Selecting your candidate is a personal choice.

[neuvocat]

I posted this in response to someone's question on another thread but thought it important enough to give the answer its own post.

We are all still all quite a ways away from the primaries and yet there is a lot involved in making the decision for who he wanted to have as your President. It may be true to that number of these people are qualified to hold the job, the reasons for why he or she should be elected is ultimately your own.

It is easy to think of the reasons why your candidate may be the best to lead the nation. I know that is no exception for me. But what I will refrain from doing anymore is disagreeing with them outright. That is because I do not know thatperson well enough to say why the person I have chosen would be the best.

I believe that I have a lot more in common with Wesley Clark and then I do any of the other candidates. The same is true for Howard Dean and his supporters, I'm sure. Same for Dennis Kucinich and his supporters, Al Sharpton, Carol Mosely Braun and so on. For me to say that Clark would be better to serve them then the person they have chosen them cellhouse would bethe same as placing my own values on them.

It would be easy for me to say that Clark is logical choice for everyone here on this board. However, I would have to acknowledge alternately that my decision in my reasons are within only my own limited frame of reference and experience, thereby disregarding the diversity of opinion one happens to find here.

I submit to you that when or if we can respect each other's opinions and personal reasons for their choice in the Democratic primary, then we could do more to respect each other to the point of greatly reducing the infighting here.

[Skinner]

1. It's kinda sad that this didn't get any responses.

Here's a little kick back to the top, because I think that this is an important message for everyone.

We may not support the same candidates, but I think we can respect others' choices. There is much to like about each of the 9 individuals running for the Democratic nomination. I think Democrats would be well served by any of them.

I don't know who I am going to vote for. And I'm unlikely to decide anytime soon. But I do not think we are lacking for good candidates. I will be proud to pull the lever for one of them in the primary. And I will be proud to pull the lever for the eventual nominee in the General election.

[Zynx]

2. I shall give you a standing ovation.

I completely agree.

[Fenris]

3. Well put

It is certainly understandable that many people, if not a majority, who post on these message boards have a favorite candidate that they are supporting. And that is admirable. But as someone who has assessed the candidates and simply thrown my hands up and exclaimed, "I don't know," I get the feeling that many people become a bit dogmatic when it comes to their personal nominee. And such dogmatism is not limited to refuting any criticism of their candidate; in fact, there is an awful lot of invective hurled at people who post articles championing the works of their candidates.

Trying to politely convince another person that your position is the correct position is fine. It is healthy for party loyalists to engage in debate at this point in a presidential race. But often debates denegrate into obnoxious and tiresome shouting matches in which two opposing sides spend twenty to fifty posts subtly insulting the other. This is pointless; if anything, antagonistic battles will only increase the zeal of both sides of the argument.

Our fight should be against "him" not eachother. Debate should continue here at DU until the primaries end and a nominee is chosen. But the screaming flame wars that occur regularly in GD need to stop. They accomplish nothing, and many times lead to a poster leaving the board altogether. We liberals are not always going to agree (see "Nader calls Democrats chronic whiners") but we aren't supposed to. That ability to disagree is what sets us apart from the ideological purity of the GOP. We can't be like that, because if we were, we wouldn't be liberal. But that's no excuse for turning intelligent debates into childish pissing matches.

[newyawker99]

4. Another kick!

:kick:

[mmonk]

5. aye

however we can still debate positions, just in a civil manner?

[chimpymustgo]

7. Debate vs. debasing.

And you know who you are.

[HFishbine]

11. Good Point

It's a subtle but important distinction and not an easy one to learn.

[mlawson]

12. I know who you mean, chimpymustgo.

And forget using the alert button.

[mmonk]

13. Yes, hence

the words debate and civil to distinguish from character assassination type posts.

[JNelson6563]

6. Hear!! Hear!

Well said!

Julie

[Mz Pip]

8. Well said

IT will not serve us well if we bloody each other's candidates to the point that we become jaded and turn off. I have seen plenty of vitrol from supporters of candidates who I would be more than happy voting for in the General Election.

I try to remember that I am an advocate for my candidate and that trashing another candidate with cheap shots or misinformation reflects poorly on not just me, but my candidate as well.

We do not need to let decent debate turn into hyperbole and invective.

MzPip
:dem:

[indigo32]

10. Totally agreed

"IT will not serve us well if we bloody each other's candidates to the point that we become jaded and turn off" Jaded and turned off is really what scares me. We can be positive... there really is much to be positive about.

[jpgray]

9. I'm amazed people can PICK a "best" candidate at all, but you're right

We should respect the choices of others and not assume that obsessive brow-beating will convert them to whatever side we want.

[neuvocat]

14. Its all subjective.

Its impossible for me to say who is best suited to serve millions of people-I'm not conducting a survey nor am I sociologist. So what else do I have to rely on? My values and perceptions. That's it.

Of course you don't have to be a sociologist to know that Bush sucks.

[Rowdyboy]

15. Honest to God....

I respect all our candidates, and their supporters-until they go on the attack. Why tear down other Democrats? Bush will do enough of that.

[mzmolly]

16. I am ready to embrace this philosophy.

:shrug:

Note the avatar ;)

[neuvocat]

17. Kick