There are a lot of great Democrats running for President...

[kentuck]

And they would all do a better job than the present occupant in the White House, I have no doubts. Naturally, we all have our favorites. But we should not insist that our "favorite" is the only one we could accept as the Party nominee.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Wesley Clark, Joe Biden, John Edwards, John Kerry, Al Gore - they are all great candidates. We should do everything to promote the candidate of our choice except to tear down all the others. The primaries will decide who our candidate is, just as Iowa chose John Kerry over Howard Dean in 2004. We, more or less, accepted the peoples decision and threw our support behind John Kerry in 2004. Whether or not he was the best candidate, we will never know. However, he won the primaries and he was our candidate.

[wyldwolf]

1. I slowly arrived at a decision last week

I'm not going to be a candidate groupie this go 'round.

I happen to like each candidate or close-to-being-a candidate out there.

[salin]

4. I live in a state where the primary is so late

that it means nothing. Last election I tried hard to take the approach (and for the most part succeeded) that you suggest. Okay, there was one exception - I really didn't want to see Lieberman win - but it was clear early on that that wasn't going to happen.

There are a lot of good candidates being suggested and/or entering the ring. I have a less favorite at the moment (who happens to be my own senator) - but things can change.

I have a sneaking suspicion that there are some 'darkhorse' candidates that we just don't see/recognize yet - who will probably bring a lot of energy to the race, just as Dean, Clark and Kucinich did last go round. (I mention those, as before they announced, folks not in their direct proximity were not anticipating and thus bandying their names about - hence "darkhorse", as opposed to Kerry and Gephardt whose intentions were clear, as were Edwards when he declined to run for reelection.

[seabeyond]

8. the ship sails in me having anything to say about primary too....

and that is ok. i do have a preference, but it isnt going to have any effect on the election and i will willingly and enthusiastically support who the dems do nominate.

[ClassWarrior]

5. I had a primary preference in 2004...

...but I tried to refrain from being a groupie myself. Not that I minded sharing my opinion when it was relevant, or when someone asked, but I see no value waging wars on behalf of one candidate at the expense of the rest of the party.

NGU.

[sweetheart]

2. which one(s) are anti war

Al Gore for no more war

[seabeyond]

3. couldnt agree with you more. i am a kerry supporter, and not ONE post

of mine is in not supporting or dissing another candidate. as a matter of fact, even though i really really want to see kerry get it again, posts about other candidates are positive and upbeat and i see the value in them. it is not hard for me to see the good in our candidates and how much better we will be in this nation with ANY one of them.

thank you for your post kentuck

[delphinium]

6. Very good post

Thank you!

[etherealtruth]

7. I will work hard for just about any Dem candidate right now ...

Like most other people, I have my favorites but I have no intention of trying to bring other's down. We need to win.

[Kerrytravelers]

9. Exactly.

I have my favorites and one that I really don't want at all, but you won't see a nasty flamewar from me regarding this topic. There is no need to throw a tantrum, threaten to withhold your vote, claim you will leave the Democratic party.

I will go as far as to say that in a time like we've experienced over the past six years, anyone not voting for the Democrat is basically giving the rethug their vote. Protesting the Democrat may make you feel glorious in your heart, but all you've done is take away a vote from the Democrat... and that's like giving it to the rethug. There are times to vote strategically, and this is one of them!

[tomreedtoon]

10. Yeah, but we don't need "great," we need "best."

And by "best" I mean a candidate that is willing to fight for the nomination, willing to define his or her positions, and take the pressure and the heat - not only from the Republicans, but from Democratic factions as well.

The "Super Tuesday" primaries, for instance, pretty much throw the Democratic nomination to the person who has the biggest support inside the Democratic party leadership. Those should be abolished. Yes, it's wearing to have a candidate have to run in multiple states, but it's also a vetting process. It puts the real power back into the hands of the voters, instead of the party apparatus.

What I fear is that the party will go into the convention with everything settled and presumed, they'll nomiate the choice of the DLC, and most of the Democrats will sit on their hands at election time - because the Chosen One won't have had to win the support of ALL the Democratic Party.

[Alamom]

11. Thank you, I agree.n/t

[Schema Thing]

12. Oh, I thought you were quoting George McGovern, endorsing

Clark:

There are a lot of good Democrats in this race. But Wes Clark is the best Democrat. He is a true progressive. He's the Democrat's Democrat. I've been around the political block - and I can tell you, I know a true progressive when I see one. And that's why he has my vote.


heh heh, hi, jack :hi:

[blondeatlast]

13. One eensy-weensy disagreement, kentuck... I have no favorites, and that matters because

an awful lot of the "my candidate rules and yours sucks" threads turn me off of all the parties involved.

No one can get a ringing endorsement from me yet, but I sure as hell would vote for any one of them over any RRR.

I like the depth of field we have and am looking forward to seeing some more promising candidates.

[The Count]

14. The ones who voted for this war may step aside already - no vote from me.

That leaves from that list Clark and Gore.

[wiley]

19. Obama also is one on that list.

But Gore and Clark definitely have a lot more experience and defineable positions in many areas. Let the primaries run them all. I just want to see at least 10 Republicant candidates running against each other.

And no, I would never, ever vote for LIEberman even if it was between him and (insert anyone). I just would not be able to vote. So let's keep all those House and Senate seats on the radar at the same time!

[The Count]

25. Obama said he doesn't want to look into why the war started

Which to me is a pretty good clue of how he would have voted.

[wiley]

26. That may be more disturbing.

[never cry wolf]

27. Obama came out strongly against the war before it started

He definitely would have voted against the IWR and has said so on many occasions.

[The Count]

29. Where? When? Please give details - I really need to know this.

[never cry wolf]

30. Here for one

Obama has been very forthright in his opposition to the war. He spoke in an anti-war rally in October 2002. Very well attended, very large rally, and he said some powerful words that were strongly against the war. I think he gained a lot of supporters from that particular speech. He was so clear in his opposition and yet not in any way negative. He didn't use the traditional kind of code words that people who oppose the war were using. He did it in a way that attracted people who normally would be gung ho for military action . He said he wasn't against all wars and he went against much of what was being said on the podium, but he did it in such a considerate and intelligent way that even those who wanted more raw meat were satisfied with his speech. In fact, were captivated by the way he presented himself.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_War_+_Peace.htm


and here:

This kind of realism has been missing since the very conception of this war, and it is what led me to publicly oppose it in 2002. The notion that Iraq would quickly and easily become a bulwark of flourishing democracy in the Middle East was not a plan for victory, but an ideological fantasy. I said then and believe now that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator who craved weapons of mass destruction but posed no imminent threat to the United States; that a war in Iraq would harm, not help, our efforts to defeat al Qaeda and finish the job in Afghanistan; and that an invasion would require an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/061120-a_way_forward_in_iraq/index.html

It is well documented that Obama was totally against a war in Iraq and went public with his objections in 2002 before it started because he saw where the neo-cons were headed. Google is your friend!

[liberalpragmatist]

31. Here's his antiwar speech from 2002

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/26/iraq_war.php

Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq

October 26, 2002

I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.

I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

[never cry wolf]

32. Thanks for posting this, point made eloquently.

It seems to me he even pre-dated Dr. Dean in publicly coming out against the Iraq invasion.

[eridani]

15. Not a groupie this time either

Participating in the process the first time taught me that we don't yet have the institutional clout necessary to help candidates like Dean or Kucinich overcome the MSM barrier. Feingold might have possibly inspired that level of passion in me, but he's not running.

[Vektor]

16. Thanks, great post.

Great sentiment. I look forward to a Democrat in the White House in 2008, whoever he or she may be. It's no secret I like Kerry, but I bear no ill will toward any of the other Dems who may be running, or who have been mentioned as favorites on DU.

I just cannot wait to see the Bush reign of terror come to an end.

[cynatnite]

17. I knew Kerry would win ours here in TN...

He was leading by that time. So, I voted Edwards. That's who I hoped he would take as VP running mate. At that time I was really torn between Edwards and Clark.

There are some really good democrats who would do this country good. All of those, and some you didn't list, would be great. After these last years of hell having our country batterd and hundreds of thousands dying at the hands of bush, I can't wait for 2008. I want these idiot repukes out. They've ruined so many lives that it's hard to know where to begin. The repuke party as it's been is done. The only hope they have to survive is for the extremists to get kicked to the curb and that doesn't seem very bloody likely.

I truly believe we'll get a Dem in 2008 that we'll like and respect. We may not agree with everything he or she says and does, but they'll love the constitution and what this country stands for a hell of a lot better than these fake christians do.

[DeepModem Mom]

18. K&R

[jgraz]

20. Agreed, but let's not confuse criticism with "tearing down"

I'm not a groupie for any of the folks, though I definitely have people I like better than others. The reasons for my preferences include the fact that many of these candidates have histories or personality traits that have been shown to cause serious problems in past elections

Saying things like "Hillary will be too divisive" or "Biden is too beholden to corporations" or "Kerry and Edwards are saddled with their vote for the war" are all reasonable opinions that need to be considered as we choose a nominee.

Personally, I'd much rather see a free flow of ideas than have my posts policed by a Democratic etiquette squad -- that's what we have the mods for. And even if some of us do end up "tearing down" a few of the candidates, what impact do we expect that to actually have? Most of these posts are viewed by a few thousand people at best. I really don't see that swaying the general election.

[many a good man]

22. Agree completely jgraz

I appreciate hearing the good and the bad, but so much space is wasted by spleen-venting diatribes that are repeated ad nauseum.

The XIth Commandment "Thou shalt not speak ill of fellow Democrats" does not apply here because its vitally important we get all the facts. Flamebait is seductive but ultimately a huge waste of time. Passion is important in politics, but let's remember we are the Party of Reason.

[kentuck]

23. I agree...

So long as we don't think our candidate is the only one and everyone else that doesn't think like we do is a fool...

[A-Schwarzenegger]

21. I vow to follow that noble suggestion to the very letter, . . . unless

I'm irresistibly provoked. :-)

[thingfisher]

24. Will the contender for president

be the candidate who can raise the most money? Unfortunately, that seems to be the major consideration in these things.

[LWolf]

28. My "favorite" is not the only one who may get my vote.

I have several that I'm willing to vote for, and I don't even know if my "favorite" will run. I just don't see the media, or DU, fawning over the Democrats I'm willing to vote for. :shrug:

When I say that I will not accept some candidates as the party's nominee, it's not because I'm holding out for my "favorite." It's because those candidates won't work for what I want to accomplish. I think it's fair to say so ahead of time; that way, if the majority chooses someone I won't support, it is done with full knowledge of a lost vote.

[underpants]

33. BTW- I will be eligible as of 2008

over 35
Born in the US
Lived here the last 14 years (back from Germany in '93)

VOTE ME!!!