have

freedom of religion or freedom of no religion, no matter what goppers say.....i will vote for whomever gets the Dem Nom......i will never vote repuke or a indy that is supported by repigs or who is in it just to steal votes from Dems(Nader, etc)

[puebloknot]

10. Yes, we have historically had freedom *of* (and hopefully *from*)...

...religion in America. As long as no one tries to force their religious views on me, and as long as we maintain separation of church and state, I'm fine with people believing what they wish, no matter how bizarre! :)

If Louis Farrakhan got the Dem nomination, would you vote for him? How about Jane Fonda? :) Just razzin' you!

[DangerDave921]

4. Edwards

What do you like best about Edwards? His $400 haircuts? Or his massive mansion? Or is it the money he earned from Wall Street? Or is it maybe his ability to convince juries to award millions of dollars in cerebral palsy cases? There's just so much to choose from!

The guy got rich as a trial attorney. He then parlayed that into a senate seat (one term only). He had a failed VP bid. And he has zero history of having any understanding of any substantive issue that affects our world. His one mantra (two americas) is a complete joke when you realize how he himself has chosen to live.

What makes you think he can communicate to people on both sides of the aisle?

[BanzaiBonnie]

5. Well, you have your talking points down

Apparently SOME people still believe whatever they're told to believe without questioning.

[DangerDave921]

20. Oops

Looks like I struck a nerve. Sorry to all the folks on here who were offended. I personally do not like Edwards, and I don't think he has any qualifications or the gravitas to be president. He totally rubs me the wrong way. I think because I simply don't believe him. Maybe it's just a visceral reaction, but I don't trust him. And that's the end of it for me.

a. He lives like high on the hog, takes money from schools to lecture on poverty, yet professes to care deeply about the poor. Sorry, I ain't buying it.

b. What legislation did Edwards draft as a Senator? I don't mean vote for (voting is easy). I mean actually draft and pass? What issues has he actually led on? Spearheaded? What did he accomplish as a Senator?

c. He has no foreign relations expertise or experience.

d. As for being a trial attorney and making money, nothing wrong with that. I'm a trial attorney myself and I do medical malpractice too. And I know first-hand that many of these multi-million dollar lawsuits are without merit. Cerebral palsy cases are notoriously sketchy on the medicine. And no, I am not in favor of big corporations screwing the little guy. I'm in favor of honest verdicts based on hard science. The fact that he was able to earn millions as a trial attorney does not in any way correlate to him being qualified to be president.

[Kajsa]

28. You followed the Rovian playbook to the 'T'.

Karl would be proud.

[DangerDave921]

29. Good argument

Wonderful use of your mind there, my friend. If anyone disagrees with you, just respond by calling them a Repub and accuse them of using talking points. Excellent debating skills.

[Kajsa]

31. Thank you!

Naw, i just call 'em as I see 'em.

I have no problem with differences of opinion.
I have no problem with debates.
I engage in them often here.

However--
The " debates" lacking political discourse, following attack-only mode
and bringing up every single Repub talking point( haircut- mansion) gets called on it.

Right now, with your low post count and attack-only mode, you appear to be
a troll.

[Bake]

21. I think he got 'em from the RNC.

Or maybe Rush O'Hannity ...

Bake

[Mythsaje]

22. Well, Edwards wants to make attorneys financially responsible

for knowingly pursuing fraudulent or frivolous lawsuits. That's reason enough for some lawyers to dislike him.

:shrug:

Just sayin'

[Vickers]

7. Er....I think you're at the wrong site, comrade.

:rofl:

[byronius]

9. Dave, you are indeed Dangerous.

There's so many logical fallacies and bits of misinformation in your diatribe that I have to wonder about you.

'The guy got rich as a trial attorney.' You say that like it's a bad thing, like helping individuals seek satisfaction from negligent or criminal corporations is automatically wrong. Very revealing statement, Dangerous Dave. You apparently like large concentrations of wealth and power, and think that anything that affects their margin is evil. Hmm. That would make you a...

'He had a failed VP bid.' Dude, where's my missing eight million electronic votes?

'And he has zero history of having any understanding of any substantive issue that affects our world.' Wow. Considering what I know of and what I've seen of Edward's grip on 'substantive issues', on history, on the rights of human beings, and on any number of other issues on which Edwards has shown a profound and brave grasp of, I have to wonder about your understanding. Again, very revealing. What substantive issues does Edwards not address, IYHO? Hm.


'What makes you think he can communicate to people on both sides of the aisle?' Perhaps the fact-based reality thing? No, you're right. I do not think that Edwards can speak to the Republican side of the aisle; nor would I want him to, since they're mostly anti-American criminal conspiracists. In fact, I'm glad he doesn't speak to them. Fuck them. They all belong in prison. I'd hate it if Edwards appealed to fascistic anti-US nutjobs.

'His one mantra (two americas) is a complete joke when you realize how he himself has chosen to live.' This is a textbook example of a listed logical fallacy called 'Ad Hominem Tu Quoque' -- educate yourself:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html

Indeed, I could commit this fallacy by suggesting that your arguments are invalid because you have declared yourself a 'Danger'.

Dude, you so sound freeperish. Edwards is the most progressive, honorable candidate in the field with the exception of Kucinich; you're embarassing yourself with this dull diatribe. Where are you getting this Koolaid?

Don't tell me. Don't want to know.

[K8-EEE]

11. You know what, I don't care if he spends $40,000 on his hair

What the hell difference does it make, he made a lot of money, good for him. FDR was rich too, so what.

You know, I get my hair dyed every month and between that and cutting it and tipping the shampoo girl and all it can get up to $150, just in my local little salon, so if he gets people to come out to the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night to fit his schedule, and he can afford it, big fucking deal.

As you can tell the haircut issue is very :eyes: for me at this point, God, DONE TO DEATH!

And yeah I'm for Edwards in the primary and will GLADLY vote for any or all of the rest in the election, from Kucinich to Clinton they are all 1000 times better than the dreck the GOP is putting out!

[Mythsaje]

13. You show me a guy who's lost his job to outsourcing

who doesn't have anywhere left to turn, and I'll show you someone who KNOWS he's been screwed. THAT'S the person Edwards can reach.

His voting record, if you're interested.

Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES to Increase subsidies for women-owned non-profit business. (Mar 2004)
Rated 15% by the US COC, indicating an anti-business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program. (May 1999)
Voted NO on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Rated B- by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
Rated 83% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record.
Voted NO on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on establishing free trade between US & Singapore. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on establishing free trade between the US and Chile. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on expanding fee trade to the third world. (May 2000)
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record. (Dec 2002) THIS WAS LOWEST CATO RATING FOR ANYONE RUNNING IN '04
Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
Voted YES on funding for National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES to require health insurance for every child. (Aug 2003)
Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES to let states make bulk Rx purchases, and other innovations. (May 2003)
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES to end government propaganda on Medicare bill. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on military pay raise of 4.8%. (Feb 1999)
Voted YES to federalize aviation security. (Nov 2001)
Voted YES to hiding sources made post-9-11 analysis impossible. (Jul 2004)
Voted YES to CIA depends too heavily on defectors & not enough on HUMINT. (Jul 2004)
Voted YES to administration did not pressure CIA on WMD conclusions. (Jul 2004)
Voted NO on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
Voted NO on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
Rated 100% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on using the Social Security Surplus to fund tax reductions. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999)
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on More tax cuts and tax credits for 98% of Americans. (Jul 2004)
Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)
Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
Voted NO on phasing out the estate tax ("death tax"). (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
Rated 22% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

[byronius]

18. Thanks for this. I like him even better now.

B- from the Hemp people, though. Hmm. John, you've got some 'splainin' to do.

[puebloknot]

16. "He had a failed VP bid." Question for you:

Have you heard about the folks in Ohio who messed with the vote count in that "failed VP bid"? :shrug:

[DangerDave921]

23. No I haven't

I've been living under a rock these past couple years.

[puebloknot]

24. Well...

...here's some cyber-ointment for your bruised little noggin! :)

Of course, you might be a Hobbit, and your under-a-rock place might be great!

[LanternWaste]

6. I'm still firmly stuck in the "undecided" category....

I'm still firmly stuck in the "undecided" category. I've yet to even rule out candidate out. Honestly, I think this is the best crop of candidates we've had in the past couple of election. Each one of the candidates has some pretty stellar and positive positions, each one seems to be on their game, and each one has a much fuller knowledge of the world around them.

The GOP candidates on the other hand? Doesn't really matter because Limbaugh hasn't told them who to vote for yet...

(I tried to be nice, I really did! :evilgrin: )

[Kajsa]

8. I will vote for the Democratic nominee

In November 2008.

There is no way in hell I'm voting for a Repub or an Indie
that will take away votes from the Dems.

:kick:

[NMDemDist2]

14. me too and me either but....

I'll be damned if I know who's getting my vote on Super Tuesday.....

I have it narrowed down though.....

to 6 candidates :rofl:


:banghead:

[Kajsa]

27. Hi AZ Dem! Wow- you're in the same

boat I'm in!

I've got it down to 5 candidates!

- wish we could clone the best of each
and put it in one candidate. ;-)

:rofl: Argh!

:hi:

[Totally Committed]

12. Me, too. At this point I have enough guilt from being a Democrat!

I couldn't deal with being a Republican. ;)

TC

[libodem]

15. no shit...n/t

[Scriptor Ignotus]

17. Obama

took a shelling this past month and I think he navigated the "shark infested waters" fairly well. he fights back.

[Mythsaje]

19. They're just getting started...

He thinks they'll play nice if he wins. They won't. Ever.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

30. on what evidence do you say that?

"he thinks they'll play nice". I've heard numerous instances in which he says the opposite. When Hillary or Biden or Dodd have attacked him, he's hit back.

[djjimz]

26. Yes, he does.

And we need that in a candiadate -- he also never get's rattled no matter what they throw at him. That's another thing I like about him.
If he's the candidate, he'll have my vote and support.
I haven't made up my mind which, in this feild of fine Dem's, I'm backing yet, but he is positively a posibility.
I just hope everyone keeps the debate honest and clean.
:dem:

[djjimz]

25. If John is the candidate...

He will have my vote and support!
Thanks for the post and good luck to you.
:dem: