Is there a progressive alternative to Kucinich?

[Radical Activist]

In 2004 I felt like there was no good progressive alternative to Dennis Kucinich. In 2008, there might be. So, for those who say DK can't be elected, who are progressives to turn to? Is there anyone in the field with liberal ideals similar to Dennis Kucinich that could win?

Personally, I think the number one obstacle to a progressive winning the nomination is the fact that progressives are too pessimistic about their chances and support moderates instead. Our negativity makes us our own worst enemies.

If you vote, please vote for someone on the list whose views you think are similar to Dennis Kucinich and could win. Don't just vote for who you think can win or who you like. That's not what this poll is about.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Vilsack, Clinton and Bayh, in particular, aren't what I'd call progressive.

[Radical Activist]

2. Me either, but someone may think so. n/t

[SaveElmer]

27. ...

:-)

[ikojo]

3. AMEN!!! They are DLC "centrists" which in my

opinion equals liberal Republican.

[chimpymustgo]

5. Kucinich said in 04 he was closest to Edwards. And Kucinich and Edwards

supporters caucused together in Iowa - whichever candidate had the most votes in the room, the other candidates' supporters threw their votes behind.

[BlueEyedSon]

4. Bernie Sanders

[Radical Activist]

9. If he ran, you'd be correct.

[Bjorn Against]

24. I would love to see Bernie Sanders run...

I like him and Kucinich about equally, and if he ran I would have a difficult time deciding who to support. Without Bernie in the race however, I am fully behind Kucinich.

[goodhue]

6. I like Obama, Gore & Edwards but they don't compare to Kucinich IMHO

Dennis Kucinich consistently and comprehensively adheres to the progressive vision I share. I like Obama, Gore & Edwards as people and politicians, but on the issues they don't hold a flame to Dennis.

[OzarkDem]

7. Gore comes closest, IMHO

He was opposed to the Iraq war, he supports comprehensive health care reform, etc. He's not Dennis, but he's close on most of the important issues.

[NVMojo]

8. I'm supporting this guy ...

[LSparkle]

10. Don't talk ALTERNATIVES on the day the guy announced!!!!

Come on, at least let Dennis get out of the damned gate before you start searching for the "viable alternative."

[Radical Activist]

11. hehe

Yeah that would be fair. But I guess it also forces people to think if there really is an alternative, and maybe there isn't.

[Le Taz Hot]

38. Sure there is

it's called write-in.

[Lena inRI]

12. Read Clark's '04 positions. . .

http://clark04.com/issues/

. . .he's VERY PROGRESSIVE when you don't allow his military persona to stereotypically overshadow his civilian persona.

Take the time to REALLY read his positions. . .any liberal would be impressed. Also, his training goes beyond military with degree in economics/philosophy/poli sci.

Extraordinary person. . .he'd make the kind of President we used to have. . .ya know, like FDR. . .Eisenhower.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[Radical Activist]

13. And how do I know he'll stick to those campaign papers?

Its easy to put together a platform that you know Democratic Primary voters will like when you have no record in office. Clark is a wild card. I like what he says but I have no reason to believe he will follow through in office. How do I know he isn't pandering? Without a voting record I have no way of verifying what he says during the campaign. That's why I can't support him.

[Clark2008]

20. Oh for Pete's sake.

You'd rather have a politician than a leader. YICK!

[lillilbigone]

32. Cuz there's absolutely no chance he's not 100% honest, right?

Heaven forbid that someone should suggest Clark is subject to the same human frailties and temptations as the rest of us.... :eyes:

[CarolNYC]

57. You got it, absolutely no chance...

The guy is simply incapable of being anything but honest. Ask Michael Moore and Maria Cuomo if you happen to bump into them. ;)

I realize how very difficult it is for many to comprehend an honest player in the political realm...and no wonder considering the actions and words of so many of our politicians...so your skepticism is understandable.

You do seem to have an amazingly big bug up your butt about the General, though...

[CarolNYC]

58. You got it, absolutely no chance...

The guy is simply incapable of being anything but honest. Ask Michael Moore and Maria Cuomo if you happen to bump into them. ;)

I realize how very difficult it is for many to comprehend an honest player in the political realm...and no wonder considering the actions and words of so many of our politicians...so your skepticism is understandable.

You do seem to have an amazingly big bug up your butt about the General, though...

[Tom Rinaldo]

61. You can also look at Clark's life decisions

I think that counts for something, especially when one considers that voting records can be doctored: "OK, we don't need your vote on this one, we got it covered without you, go ahead and vote to make some constituents happy, we'll tell you when we really need you".

Clark filed a brief with the Supreme Court in favor of Affirmative Action at the University of Michigan long before he entered politics. He won an environmental award for his efforts to save desert tortoises around a military base he commanded long before he entered politics. He stood out alone in the Pentagon to argue for saving the lives of poor Black Africans in Rwanda who were being slaughtered with machetes, long before he entered politics.

Clark could have cashed in his meal ticket to easy street at age 40 or less and gone to bed with the Defense Contractors for the big bucks they wanted to throw at him. After all he was brilliant, first in his Class at West Point and a Rhodes Scholar, very hightly decorated at every stage of his career, had Washington DC connections, good looking, highly articulate, etc. etc.

Clark stayed in his Army job earning well under a hundred thousand a year for almost his entire 34 year military career, because service to his country was more important to him than cashing in. Clark doesn't talk about it a lot, but he's mentioned in passing that he lost a number of long term friendships with people in the military who thought he should not have taken on the President of the United States in a time of war.

Last time, in 2004, Clark finished a close second to Dean for having the smallest average donations to his Presidential campaign. Clark wasn't the canddidate Big money wanted, that says something. He opposed media consolidation during his last Presidential campaign at a time when opposing media consolidation was likely to cost him media coverage he needed to have in order to win. Clark didn't run around the country for the last year building up his personal organization and war chest to become President either. He's not one of those bragging about the millions he has in the bank. He kept his PAC lean, didn't double his staff, didn't do anything that would suck up Democratic money needed by candidates in tight races.

Clark ran around the country raising money directly for Congressional candidates in dozens of states instead. He put in a hell of a lot of sweat equity for the Democratic Party , and he wasn't afraid to stand by Ned Lamont either. When push came to shove and Ned was behind in the polls, not only did Clark show up in CT, but he cut a TV ad taking on Joe Lieberman directly for Lamont. Compare that to the big name Democrats who seemed to be saying "Ned who?" after Lamont fell behind in the polls, though they all were there for him on paper right after Lamont beat Lieberman, sucking up to a winner to please the activist base.

[Radical Activist]

14. Ok, my choice is Obama.

I got excited about Obama before he ran for US Senate when most people outside Illinois didn't know who he was. Looking at his career, he has shown the same commitment to the environment, unions, fair trade and civil rights that attracted me to Kucinich. Obama was also a very early opponent of the Iraq War. I think Obama is as close to Kucinich on the issues as anyone in the race but with the added bonus that crowds and the media are drawn to him like a moth to a flame.

In '04 I would have felt like supporting anyone but Kucinich was selling out. In 2008, I'll feel like I can support someone very close to Dennis but who also a great shot at becoming President. People here who want to call Obama a moderate just because he knows how to get good press don't know Obama at all.

[goodhue]

15. yes, well

My spouse is with you. But until I see Obama come out explicitly against further war appropriations and free trade schemes, and in favor of single-payer health reform, I'm sticking with Dennis.

[Radical Activist]

16. He is good on trade

It would surprise me if he voted against appropriations for the war. I don't know about single payer health care. That's a good point. I hope he comes out for that.

[goodhue]

54. How good? David Sirota explains . . .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/obama-power-challenger-_b_36129.html

Obama, of course, has a mixed record on structural economic policy. He made a solid move by voting against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) on the grounds that it did not include strong enough worker protections. But he wrote a Chicago Tribune op-ed making sure the right people knew "I wish I could vote in favor of CAFTA" and then, in classic fashion, created a strawman argument that an unnamed group of people who voted against CAFTA want to "stop globalization." Obama was also one of a handful of Democratic senators to vote for the Oman Free Trade Agreement - like CAFTA, an agreement with no labor, human rights or environmental protections. Then again, to his credit, he is now talking about pushing universal health care - not an easy issue to talk about with such powerful interests backing the status quo. But Obama has been careful not to actually offer any shred of detail on what exactly he means, and has criticized proposals for a single-payer system, much like the one that congressmen and senators are included in.

[Lena inRI]

17. Bwaaahaahha. . .I fell into your trap. . .

should have known better! More Obamarama!

You're on! Let's hear how progressive Obama is debating Clark and Kucinich.

See ya in 2008. . .:smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke:

[Radical Activist]

19. There's no reason to call it a trap.

I'm seeking others opinion on this issue and I'm stating my own. Believe it or not, I can discuss the '08 race without mindlessly repeating the talking points spouted out by those who support my candidate. I'd like to think supporters of other candidates can do the same.

[hughee99]

18. IMHO, DK is in a league of his own...

there are other "more electable" progressive candidates, but I don't think any are all that close to DK.

[Vidar]

21. Gore is the closest.

[Uncle Joe]

30. I agree, what is more progressive than the internet? I don't

believe a non-progressive mind would have championed this technology empowering the people. I also believe this was a primary reason, the mass corporate media so enjoyed trashing and slandering him beginning in March of 99.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Not even close.....

They were either for the war or/and are not advocating cutting funds to the troops now....

Gore is not as progressive as some may think.....

[nealmhughes]

23. Edwards right now, after his public penance. He is for universal health care,

fair not free trade, labor rights, and getting out of Iraq. Clark is also for universal health care. I think his many years in the Army and especially in Viet Nam makes him realize how serious that warfare is -- not commas, but soldiers' and civilians' lives.
I'm not sure what Al Gore's current position outside of anything but global warming is right now.

I can't keep track of HRC on health care or the military...or fair trade...who knows? The latest polls aren't in yet.

I would say Edwards. With Clark second. Then who knows... I don't think of HRC as a progressive or a liberal.

[FrenchieCat]

25. Clark is stating that we should go work toward the goal of single payer

health insurance......is that what John Edwards is advocating as well?

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/30/17455/5250
http://www.muhajabah.com/clarkblog/2006/01/clark_supports_singlepayer_hea.php

Also Clark did not advocate for this war....and therefore is not responsible for the billions spent that could have gone toward domestic policies....

Did John Edwards make the cover of the Advocate or was he endorsed by the Washington Blade? Cause Clark did and was. :shrug:

so I consider Wes Clark more liberal than John Edwards.....but much less liberal than Dennis (IMO)who is advocating cutting off War funds, which is not a position advocated by either Edwards or Clark.

[PeaceProgProsp]

37. Edwards actually voted against funding the war

Which, incidentally, Clark said he wouldn't comment on when first asked (saying something about how he wouldn't speculate on how he would have voted, since there are so many considerations Senators have to make when having to decided between yes or no on a complicated bill).

I also remember reading that Edwards provided same-sex benefits for employees of his law firm even though the law didn't require him to do it.

And, while both of these are certainly reasonable litmus tests for someone's liberal politics, there are many other good criteria, such as how does the candidate feel about the relationship between corporations and employees, or how they feel about the massive amount of political power that has transferred from the many to the few, and how do they feel about all the mechanisms which have facilitated that transfer...

[FrenchieCat]

43. Actually, Edwards was muddled on the 87 Billion vote....

and decided not to vote for it because that became the popular stance (as Dean and Kerry had both said they wouldn't vote for it). Here is what Edwards initially said about how he would vote during the early primary debates:

"So let me start with you, Senator Edwards. How would you vote on the $87 billion?

EDWARDS: Well, what’s happening, Gloria, is we have young men and women in a shooting gallery over there right now. It would be enormously irresponsible for any of us not to do what’s necessary to support them.

The second thing is, when we went into Iraq, we, the United States of America, assumed a responsibility to share-and I emphasize share-with our allies and friends the effort to reconstruct.

That does not mean George Bush should get a blank check. He certainly shouldn’t get a blank check under these circumstances.

So the answer to your question is, we will vote for, I will vote for, what’s necessary to support the troops.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3088203

While this is what Wes Clark said at the same debate:

CLARK: "Now, look, this $87 billion is the first we’ve heard from this administration of anything like a reasonable estimate of what the down payment is. Congress needs to really go after this figure.

What is the strategy? What will make this operation a success? What will it take to exit? How do we get international support in there? There are dozens of questions to be asked on this.

We need to make this operation a success. We need to support our troops. But we need answers on this.

And the final answer that we need is, the president needs to tell us how he’s going to pay for it. This can’t be an addition to the deficit. We want to see where the money’s coming from.

When you compare and contrast the answers each gave, Wes Clark understood that there was a need to hold the President accountable, and the he should be made to answer to congress. Clark asking about "Strategy", "Exit", "International support" and where the money would be coming from were right on the mark as issues to bring into the conversation at a debate in where the primary winner would be running against Bush. John Edwards was not as curious and his answer is not one of depth. In fact, he appears to be saying he would vote for the 87 Billion to fund the troops, but in the end he didn't.

So Edwards had a vote and Clark didn't....but in fact it is Clark who framed the issue that should have been paramount to those in congress, not John Edwards.

[PeaceProgProsp]

45. What is muddled about voting against it?

And, you cut off the Edwards quote too early. This immediately follows your quote (at your link):

BORGER: Well, just a quick little follow-up.

I take it that means you might vote for something less than $87 billion. You might vote for something less and cut off money for reconstruction or whatever.

EDWARDS: Let me give you a simple answer: I will vote for what needs to be there to support our troops who are on the ground there. I will not vote-I will not vote for the additional money unless and when we have an explanation about our allies coming in and what we’re going to do to share the cost with others.

That's not very muddled. And That's what he did.

Also, you might have missed Kucinich's response, which puts Clark's 'frame' in context (ie, it's not surprising that Clark couldn't say which way he'd vote, since he didn't want to contradict his pre-candidate July '03 position on spending money in Iraq):


KUCINICH: The message is now I will not vote for the $87 billion. I think we should support the troops and I think we best support them by bringing them home.

Our troops are at peril there, because of this administration’s policy. And I think that the American people deserve to know where every candidate on this stage stands on this issue, because we were each provided with a document-a security document that more or less advised us to stay the course, don’t cut and run, commit up to 150,000 troops for five years at a cost of up to $245 billion.

A matter of fact, General Clark was one of the authors of that document that was released in July.

So I think the American people deserve to know that a candidate-and I’m the candidate who led the effort in the House of Representatives challenging the Bush administration’s march toward war, I say bring the troops home unequivocally. Bring them home and stop this commitment for $87 billion, which is only going to get us in deeper.

After a while, we’re going to be sacrificing our education, our health care, our housing and the future of this nation.

[FrenchieCat]

47. Unfortunately, the quote by Kucinich which generated much talk at the time

of which the document he mentioned was never produced to this day, nor ever mentioned again since the debate.

Why don't you provide the documentation to back up Kucinich's allegation. Thus far, no one has....which may be why Dennis never mentioned it again.

[PeaceProgProsp]

48. Did Clark deny its existence? He didn't at the debate.

Did he afterward?

Did Kucinich have a reputation for lying in the debates?

It sounds like it was a classified document ("a security document"), which is why you and I haven't seen it.

But, really, did Clark deny that he contributed to it?

It also sounds like Kucinich's summary is consistent with Clark's position on the war at the time ("tamp down 'come home fever'") and for the next three years.

[FrenchieCat]

50. Actually, I do not believe that Kucinich is God or as pure as

white driven snow. In fact, his stance on reproductive rights till recently has never really given me the impression that Kucinich is as liberal as sold. If someone is going to come out in a public debate about a "document" accusing someone of something, then that someone should be able to confirm this, or is Dennis Kucinich somehow exempt of having to provide evidence for what he asserts, while Wes Clark is saddled with proving a negative? I thought that's what the GOP was all about! :shrug:

In reference to the cryptic "tamp down come home fever" line that you and yours like to bring in every now and then, I believe that one of Clark's aides wrote that, not Wes Clark. Also that was something that showed up on KOS in the spring of 2006, not in 2003. This occurred when Clark was advising Congressional Dems (during their retreat) on a strategic approach to running on the Iraq War in the 2006 election.

If I recall, the media was already taking off with the "Cut and Run" mantra that it was going to plaster all over the Dems. And you know, Clark was absolutely right to "advise" the Dems not to conquer and divide each other by having some Dems crying "Home now" while others didn't.

The Dems won in particular due to Iraq.....and instead of having the media divide them and pit them one against the other by forcing them to "choose" sides on a possible "Iraq" position made up of various stances, the media was forced instead to concentrate on the fact that Bush had no strategy beyond "Stay the Course".

Clark was the one to suggest that a more generic "2006 is the year of Transition for Iraq" soundbyte would be more effective in order to win enough seats in Republican held districts while not losing any Dem seats in the process....which is what exactly what happened...which was quite an accomplishment....and although no one will ever give credit to Wes Clark for his brilliant strategic approach FOR the 2006 election in reference to how to best deal with the Iraq debate, the Dems can note that they did indeed win based on the approach nevertheless.

In fact, if I recall, Kucinich on Hardball just yesterday acknowledge that this was a Dems stance taken in unity in particular to regain the majority. If you don't believe me, look it up.

[PeaceProgProsp]

51. So Clark didn't deny it?

[FrenchieCat]

52. deny what? A drive-by allegations never heard from again?

Guess you didn't read what I said.

[PeaceProgProsp]

53. I'm not sure we've established that it was a drive-by allegation

It's consistent with Clark's position on the war from 2003-06, it was said to his face, and he didn't deny it then, nor, as far as I can tell, did he deny it anywhere else.

Furthermore, Kucinich doesn't have a reputation for lying.

[FrenchieCat]

55. Look, apart from that one statement from Kucinich, which was never corroborated

by anyone else.... and has not been mentioned by Kucinich since that one sentence in the 9/23/03 debate. Kucinich ain't my God, or a saint, and hasn't always been as progressive as some would have it. In fact, Kucinich is a politician all the way--In fact he ain't never been nothing but.

you can idolize Kucinich and believe everything he says just coz he said it.

Me, I'm a bit more cynical.

Kucinich Earned a 95-percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee in 2000. When Kucinich said "I believe life begins at conception and that our priority should be to make abortions obsolete, by preventing unwanted pregnancy, promoting abstinence, and promote life affirming programs after birth" I take all that he said from that point on with a grain of salt.

When he voted Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll115.xml which was Bush's first act when he when he got into the office, Kucinich supported that horrible bill.

He voted against funding research on RU-486. He even voted against contraception coverage in health insurance plans for federal workers--a huge work force of some 2.6 million people (the insurance plan that covers Viagra).http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020527/pollitt

So Kucinich is nice, but Kucinich ain't perfect, and all that he says ain't gospel to me.

[PeaceProgProsp]

62. There are a lot of Democrats like Kucinich in the rust belt

Catholic, from immigrant communities, who represent working class people. It doesn't make them liars.

And I think his statement is corroborated by Clark's statements about Iraq and funding and winning.

Yes to Iraqi $87B if Bush makes exit strategy:
Clark said that if he were in Congress, he would vote against Bush's request for $87 billion for operations and reconstruction in Iraq unless the president details a specific strategy to eventually withdraw US troops. Clark said he wants more troops in Iraq, but was unsure who best can provide them-the US, Iraqis or other countries.
Source: Jim VandeHei, Washington Post, p. A5 Sep 19, 2003
http://ontheissues.org/2004/Wesley_Clark_War_%2B_Peace.htm

Clark's problem with spending money on Iraq was that he wanted to make sure there was a good strategy. We know Clark was consulted by Congress. Would you be surprised if he proposed what he thought was a good strategy and coupled that with greater expenditures and troop deployment?

[Douglas Carpenter]

26. depending how one defines progressive. Certainly none of the

candidates listed above are by any wild stretch of the imagination progressive in the sense that Mr. Kucinich is progressive; of course not.

Seeks to fundamentally alter American foreign policy away from a global militaristic worldview.

Supports significant reductions in military spending

Supports single-payer universal health care

Rejects so-called "free trade" ideology

Supports moving America toward a more comprehensive social net closer toward the Canadian/European model

Committed to fundamental changes in U.S. policy in support of a settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict

Would signficantly reduce the power of corporate America's influence on governmental policy

NONE OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES SUPPORT THESE POSITIONS; NON -- EXCEPT MR. KUCINICH -- Unfortunatley

In these key issues no other candidate is in the league of Mr. Kucinich; or even remotely close. And ALL the other candidates listed above hold fairly similar positions on these key issues.

.

[Radical Activist]

28. True. Kucinich is much closer to socialist or

a European liberal than most Democrats. I think that's a good thing but it does separate him from the rest.

[GreenArrow]

34. all of which is why one of the other candidates

is going to win; they will win because they are safe. They are status-quo. They offer little threat. No one who is not pro-status quo is going to be nominated, not under this system as it currently stands.

[Infinite Hope]

29. Edwards n/t

[lillilbigone]

31. Clark is opposed to withdrawing from Iraq - why is he even in this poll?

source: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20061121/oplede15.art.htm

[Donna Zen]

40. Clark is in favor of withdrawing the troops

He believes that you set time tables during negotiations not before you negotiate. Why? Cause that is the smart way to do it and they only way to protect the troops as they leave.

Of course it isn't pandering, so it takes more than a sound bite slurp to understand.

Mr. Clark imagined a scenario in which Americans tried to influence Prime Minister Nouri Kamal al-Maliki without troops to provide leverage.

“You go to al-Maliki and you say, ‘We want you to get this training organized,’ and he says, ‘Well, it’s difficult to do.’ And you say, ‘Well, if you don’t do it and get it done right, then’—what? ‘We will not give you extra money for training for next year’? ‘You won’t get invited to my birthday party’? What? What? You lose the ability to empower, at the top level, the dialogue that is essential to resolving the political issues.”

The NY Observer

Wes Clark understands setting time tables puts us in a much weaker position as we leave. If those dates need to be changed, then that is something that we would need to give up. However, as with any experienced negotiator, not revealing our hand puts us in a stronger position for getting what we want. That is the difference of having a chess player making the moves as opposed to a novice checkers bumbler.

Oh, and it takes some thinking and honesty to understand this.

This is our future we're talking about here, not your self-selected candidate.

If Clark was one to pander, then he would chose to be the most popular guy on the block and start saying "out now." Instead he is offering his professional opinion because he actually does want out.

[lillilbigone]

49. When? What conditions need to be meet before withdrawal should begin?

What happens if those conditions never arise? How many more American troops have to die before Clark will realize that having our military in Iraq is the problem, not the solution?

[FrenchieCat]

44. Clark understands chess, the others are into checkers.....

Why announce what you are going to do, and when , before you get to see what all of the players at the table of negotiation have in their hand? What do we have to negotiate if we've already screamed out that the troops are leaving shortly? The troops must be the leverage for us to forge out a peace and attempt to negotiate ourselves out of the there and negotiate an end to the civil war.....Otherwise those checker players screaming "home now" will have to blame themselves along with Bush when WWIII in the Middle East breaks out. The Saudis are already threatening to jump in and the Iranians are already in there.

You see When Clark called it a Pandora's Box, there was a reason for it (and yes, that was the term he specifically used back in the summer of 2002)....cause the solution ain't to attempt to close the lid and run away. That didn't work in the original story, and it sure in the fuck won't work here either.

Those who profess to only care about our "American troops" will be happy that the troops are home...and as good as it sounds politically for us here back home, these matters are for those who understand chess, not checkers.

[xkenx]

63. Ah, lillibigone! Here you lurk taking mendacious shots at Clark!

Have you nothing better to do with your time? Why don't you state the underlying reasons for your disliking Clark, instead of throwing out unfounded distorted statements/claims without a shred of backup? Then we can have a discussion about your makeup which causes you to do this.

[unlawflcombatnt]

33. Jim Webb??

I really like Jim Webb. Any chance on his running?

[LWolf]

35. None of them come close. n/t

[RadiDem]

36. Kooch on Hardbal NOW!

[Eric J in MN]

39. The other people you listed have good qualities....

...but none of them cares about peace, civil liberites, due process, and transparency on the level of Dennis Kucinich.

[IndianaGreen]

41. Gore spoke forcibly against Bush's assault on civil liberties

and has been a consistent critic of the war.

[LoZoccolo]

42. Yes: me.

Some of you may recall I ran to the left of Nader in 2004.

[Strawman]

46. I'd say Edwards because of his committment to fighting economic inequality

I think that committment is also at the core of Dennis' political identity because of his direct experiences with poverty. Edwards has a similar background. I think both "get it" on bread and butter issues in ways that someone like Gore cannot. I'm not as sure about Obama.

But there are things I like about Gore and Obama as well. Gore might be the best guy in terms of qualifications for the actual job and I think he has grown alot as a thinker by getting outside of Washington for the past six years. Any of those other three would also make fine candidates in my estimation.

But I do worry about any of these other people selling liberals out unless we are united. I fear that if Dennis is not a factor, we will be quickly abandoned in the race to the "center" (which is actually far right of the actual center, IMO) during the general election campaign.

[On the Road]

56. Wes Clark Seems to be the Most Progressive

judging from his statements in 2004. A lot of Kucinich supporters might not think a general would be an alternative to a pacifist, but the fact remains. Gore is more progressive than he used to be, but still has a long record as a DLC member and a conservative Democrat.

[Azathoth]

59. Edwards, Gore, and Clark are each pretty progressive on their respective pet issues

But no one is progressive across-the-board (read: approaching socialist) like Kucinich.

[J Miles]

60. Pardon me while I laugh

Hillary Clinton, a progressive? Hah!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

64. It's John Kerry

and it's not even close for anyone else on that list.