List your enthusiasm for top 4 candidates & all dem nominees since '84.

[AP]

Now, if you've been voting since '84, be honest. Don't pretend that you weren't enthusiastic about the losers and were enthusiastic about the winners.

If you haven't been voting since '84, try to be honest with yourself.

A good measure is, to whom have/did you give money?

What I'm trying to measure is more than "would you vote for x if he gets nominated?" What I want to measure is if there's a buzz for the candidate. And, I want to measure this buzz against the sort of Buzzes people got from other candidates.

Here's my list, from most enthusiastic to least:

Edwards
Kerry
Clark
Clinton'92
Dukakis
Clinton'96
Gore
Dean
Mondale

In other words, I found Gore less exciting than, not only, every Dem in the top 4, but I found him less exciting than Dukakis. I find the idea of three of this year's top 4 MORE exciting than either Clinton race.

[poskonig]

1. I gave $100 to Dean.

That's it. It sucks to see Governor Dean self-destruct, but hey -- that's life.

I'm 24 years old, and I voted for Mr. Nader in 2000.

[carolinayellowdog]

2. Clinton `92, Clinton `96, Gore, Edwards, Dean, Clark, Kerry...

Dukakis, Mondale. Sat out the 1984 election out of disgust at "Where's the beef?" after having supported Hart. Not sure I could vote for Edwards in the primary due to IWR, but he does have the charisma factor in his favor.

[AP]

3. I'm not mad at you, but

you really were more excited about Gore than by ANY of this year's candidates?

I was more excited about Million Dollar Bill than by Gore and Bradley doesn't rank even in the middle of the list inspiring public speakers.

Gore, to me, got the nod only becuase he was VP and there was no real debate of the issues in 2000.

[carolinayellowdog]

13. A measure of my horror of his opponent

From first sight of him I was sure Dubya would be the worst president in history if elected-- so my enthusiasm for Gore reflected that. Whereas now, even though Bush has turned out to be far worse than expected, his media support has been so strong for so long (and Democratic performance in the opposition so bad) that I can't get too excited about any potential nominee. My faith in the system is too shot for that Old Republic enthusiasm.

But, on second thought, I'd move Edwards above Gore-- thanks to reading One Car Caravan as well as seeing Monday's speech.

[Cocoa]

4. Simon '88 is my #1

only recently forgave Gep and his goons for STEALING Iowa. :-)

then, Jackson '84 though I couldn't vote.

Harkin

Clinton

Nader

[The Democrats Cometh]

19. "Gep and his goons"?

Ouch!

Are you anti blue-collar labor?

[Cocoa]

28. just teasing

I was a Gep supporter this time around till he dropped out, I was just playing with the caricature. :-)

[Iverson]

23. memory fuzzy, but here you go

strong enthusiasm:
Jackson - 1988 (carried Michigan!)
Nader - 2000
Mondale - 1984

fairly strong enthusiasm
Simon - '88

some enthusiasm
Kucinich - 2004
Clinton - 1992
Brown - '92
Gephardt - '88

[salin]

34. Call me rare... but... I really liked Tsongas in '92

his focus on reviving the economy through economic-industrial investment (re the "economic engines of the country)... would have taken us in a very different direction. I would have to say in all of the elections since I could vote - this was the single candidate that I felt really would make a huge difference in the direction of the country - so I put him up on top of my list.

The rest are in no particular order.

I also was quite taken with Hart in 1984 - but was supportive of Mondale (and in my first presidential election naivete - was up with friends the night before the election - summarizing all the scenarios in which Mondale might win the next day... lol.)

I voted for Jackson in 1988 (wanted him to stay in the race as long as possible because he kept the conversation on economic justice issues.)

After the primary got behind and worked for Clinton in 1992. Saw him in person both in the 92 and 96 elections. He was (is) one of the most charismatic/dynamic speakers I have seen. Though when she is going - Hillary can also rev up an audience (heard her in 1992, and in 1998 stumping for Sen. Boxer.)

I have always been impressed with Gore - even in the senate where he was more conservative (his policy views evolved over time.) Didn't think he was ready when he ran in 1988. Was behind him in 2000. But - his energy, sadly, didn't become dynamic or captivating until long after the election when he reemerged at the Florida state democratic convention in 2002. There he found a voice and struck chords (and continues to do so) that inspire passion. I was disappointed that he did not run again, as I had gone from supporter - to fired up supporter. None of the current candidates has yet connected in the same way. Thus, as of yet, I don't put any up into the list.... yet.

[blackcat77]

5. My pick isn't on the list

That would be Bradley in 2000. I was really excited about him but he got steamrolled by the DLC machine... After that, it would be Clinton '92, but he disappointed me almost immediately upon taking office and I didn't vote for ANYBODY for president in '96.

I like the way Kerry's talking now but where was all this earlier. Dean got me excited but he's self-destructed much in much the same manner as Perot did in '92. He also had a very enthusiastic core of supporters who were disappointed when the details about their man started coming out.

As for the rest, none of them really did much for me, but I'm a yellow dog Democrat so all of them were better than their opponents in my eyes.

[Jerseycoa]

6. Excitement

Clark
Clinton'92
Kerry
Edwards
Clinton'96
Gore
Dukakis
Mondale
Dean

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. DK is the first pres. candidate I've given money to

and specifically volunteered for. It feels great to have a candidate that I can actually advocate FOR instead of just shrugging and saying, "Well, he's not a Republican."

In 1988, I voted for Jesse Jackson in the Oregon primary (where he got 39%) and really wished that some of his enthusiasm and outspokenness could have rubbed off on the rest of the field.

I was underwhelmed by Dukakis and Mondale and thought they ran such lousy campaigns that it looked as if they were purposely throwing the election. They're at the bottom of my list.

I liked Simon, Hart, and Tsongas, and I was okay with Clinton in 1992, simply because it felt so good not to have a Republican in the White House.

However, Clinton bitterly disappointed me with his willingness to buckle under to the Republicans, even with a Dem majority, so I voted for Nader in 1996. However, I did so only after making sure that Dole was too far behind in the polls to win.

I was okay with Gore, but mostly because the alternative was so dreadful. I would have preferred Bradley.

[redqueen]

8. We weren't invited - 'top four candidates'

n/t

[AP]

10. I thought about putting K into my list, but I didn't know how to meausre..

...him. If I were listing candidates I like, he'd be number 2, but I'm talking about, after the convention, and you know who your candidate is, there's that "we can win!" enthusiasm, and that's what I'm trying to get at.

I really don't know where I'd put Kucinich on that list, because, today, I'd have to say I wouldn't have that enhthusiasm -- I'd feel that Dems have the best candidate ever, and he will be led to Bush like a lamb to the slaughter. But if he were the nominee, it would obvioulsy be after a process where he generated that enthusiasm. In that case, I'm sure he'd be at the top of the list. It's just that, today, I can't envision that happening.

9. This year is the best field I ever remember

Edwards
B. Kerry
J. Kerry
Bradley
Dean
Gore
Clinton 96
Clinton 96
Dukakis
Mondale

[TexasPatriot]

11. enthusiastic eh?

ok...

Clark
Brown (92)
Clinton 96
Gary Hart 88

i'd say Gore 2000 - because being from Texas i knew what we were in for if 'Temporary' got elected - but i'm not sure the enthusiasm was 'fer' Gore so much as 'agin' W.

[sweetheart]

12. Heres my list::

Dennis Kucinich
Jerry Brown
Jimmy Carter
Al Gore
John Kerry
Wesley Clark
Mario Cuomo
Gary Hart
Libertarian party (end war on drugs)

[AP]

16. Jerry Brown, you should know, was a little bit of a fraud.

He was sold as the liberal alternative to Clinton. He has run Oakland way farther to the right than Clinton ever governed America.

[sweetheart]

17. Jerry Brown... a fraud?

Jerry believes that the failure of federalization, media concentration and corporatization in america has most deeply affected quality LOCAL government, so he took his own advise and became the mayor of oakland, a city hardly a pillar of wealth and success.

I think he's done an outstanding job for the people of oakland. After the 100dollar/donator pres campaign in 92, he's effectively retired in oakland, and i doubt he gives a toss about what is politics are percieved to be... on the ground, he has made a huge difference to his constituents and cleaned up oakland as a model for urban regeneration in america.

I stand by him... he is a hero and he has balls. Until i do the same, i would never dare critisize him for that sorta thing... its a daunting task to undertake without any great upside (like presidency or senate revolving doors and slush funds).

If he is a fraud, as you say, you should frame that in terms of who in oakland is worse off for his policies there. I think you'll be hard pressed to make such a case. He is no fraud... he's quite authentic.

www.jerrybrown.org

[AP]

20. He's not the liberal he was sold as in '92, and I don't think you can

explain the change by saying he doesn't care about politics now.

[redqueen]

25. Could you please provide some info?

How has he governed right?

Just curious...

[AP]

26. One big one is the way he's had the police crack down on protests down

at the ports.

This is purely symbolic, but he had homeless people cleared from the neighborhood his apartment building is located in.

Also, Oakland's a mess, and there's a sense that his focus is on making it a great home for big corporations, but not doing much to make sure the benefits of those corporate residents flows down to the people.

I'll admit that part of my impression of him his from hearsay, but hearsay from good liberals whose opinions I respect. The other part is from observation, but only casual observation, like the union strikes and the thing about the homeless.

[sweetheart]

27. who am i to say, does any of you LIVE in oakland?

I certainly am not a resident of oakland, though my daughter lives in alemeda. I think local politics when you have the governantor and enron fucking you in the back is quite a complex equation in a place like oakland... and you have to make your alliances with whom you can to reverse the very unpleasant decline i remember 10 years ago in oakland. I was back there 3 years ago, and the city felt vastly better and more upbeat, but that is my small subjective assessment.

Redeye, who's voyforum link i've lost, lives there... i have not seen him in a while... i suspect he was banned. Gerry brown, were he in a more federal role, i'm sure would stand down teh war on drugs... as he can't do this, he's now in a position to have to both enforce the crap war, state law on vagrancy, and still deliver urban regeneration with republican laws.... its a tough spot.

My taxi driver to central oakland, stopped the car at sunset and took out a small carpet and made prayers to allah on the sidewalk and then continued with me to my destination. That was religious tolerance i've never seen in nyc...

[AP]

29. Three years ago the entire Bay Area was a mad house of optimism.

And being nasty to the homeless and to the unions was all stuff he did when Davis was governor. He didn't have to be like this.

He was a guy who ran as a super liberal against Clinton and turned out to put the interests of big business ahead of the interests of unions and the homeless in Oakland. He's a little bit of a fraud.

[sweetheart]

31. without hard evidence...

i take this view in to advise, and will look further.

I don't mean to blindly support him, not at all... just i imagine were he speaking here, that he would have a sound explanation for his behaviour given the situation.

Frauds are in the republican party. Only those who are undertaking the urban regeneration of a seriously deprived area that no aspiring politician wants to touch... only those accuse those who try of being frauds. I'd be interested to hear what the mayor of clevland, detroit, or washingtonDC has to say about jerry brown.

I think that being there on the street forces you to the wall between liberal idealism and gang violence in your face.

[AP]

32. The homeless he cleared from around his apartment bldg weren't in gang.

They were just homeless people. He didn't do anything for them. He just moved them somewhere where he didn't have to see them.

It's symbolic mostly. And symbols like that are often unfair and don't tell the whole story. However, he should be sensitive to them.

The bottom line, as well, is, do you think the Brown that you supported in '92, who tried to cast himself as the left wing alternative to Clinton would EVER do anything like that? Did you think that he'd put the interests of big corporations ahead fo union workers and the homeless? Probably not. The way he ran in '92 has turned out to be a huge contrast to the way he runs Oakland.

It's an improtant lesson in presidential campaigning.

[sweetheart]

33. interesting point about the homeless

Perhaps the aid agencies should move all homeless people to live in front of the white house on the mall in a massive tent city. Hiding the problem is the way, as you say... and they are the last people to have access to justice, voting or "for all".

I see your point. I did not vote for JB, only contributed to his campaign... for mayor.

BTW - congrats on your good piece for ramsey's contribution. I'm hoping that dennis eventually joins that alliance as well.. and see the contest as an omen of that coming together.

[GiovanniC]

14. The List

Clark
Dean
Clinton '92
Clinton '96
Kerry
Edwards
Gore
Dukakis
Mondale

[HuckleB]

15. My list.

OK. From most enthusiastic to least: (Note: I was not old enough to vote in '84)

Dean
Clark
Clinton '92
Clinton '96
Edwards
Gore
Dukakis
Kerry
Mondale

[DoveTurnedHawk]

18. My List

Clark
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Kucinich
Dean (pre-Clark)
Kerry (post-Iowa)
Edwards (pre-Shelton revelation)
Clinton (96)
Clinton (92)
Gore
Dukakis
Mondale

DTH

[The Democrats Cometh]

21. Alrighty, then:

Edwards
Clark
Clinton '92
Nader '96
Dukakis (man, he was up against Bush I)
Kerry

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. On a 1-10 scale of the names you listed.

Dukakis - 10
Dean - 8
Mondale - 7
Gore - 4
Clinton '92 - 3
Clinton '96 - 2
Clark - 2
Edwards - 0
Kerry - minus 0

[mvd]

24. Also rating on a 1-10 scale

Edwards - 8
Kerry - 8
Clark - 6
Clinton'92 - not old enough to vote then, but would have been a 10
Dukakis - not old enough to vote then, but a 3 in retrospect
Clinton'96 - 9
Gore - 9
Dean - 9
Mondale - not old enough to vote then, but a 10 in retrospect - he was a victim of Reagan hysteria

[Ficus]

30. Jesse Jackson BABY!

my first foray into politics was when my parents held a caucus at our house when I was 8 (in 1988). I couldn't caucus of course, but I loved Jesse Jackson and hung with his crowd during the caucuses. One of my favorite pictures of myself is me standing in front of the supreme court with a Jesse shirt on at age 8.

I supported Tom Harkin in 1992 - because of the Iowa thing. And I really like him too.

Bill Clinton in 1996 - of course

Then I was a delegate for Bill Bradley in 2000. Later I became disillusioned with Gore - and well, yes. I voted Nader.

Dennis Kucinich in 2004 (but now an Edwards delegate)

[LTR]

Mine

Clark
Clinton'92
Clinton'96
Edwards
Kerry
Gore
Dean
Dukakis
Mondale

[Demo Gog]

35. Good idea.

EDWARDS!!!
Clinton '92
Gore
Clinton '96
Kerry
Clark
Dukakis
Mondale
Dean