Why I Should Vote for _________.

[RoyGBiv]

I am an undecided voter. This is typical of me and most of those in my circle of politically aware friends. In any kind of general election, you can be sure I'll vote for the Democrat, even if I have to hold my nose to do so. But in primary elections, all bets are off. I tend not to make a decision until a month or more before the election itself and am still open to change right up to election day in some cases, pending some dramatic event. (I switched my choice in 2004 two weeks before the primary, for example because of a "deal breaker" issue the candidate I had been supporting started suddenly trumpeting.)

Since this primary season began, I have not argued for a particular candidate here or elsewhere, nor have I donated money to any individual. I'm gathering information, and I've tried to use DU for part of that gathering. Unfortunately, this has been difficult due to so many of the comments in favor of any given candidate being focused almost exclusively on the failings of another.

So, here's your chance. It's time for me to start narrowing it down to an individual, someone to whom I feel comfortable donating, sporting their bumper sticker, and talking about with others. I am requesting information, an argument in favor of the candidate *you* support. Obviously given all the passion on DU of late, some strong arguments must exist in favor of these candidates, but I'm not seeing a lot of them. I will not argue to the contrary on any pro-candidate argument, although I may ask questions that are of the "devil's advocate" variety. Arguments for candidates that involve a majority focus on the bad aspects of other candidates will be ignored. Please limit arguments to those candidates who have actually declared.

If this doesn't sink like a stone, I hope to make my first donation to a candidate by Monday.

Thank you for your attention.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. They are all good. Donate to the DNC or one of the Dem congressional funds

No point pouring your money into a primary battle if you don't have a strong commitment to one person or another. Donate to sources where the money will be used to fight republicans.

[RoyGBiv]

3. I've done that ...

But I'm increasingly getting a lot of questions from other undecideds about who I am supporting from friends and acquaintances. I keep giving wishy-washy answers.

The truth is, I have not seen many arguments in favor of any specific candidate, and I'm having trouble making one myself. They all have strengths and weaknesses. I'd just like to see what others think.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. My primary philosophy is somewhat cynical, but practical...

Whoever wins the nomination is the best at winning. The person I like most never wins, but the party would be crazy to nominate whoever I like most. So I take it all in, assuming the process will held discover who can best withstand the pressures of a big political race without self-destructing.

The preson with the best positions won't nessecarily be the best president.
The person who would be the best president won't nessecarily be the best electoral candidate.
And only the best electoral canidates are likely to win.

Coolest Positions: Kucinnich
Most effective Presidnt: Biden
Most dependable campaigner: Hillary (I think her de facto campaign manager knows a thing or two about electoral politics.)

[RoyGBiv]

8. That's an important point ...

And, it's not all that cynical if one takes a broader view, I think.

A friend of mine and I had a discussion about this very thing not long ago. Winning the nomination shows a couple of things that don't have a lot to do with policy positions but speak to the candidate's ability to govern. Someone who is a poor campaigner, but has all the "right" policies would have a lot of trouble implementing those policies. The ability to "win" is somewhat intangible as a factor in determining a candidate to support prior to an election, but it still has importance.

This is why I don't completely disregard a candidate's ability to raise funds. While I do think we need a sweeping reevaluation of how political campaigns are financed in this country, with the current system, it matters that a candidate can organize and attract money. The next step is finding the source of the money, of course.

[still_one]

4. No they are NOT all good. A few are extremely hawkish, anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research

In 2008 there will be 26 republican seats up for reelection, and only 12 Democratic

If we take the Senate and the House like I expect, they should be able to over-ride any veto

In 2008, whoever is president will most likely appoint several Supreme Court justices. There is no question that Roe V Wade WILL be overturned if the republicans win, which I do not think they will

If we win the White House, even if it is a person that believes we should stay the course in Iraq, Congress should have the power, not only to override vetos, but repeal the IWR, and bring our troops home

This will be the real test of what the Democratic party stands for in 2008, because I expect a sweep of the excutive branch and Congress. There will be no excuses for the Democratic party then, they either stand up, or commit the Democratic party to irrelevence

[Yael]

2. Repost of Why I am Supporting John Edwards

Original thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3459028

Thought I would toss out a positive thread with all the negativity here today (that I too have contributed to :blush: )

These are not in any particular order and are a very small sample of issues he is campaigning on that are important to me. YMMV

1. I believe his healthcare plan is the most feasible to bring us to UHC

http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care /

2. He is taking a very strong stance on alternative energy

http://johnedwards.com/issues/energy /

3. He is taking a strong pro-education stance and supports college-for-all

http://johnedwards.com/issues/education/college-for-eve... /

4. His stance on strengthening the military as DEFENSIVE and rooting out the corruption within it

http://johnedwards.com/issues/military /

http://johnedwards.com/issues/homeland-security /

5. LONG overdue simplification of the tax code

http://johnedwards.com/issues/tax-simplification /

6. Going post-Enron on the predatory lenders

http://johnedwards.com/issues/predatory-mortgages /

7. Standing up for those of us who are paid for work, not paid for having money

http://johnedwards.com/issues/working-families /

On top of all of this (and I barely scratched the surface), I think he is the most electable in the GE and will be able to win over the indies and the (R)s who are fed up with the same old same

[RoyGBiv]

5. Excellent post ... question ...

Do you know of a position paper or stance he has taken on copyright/patent law?

Awhile back, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards were reported to have given broad outlines of how they intend to deal with this issue, but all I found said very little. The issue, for me, is that patent law especially is ridiculous and currently informed by ignorant bureaucrats who are holding to a definition of patents that does not work well in the modern age and in effect stifles innovation and enriches corporations who don't produce anything, rather buy up patents for ridiculous things like "one-click shopping" and hold them hostage.

On a broader scale, how the candidates intend to deal with technology is an important issue for me.

[Yael]

7. Actually, I haven't

and I am in the industry. Can you make a note to PM me linkage if you uncover any information from our candidates on this?

[RoyGBiv]

9. Will do ...

I am fairly confident most of the candidates at least have technological awareness, which has been sorely lacking among our top politicians and has led to all sorts of disastrous laws and policies. So, they all have a better chance at having an informed position.

One candidate, who I will not name here because it goes against the purpose of the thread, has a specific position on patents I oppose strongly, but it's not Edwards since I don't really know what his position is.

[MH1]

10. Here's a brief response on Obama, Richardson, and Dodd

I haven't picked a candidate yet but I guess these are my top 3. Not necessarily in that order.

Obama - because when you read his bio, it is clear that he values public service in the same way that attracted me to Kerry. I'm generally on board with his positions, I like him as a person from everything I've seen, and the answers I've heard from him on debate questions have usually satisfied me.

Richardson - he has the most foreign policy cred of any of the candidates - he has shown many times that he can work with other leaders to resolve issues. And frankly, I think with the state Bush is leaving this country in, this one ability may be far more important than anything else. But on top of that, he has a great energy policy (and experience there, too, as Secy of Energy), he instituted PAPER BALLOTS in New Mexico, and he agrees with me on certain points that can be a tough sell with the purist liberal crowd (gun control - fix what we have rather than make more laws; line item veto - it's a good thing (my reason is that it will force Congress to stop doing omnibus bills loaded with non-germane stuff that should be voted on independently)).

Dodd - I haven't looked much into Dodd but he got the IWR vote right and he has been a solid, strong liberal voice. He doesn't "grab" me but I plan to look at his record and positions more closely before making a final choice.

The others pretty much have disqualifying points with me, but I won't go into those here. :)

[RoyGBiv]

12. Interesting ... thanks

First real information anyone's presented to me personally about Richardson. I like some of those positions myself.

Question on the line-item veto: Not wanting to challenge you or anything, just wanting a clearer picture of where you and he stand on it. My perception of the line-item veto has always been that it would allow an executive to do things like pass an appropriations bill but veto a condition on it, such as passing a military funding bill that was contingent on setting a time table for Iraq. That is, it could basically give the executive official power to change the meaning of laws as Congress intended them.

Of course, the Shrub does that now with his dubious signing statements, but I still insist this is yet another in his series of abuses of power that are grounds for impeachment. But that's another argument...

I agree with the broad principle some advocates of line-item veto follow, i.e. making each bill clear and not riddled with irrelevant riders.

[MH1]

17. As most recently proposed, it allows only vetoing of an item of spending

I don't believe it would allow the elimination of a condition while keeping the spending.

Also, the "vetoed" line item would go back to Congress for a vote specifically on that item. This is the part I like, because I would like to see Congress get much more efficient in the voting process, and vote on more items individually. For example, I didn't like that hate-crimes legislation was tacked onto a DoD bill (although line item veto would probably not address that case). To me, the hate crimes legislation should stand on its own, and legislators shouldn't be able to hide behind the other provisions of a totally unrelated bill.

It's been a while since I looked at this, but here is a collection of links and references that I had saved up.

1. 109th Congress, Bill number S.2381
2. Open CRS access to CRS Report on the 2006 LIV bill: http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL33517
3. Wikipedia "Line Item Veto": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto
4. Wikipedia "Line Item Veto Act of 1996": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996
5. Congressional Testimony of Stephen Moore, Director of Fiscal Policy Studies, The Cato Institute. March 23, 2000 http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-sm032300.html
6. Thomas page on line item vetoes in the 105th Congress (after passage of LIV act of 1996): http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d105/lineitem.html ; this page provides a link to find the actual LIV's carried out by Clinton under that bill.
7. Congressional Budget Office report: The Line Item Veto after One Year. April 1998. http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=454&sequence=0
8. CRS Report for Congress: Line Item Veto Act of 1996: Lessons from the States. Louis Fisher, Senior Specialist in Separation of Powers, Government Division. December 26, 1996. http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/government/gov-8.cfm
9. http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/10/29/14234/704/25#c25

[RoyGBiv]

18. Ah, thank you ...

That's much more palatable to my senses.

I must admit my direct experience with the line-item veto has been in Oklahoma where it's somewhat regularly proposed, mostly by Republicans wanting to gut education funding and other social services. Governor Belmon wanted it so he could basically do away with the Rehabilitative Services, which does piddly things like help provide education and find jobs for the blind ... ya know, unimportant "pork." So, my perspective is skewed.

The basic idea itself, though, has always appealed to me for reasons already mentioned, and the function of it as you present it could have beneficial effects I think.

[Breeze54]

11. Donate to Feingold's 'Progressive Patriots Fund'

"The Progressive Patriots Fund is dedicated to promoting a progressive
reform agenda and supporting candidates across the country."

- Senator Russ Feingold

http://www.progressivepatriotsfund.com/

------------------

Support your favorite anti-war Dem too!

[RoyGBiv]

13. How are they spending their money?

Serious question, not a challenge. I noted the Pick a Progressive Patriot section. Just wondering if they do other things or are involved in the Presidential race.

Thanks for the pointer, btw. I didn't know about this.

[Breeze54]

14. I didn't see any presidential candidate endorsement there.

I don't think they're doing any presidential support.

Just other progressive incumbents and new candidates.

http://www.progressivepatriotsfund.com/about/index.html

About the Progressive Patriots Fund

The Progressive Patriots Fund is dedicated to promoting a progressive reform agenda and supporting candidates across the country.

This organization enables us to be a part of a larger national effort to build the Democratic Party throughout America. We are able to travel across the country, listen to others, speak out on important issues and advance a progressive reform agenda.

The challenges far too many Americans face every day did not go away with the past election. I will continue to give voice to those who believe we must work to provide health care for all Americans, protect and create jobs, ensure fiscal responsibility, and fight terrorism while also protecting our freedoms.

In both so-called red and blue states, people’s voices need to be heard. That is why we intend to help continue a dialogue about how we move forward as a country united by the values we share and the challenges we face together.

-Senator Russ Feingold
Honorary Chair, Progressive Patriots Fund

[RoyGBiv]

15. Cool beans ...

We need more of that.

[Breeze54]

16. I agree! I donated a small amt.

yesterday. He sent an e-mail requesting help to raise $20K for the 20 Featured Candidates.

https://secure.ga1.org/05/fr0907?qp_source=web%5ffr0907a">Help Us Support Democrats Who Stand With Russ

The American people have demanded action to redeploy our troops out of Iraq.
While too many in Congress, both Republican and Democrat, have failed to heed
this call, there are Democrats in the House that have stood up and supported
Russ's efforts to end the war. We've identified 20 freshman House Democrats
who have joined us in our efforts to use Congress's 'power of the purse' to
safely redeploy our troops out of Iraq - and who will likely face stiff challenges
next year.

We need your help to raise $20,000 so that the Progressive Patriots Fund can stand
with them and contribute $1,000 to each of these 20 distinguished Members of Congress.

Help us recognize those who have supported our efforts to end the war.

http://www.progressivepatriotsfund.com/candidates/standing-with-russ.html?source=web_fr0907a">Click here to learn more about the 20 freshman Democrats that stood with Russ.

[kad7777]

19. Gather information on each candidate

I have always been a moderate, so I can swing in different directions on issues. I have always voted for who I thought would do the best job for our country and it's citizens, as well as a candidate with a sound foreign policy. A person who can get things done no matter the party, who is smart, experienced, vastly knowledgeable, and has a keen sense of diplomacy. That being said, I haven't voted for a Republican President since Ronald Reagan.

So, my advice to you or anyone who is undecided or is just beginning to pay attention, is find out what ALL the candidates stand for (on MANY issues). They all have web sites, and you can find out how they stand and their solutions to issues that face our nation. Then, come to your own conclusions. I believe all the Democratic candidates have good AND bad points. Weigh them all, decide what's crucial in the times we live in, and make a decision. It's certainly not easy. Don't rely solely on the media, be it TV, magazines, papers, etc. Do your own homework. It's our duty as Americans. I find it frustrating when I hear people tell me they're voting for someone simple because of "one issue". For the most part, I believe that's ignorant and selfish.

I have a difficult time with the media coverage on the candidates. Democrat or Republican. I believe it's blatantly unfair to many. And I would voice that opinion if "my" candidate was deemed the so called "front runner" from the polls and the fund raising aspect.

In closing, I'd also say I'm not on the side of US and THEM. I don't believe you should vote for a "side", whether you're holding your nose or not. Vote for the candidate that you feel will be THE BEST President. After all, isn't that WHO it should be?

Just my opinion. Sorry I ranted a bit. Hope it helped.

[RoyGBiv]

21. What they stand for ...

That's essentially what I'm trying to do here. I've visited all the websites, looked over voting records, policy statements, etc. But, if that were the only yard stick I used for picking a candidate I wouldn't need to talk about it at all.

Discussing candidate's qualities and how others view them is often, in my view, a better judge of that candidate than any given policy position. The followers of certain candidates also often know more about them than what those candidates even advertise during the campaign season itself when trying not to piss off too many people is a part of the game they all play. It's usually a bit harder to find a candidate's full position on controversial issues during a campaign, in other words, as they modify it with language that doesn't really do anything to elucidate what they truly believe. Voting records are better for this. Policy positions can sometimes be completely worthless, constructed as they are to be as vague as possible at times.

I can make up my own mind and, in the end, will do so. I'd just like to hear some other perspectives of the positive attributes people have of the candidates they support, rather than the litany of why I should vote against candidate X.

Thanks for your perspective as well. Good to know I'm not alone in trying to search for who I believe to be the best candidate.

[kad7777]

23. Well, OK..if you want my opinion....

HER'S MY GUY



Before we get into a few reasons why I like Joe Biden, when you get a moment, please visit the link below and watch a video I produced to show my support for Joe.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OtGCaqOdIJ4

So...here are a few reasons:

Biden’s Iraq plan scores Senate win

The Senate found its first bipartisan consensus on the Iraq war Wednesday, dealing a minor rebuke to the Bush administration and a major boost to Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.).

Two of Biden’s presidential rivals, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Chris Dodd (Conn.), joined with fellow Democrats to back the political remedy for Iraq that he has promoted for more than a year. Biden’s amendment calling for a decentralized Iraqi government passed 75-23 and won over 26 Republicans.

Biden billed his vision of diverse federal regions in Iraq as a strong challenge to President Bush’s war policy, and Democratic leaders who were cool to the plan earlier this year declared Wednesday that the new Congress finally had prodded Bush toward a new approach to Iraq.

“It’s an achievement by Congress,” said Sen. John Warner (R-Va.).

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) missed the vote on Biden’s plan as well as a vote on Iran offered by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), both of which were added to the defense authorization bill. Obama’s office has said he would likely support the Biden language.

The Bush administration previously has opposed a mandate for federalizing the Iraqi government, but the State Department did not comment publicly Wednesday on Biden’s plan.

Meanwhile, every Democratic leader backed Kyl’s amendment on Iraq, which called for Tehran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps to be designated a terrorist group. More incendiary language referring to the use of “all instruments of U.S. power in Iraq” to block Iran’s activities was dropped from the amendment, but Biden and Dodd still opposed the language. The amendment passed 76-22.

Clinton supported the Iran amendment, exposing her to continued criticism from anti-war groups active in the Democratic presidential primary.


The Biden Crime Law

Since coming to the Senate, Biden has written some of the most innovative and far-reaching criminal justice proposals in recent history, including the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, also known as the Biden Crime Law, which was signed by the President in 1994. The law is responsible for putting more than 100,000 additional police officers on the streets; assisting states in building prisons and boot camps to make punishing crime more cost-effective; helping fund "drug courts" that combine intensive supervision, drug testing and treatment for non-violent first offenders; and supporting existing juvenile crime prevention programs that are proven successes. The law also banned 19 of the deadliest assault weapons and their copies and increased penalties for interstate gun trafficking and for using semiautomatic weapons in violent or drug trafficking offenses. The Biden Crime Law has been widely credited with the dramatic drop in crime rates during the 1990s.


Preventing Violence Against Women

Included in the 1994 Crime Law is Senator Biden's landmark Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which is the first federal law to address gender-based crimes in a comprehensive way. This bill strengthened federal penalties for abusers, stalkers, and repeat sex offenders and provided over $3.8 billion to states to fund battered women’s shelters, train police, prosecutors and nurses, and established a national domestic violence hotline. Senator Biden also authored the widely acclaimed Violence Against Women Act of 2000. In addition to extending many of the successful programs from the original Violence Against Women Act, VAWA 2000 includes $1 billion to help prosecutors track down domestic abusers, $875 million to expand shelters for battered women and their children, $200 million for legal assistance for victims and $140 million to stop violence against women on college campuses.


Preventing Genocide

Through his work on the Foreign Relations Committee, Biden has sought to promote the use of American power to stop dictators who commit crimes against humanity or genocide. In the 1990s, Biden was among the first to call for active American leadership to end Serbian aggression in Bosnia, and likewise urged U.S. action in Kosovo to stop Slobodon Milosevic’s genocidal actions there. He has urged strong U.S. and international action to prevent genocide in Darfur, and authored legislation to engage NATO and provide additional sanctions to pressure the Sudanese regime.


Strengthening U.S. Diplomacy

Biden has worked across party lines to strengthen American diplomacy. In the late 1990s, he joined with Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms on legislation to reorganize the government’s foreign policy agencies, and co-authored the landmark "Helms-Biden" legislation authorizing the payment of nearly $1 billion in back dues owed to the United Nations, contingent on U.N. reforms. Senator Biden also has been leader in expanding U.S. radio and television broadcasting into the Muslim world to explain U.S. policies and counter anti-American propaganda.
Senator Biden’s legislative interests have focused on a wide range of foreign policy issues, including arms control and non-proliferation, European security, the Middle East peace process, and international narcotics policy. He has traveled widely during his Senate career and meets regularly with visiting heads of state and foreign ministers.

[RoyGBiv]

24. Excellent. Thank you ...

I must admit I have not considered Biden, mostly because I know so little about him. That's why I wish those who support certain candidates would speak of those candidates' attributes and qualities rather than simply try to tear down the opposition.

A certain individual on DU has been making a career lately out of tearing down three specific candidates in lengthy rants but only mentioning the suggested alternative candidate by name once or twice and never with an actual argument in favor of that candidate.

The general election too often boils down to voting against the other person rather than for a certain candidate. Primaries should be different because of the wider array of choices available.

[Labors of Hercules]

20. Wait for Gore. nt

[RoyGBiv]

22. Assuming he does enter ...

Why should I choose him?

OnEdit: I ask partly because he was not my primary choice in 2000.

[avrdream]

25. Hmmm, you're in Oklahoma.

Sort of like when I was in Texas......will your vote matter in the end? Not trying to be cynical at all because I actually like nearly ALL of our Democratic candidates and believe that you can't go wrong by voting for any of them.

I am a bit out of touch when I ask about Oklahoma - is it becoming a purple state?

On another note, I was happy to read that you have gone to all the candidates' websites to research. Not many undecideds are doing that.

[RoyGBiv]

26. I'm a junkie ...

I research candidates until my brain turns gooey, and asking others what they think is a part of it. I can read and read and listen and listen on my own, but often the perception others have of an individual will open my mind to things I had never considered, no matter how much I've read or heard.

As for Oklahoma, our politics are weird. Examining the Populists of the late 19th century and the Progressives of the early 20th would give people a lot of insight into the way our politics work. We've always been purple when viewed from a certain perspective. We have more registered Democrats than Republicans, and Democrats still tend to gain office in local contests more than Republicans. The "northeastern liberal," which is defined more by perception than reality, will not win anything here in the foreseeable future. The people tend to be more moderate to conservative Democrats on social issues and more liberal on economic ones. There's a lot of poverty here, so the populist message works because it is more socially conservative while economically beneficial to the poorer classes. But, the old Republican tactic of dividing classes along racial lines unfortunately still works too, and people end up voting against their own self-interests due to latent racist attitudes and fear.

Edwards has a lot of support here. (He's actually been here multiple times, as has his wife. And I'll note just for giggles that the last major candidate who did this was Jimmy Carter who, while he didn't win the state overall, got majorities in many counties and only lost here by around 12,000 votes.) We'll almost assuredly give our meager electoral votes to a Republican in the general, but this is one reason I want to make a good decision during the primaries because my vote may actually count for something there. (Latest polls show Clinton and Edwards in a dead heat.)

[RoyGBiv]

27. Kick