Presidents and stuff

[Ignoramus]

I bet this has been discussed a lot here, but I haven't read about it. I haven't read many of the debates over candidates. I haven't placed a lot of importance on who will be president because I'm more concerned about neo-facsicm and injustice, not just the figurehead of an administration.

Anyway, since I will most likely vote for whichever democrat is posed against Bush in 2004, it is of some interest to me, of course...

So, something I've been thinking about off and on is, I notice people tending to avoid the more 'left' candidates because they think they won't win. Doesn't it make sense to promote whomever is closest to what you believe, not just who you think will win? I was thinking that when it's time to vote (and only then) would it make sense to comprimise by voting for the person you think will win.

Another thing, I read and hear people debating about how left, right or center people should be to get public approval for a candidate. My guess is that people do notice insincerity when it's extreme. All of the candidates that I see on TV are obviously salesmen. The least offensive seem to be Kucinich and Sharpton (coincidentally the people that seem closest to reflecting my politics). So, a good strategy for a candidate might be to not be a fraud. Promote what you believe, not what you think will snag the vote..., just a thought.

[ablbodyed]

1. GREAT in principle but....

there is SUCH HATRED for the left in this country that just the label applied will lose votes. Then again, the Rethugs will label anyone leftist, so maybe actually standing for the good intentions of the left (most, at least) may be the MORAL thing to do. That said, if duck-anus wins in '04 we'll all be in the septictank.

[Ignoramus]

2. I don't get it

Maybe I didn't understand your response. I think any of the imperialist democrats are probably preferable to Bush, so I expect to vote for whichever democrat seems like the most likely to win, when it's time to vote. Until then, why wouldn't people promote the person who's politics are closest to their own?

I'm really addressing people who would vote for Kucinich/Sharpton "if they had a chance". Why compromise now? Is your goal just to have democrats be in power, or is it to fight injustice? The point of compromising is to accept a slightly less miserable defeat, right? Wouldn't you like to fight while you still can?

By compromising so early, aren't democrats essentially allowing the right-wing to guide their politics? Maybe, people are less stupid than the right-wing (and the "left"-wing) and the media whores would like us to believe.