How do YOU decide who to support?

[Blue_Roses]

And yes, I am talking about ALL the Democratic candidates here:)

I was looking at MSNBC's number's last night on all the states that have voted so far--including the ones before it was just Clinton and Obama--and I have to say, we really did have a great group of candidates. I liked all of them and each one brought their own strengths to the table. But for people like Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, I just shake my head because each one would have made a great president. But why didn't we give them a fair shake? Was it the media? I watched every debate and never felt a preference toward any of them--including Obama or Clinton. I really liked them all.

Now as we are into this thing months later, I hopped off the fence to support one, but would still support the nominee no matter who it was. I was just curious to know what is it that makes one decide on a candidate?
Honesty, realism, kindness, wanting the best for the "little people" are just a few for me.

[Yael]

1. I went with Edwards because I lean to the populism flavor

Then, Obama because he has the coattails.

I haven't decided if I can vote for HRC. Definitely down ticket, but I don't know if I can pull that lever for her.

[msongs]

2. this year in the presidential it's hold my nose and vote for the (D) nt

[L. Coyote]

3. I'm watching the race from the sideline, and enjoy that more than being a partisan

I will decide when the convention decides. They were all great candidates.

[saltpoint]

4. What a good post and what a pleasant way to begin a weekend. Thank you

for this, Blue_Roses. Very nice.

I would have been able to support all 8 or our originals as opposed to exactly none of the Pukes' 12 or 14 originals, whatever the count was.

Two candidates remain standing for us; I'll support whichever of the two wins the nom in Denver. McCain is worse than bad news and he has to be rejected summarily to give a Democratic president the role of choosing the next SCOTUS appointments, and in the bargain we need to roll up impressive, working majorities in both chambers of the 111th Congress to shepherd legislation both to undo Bush's bad legislation and to initiate more inclusive, progressive reforms.

To your question, I like candidates who are prepared to persuade citizens that meaningful reform is in their best interest, and in their children's and grandchildren's interest, and in their neighbors' lives as well, that WE are the government, and government is not an alien, calculating pack of bureaucrats inside the Beltway dreaming of ways to rip off average working people.

It would help if our candidate could speak well and earn the Communicator status that Reagan and Clinton managed, only exceed it in charm -- something like the way Kennedy used language to persuade and advance a post-Eisenhower landscape. JFK and RFK left a legacy of language we can draw on for times to come. Problem-solving has to begin with understanding the problems, and language is an indispensable tool for understanding. Not least, WE need to frame the debate against the Republicans.

I want to look forward to a State of the Union address instead of dreading Bush's as I have for 7-8 years now.

Ideally a Democratic candidate, once elected, should be gifted at grassroots work to re-build our party and support a very heightened presence for Democrats in all 50 states at all levels of the ballot. Howard Dean's blueprint is extremely useful and urgent, IMO.

And I want a candidate who knows where Bolivia and Taiwan and New Orleans are on a map, and something about their cultures, and is possessed of the diplomatic maturity to acknowledge other cultures' significant contributions to the world mix, the outcome of which might be a return to the respect and fondness other countries formerly held for the United States. None of us ever had any quarrel with people in Iraq, or Vietnam, etc., yet certain of our presidents misrepresented us in a betrayal of our better angels.

A candidate would earn my attention and likely my vote if he or she opposed standaradized testing in public schools and was willing to pass a comprehensive Veterans Act to ensure that our veterans and their families were properly acknowledged and care for across the board.

[Blue_Roses]

13. awesome post

thank-you too!:)

I sometimes think GD-P has turned into tabloid politics and I just want us to remember our likenesses are more common than our differences. I know anger and frustration is part of politics, and I've got my share, but it's toxic, not only to the party, but to our personal health. I find I am more anxious and angry lately. It's not who I am and I'm sure a lot of others here feel the same way.

Great post and very insightful! Have a great weekend:hi:

[saltpoint]

15. - - - -

:toast: :dem:

[NJmaverick]

5. I took this approach- I figure they are all have pretty similar stances on the issues

So it came down to electability, leadership, experience and personal traits. That's why I support Obama. I feel he wins 3 out of 4 of those catagories, which is better than any of the others.

[SammyWinstonJack]

12. "which is better than any of the others"? You're kidding right?

Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, Biden, Kucinich, Clinton. Any of these have as much, and some have more of the traits you listed. At least one was polled nationally to beat any republican nominee. And it wasn't Obama.

[NJmaverick]

20. Polls are a nice tool, but I don't allow my tools to control me

Ultimately I draw on my own experiences and understanding of the Country and the political process

[Abacus]

30. Same here; I figured the issues were awash

So selections on leadership and integrity, the the presidential candidate focusing on the former and the vp candidate on the latter. I arrived at Obama/Edwards

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. I start with the mistrust of politicians in general.

Then start winnowing the field by looking for ones who have displayed some measure of common human decency. Which usually eliminates most of them.

After that, it's a matter of deciding who is likely to do the least damage to the world while in power.

[Blue_Roses]

17. lol

I can understand this...

[Labors of Hercules]

7. Straightforwardness. Singularity of purpose. Integrity.

I DESPISE false arguments, lies of omission and overt exaggerations for political gain.

[Stop Cornyn]

8. If you read GD-P, apparently most of us chose our candidate based on misogyny, ageism and naive hope

[Blue_Roses]

18. I live in Texas too

and I agree about Cornyn. Is this his six year mark for the Senate?

[Stop Cornyn]

23. Crazy Cornyn has been there almost six years now, but it seems much longer without Novocaine

[ScarletSniper]

29. Lmao..funny

[RichGirl]

9. wisdom

an example:

April 24, 2008
An Open Letter from Dr. Maya Angelou

Dear Friend:

I am writing to tell you about my friend, Hillary Clinton, and why I am
standing with her in her campaign for the presidency. I know the kind of

president Hillary Clinton will be because I know the person she is.

I am inspired by her courage and her honesty. She is a reliable and
trustworthy person. She is someone I not only admire but one for whom I
have profound affection.

Hillary does not waver in standing up for those who need a champion. She

has always been a passionate protector of families. As a child, she was
taught that all God’s children are equal, and as a mother, she
understood that her child wasn’t safe unless all children were safe

As I wrote about Hillary recently in a praise song: “She is the
prayer
of every woman, and every man who longs for fair play, healthy families,
good schools and a balanced economy.”

It may be easy to view Hillary Clinton through the narrow lens of those
who
would write her off or grind her down. Hillary sees us as we are, black
and
brown and white and yellow and pink and relishes our differences knowing
that fundamentally we are all more alike than we are unalike. She is
able to
look through complexion and see community.

She has endured great scrutiny, and still she dares greatly. Hillary
Clinton
will not give up on you, and all she asks is that you do not give up on
her.
She is a long-distance runner. I am honored to say I am with her for the

long run.

I am supporting Hillary Clinton because I know that she will make the
most
positive difference in people’ s lives and she will help our country

become what it can be. Whether you are her supporter, leaning towards
her, undecided, or supporting someone else, I believe Hillary Clinton
will
represent you – she will be a president for all Americans. It is
no
small thing that along the way we will make history together.

Vote for Hillary Clinton and show your support at www.hillaryclinton. com.
I
know she will make us proud.


TOGETHER, WE CAN WIN!

[Bonobo]

10. Who I think is a liar who will say anything to be elected is a big factor.

[mcctatas]

11. With me it was a slow bleed of my first choices...

Biden...out
Richardson...out
Edwards...out
Then I had to look at the remaining three (can't forget Mike Gravel, but since I wanted my vote to mean something I narrowed it to 2). Since thier positions are fairly close on the big issues, it came down to who do I trust more to be the president we need?

[TooBigaTent]

14. Very simple. I supported the only candidate (DK) who espoused and acted on

Democratic principles.

Now, there is no one left to support.

[Texas Hill Country]

16. i want someone that has a close platform to what i believe, that will win, and will get things done.

and the person that I KNOW will win vs McCain is Hillary.


The person I KNOW will get things done and pushed thru Congress is Hillary.

[flvegan]

19. I went with Kucinich because he very closely represents what I think we need.

Impeachment, end to the war, universal healthcare, gay marriage, womens rights...

But oh no...he's too short. Same height as McCain.

God forbid this country get what it really needs, and sees honest change rather than the usual pandering and spin.

[Midlodemocrat]

35. Me, too. Then Edwards.

Now, I'm just waiting for the GE.

[wowimthere]

21. The first criteria for me? Who voted for the Iraq Disaster and who didn't. Obama spoke against it.

Edwards and Clinton played politics with people's lives. I wanted someone who voted with "people" in mind first and not on the basis of their own political viability first. That's how Obama got my vote. Yes I liked Kucinich and Richardson because they didn't vote for this war as well but they didn't embody the language of change the way Obama did.

GOBAMA!

[graycem]

22. For me..

I value the truth most, but I am not so naive to believe they don't all fudge on it, I mean they are politicians attempting to appeal to the largest audience possible, they have to or they'll never be elected in this country. Still, I don't think he has done that on anything of real consequence.


But this time, I am voting on the war issue, first and foremost. I absolutely cannot see how so many people don't understand the position it has put us in, economically and in terms of security, and again being seen as the bullies we are. That angers me more than anything. The complete disregard for human life when they all know good and well it was for the oil. I voted for John Kerry, but I was bothered by his vote for it too because let's face it, you had to be under a rock to not know we were going there for the oil. If I, a person who is anything but a political junky knew, how could they have not known?? Our foreign policy is always tied to oil, but these senators and congress people didn't know? At least Kerry sought redemption, and tried to correct his mistake, and wouldn't have furthered their destructive, evil agenda.

The second reason, is the Constitution. This is why I support Obama. I have read his books, I like the way that he thinks, with a world view but in common sense terms, and his ability to see things from other perspectives, even if he disagrees. I do believe he has a deeper respect for the Constitution that the other candidates don't portray to me. That is supposed to be the main purpose of the Presidency... "I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." I want those words to have real meaning again.

[Irishonly]

24. I Went For Edwards

He is more populist.

[saltpoint]

26. He was more populist, and he and his wife would have been enormously

refreshing in the White House, too.

A lost opportunity for the United States.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

25. Policy positions, integrity...

...past behavior/actions, and gut response.

[SKKY]

27. I was an Edwards guy until he "suspended" his campaign...

...But I always liked Obama- there's something special about him. My dream ticket from the beginning would have been Edwards/Obama. On the whole, I agree with what most of the Democrats wanted on the big issues, so for me it comes down to my gut feeling and who will get us out of Iraq the quickest. Since I'm a vet currently on active duty, that's rather important to me.

[ScarletSniper]

31. At least Edwards apologized for his war vote.. I have two

cousins in Iraq now. I have serious issues with anyone that voted to support this bogus, bullshit, death dealing war! I'm voting for Obama.

[SKKY]

34. Good choice!

I'll be in Iraq/Afghanistan sometime early next year. It's a year gig I have to do. I'm not looking forward to it. Although I have no idea who they are, I hope your cousins are safe and keeping their heads down.

[FlaGranny]

28. Kucinich, by far, comes closest

to my own beliefs. I guess he's considered too "leftist" by the moderate Democrats, independents, and all Republicans, but I believe most Americans are more "leftist" than they think they are. I believe that if we chose presidents by policy only and no one ever saw their faces or heard their voices, Kucinich would be the overwhelming choice of most Americans. I really believe he gets discounted because he is short and not handsome and that really stinks.

I liked all the Candidates too. I was thrilled we had such good candidates and felt like we were in a total win-win situation, that is, until a few months ago.

Edited to change "all" Americans to "most" Americans.

[ruby slippers]

32. I choose on the majority of issues/policies that have me in the best interests...

things I consider....

*my current Social Security (McCain wants to do away with it)
*my autistic grandson (Obama is the only one to talk about autism specifically)
*healthcare (both Hil and B have plans, but I think B's plan to let you decide vs. a mandate is better)
*affordable college for my older grandchildren (B will set up a national service plan in exchange for tuition) waiver/volunteer to help in places we need it
*environment (B wants to create "green" jobs)
*Iraq (B will bring 'em home and not "obliterate" Iran and was the only one to vote against the war)
*integrity in politics (B wants to bridge the divide and restore political integrity)
etc. etc. etc.

[blm]

33. Do they RESPECT the citizens' right to open govt. or disrespect them to protect closed govt?

Any citizen who doesn't WANT the responsibility of the open government set up for us, should shut up and go move to a closed government country where they would be more comfortable.

[bigwillq]

36. Kucinich

is the closest one to my beliefs, and in which direction I want the country to proceed. DK is/was the most progressive of any of the DEM candidates this year.

[RichardRay]

37. In this case it was easy...

I have known one of Senator Obama's top staffers for 30 years. He's worked in Washington for one Democrat or another since before I met him. He's a principled, caring individual with a deep knowledge of US politics. When the senator he used to work for lost his seat he had a blizzard of job offers to come work for other influential members. He took the one from Senator Obama. As I've known this guy for a goodly portion of my adult life it didn't take much for me to decide who to support.

That's not a criteria I'd be able to argue that anyone else use unless they're lucky enough to have that kind of connection, but it works for me.

[Jed Dilligan]

38. I was a Kucinich man until he dropped out

The only one close to me on issues.

I was then looking at Edwards and Obama and decided Obama is more prepared to lead the country in the state it's in right now.

[Aloha Spirit]

39. I used this flow chart to determine who I was supposed to vote for

[LWolf]

40. Issues.

I start with the candidate who is best on issues. Or who is best on most, if there isn't one best on all.

Record. I look at their record to see if they walk their talk; to see if they consistently support the positions they say they do when it counts...when introducing legislation, when voting.

That's it for me. Issues and record.

Based on those criteria, we had a candidate who was obviously better than the rest. Dennis Kucinich.

Edwards had good positions this time out, but didn't have the prior record to back them, so he didn't come first.

Biden and Richardson were also very good in many areas.

HRC and Obama were tied for LAST on the criteria that matter to me. They still are.

[depakid]

41. A combination of policy stances and the present ability to win in November, 2008

In a blind taste test, it would be easy to pick Kucinich. Indeed, on an international (non-political) board that that I frequent, someone posted one of those checklist type quizzes, and not surpisingly, he came out as my preferred candidate - as he did for most of the members from abroad (which was a little surprising). Most of them didn't have a clue who he was, though the Brits warmed up a bit when they found out he was married to one of their own!

Most Americans, on the other hand came out quite differently- including those who I consider to be progressives.

The other trouble with Dennis is that he doesn't have the sort of non-verbals nor the persona that Americans typically associate with presidents. Neither, to an extent, do some of the others mentioned- though clearly if they'd gotten more press, they might have been able to show more of that.

Seems to me that in the states (and other countries as well) you need to have both. Kim Beazley (Australian Labor Party Leader) had the former- but couldn't seem to connect to the majority of Australians, and so instead they ended up with disastrous years under John Howard (which people down under are and will be paying dearly for).

Just as Americans will be paying dearly for their choices- their media's choices (this year, as in years past, I predict).

[Two Americas]

42. by their supporters

Of course. We have a representative democracy.

After all, we are not selecting the most qualified CEO to manage corporate America, we are not selecting a guru or spiritual leader who best "represents our personal values," we are not assessing whether or not a professor "deserves" tenure. We run celebrities and gurus and professors - style over substance - and then wonder why the public rejects them upon the same criteria. Gore and Kerry and Obama are "our kind of people" - we relate to them and identify with them as intellectuals: under-spoken, witty, urbane, academic, modern - that is why they get nominated, not for any political reasons. The majority of the public does not identify with those men, do not see them as gurus or heroes, do not relate to them or feel comfortable with them. Since they also refuse to advocate a strong pro-working class program, we are left with style and no substance, and our only hope is then to convert more people to our apolitical sentiments and preferences to be "like minded." That can never happen. A mass movement cannot be built when the criteria for membership in the movement is to belong to and indentify with a certain cultural group that will always be in a minority - by definition and intention.

I stand with the working class, with the forgotten and abused and left behind, with the poor people, with minority people, with the homeless, with those doing the work and producing the value.

Where they stand, I stand.