I don't like or trust any of the major candidates

[jpgray]

Since I didn't particularly like or trust them to begin with, that's not saying a lot. Since I like and trust them far more than any of the GOP candidates, who I dislike and mistrust, my GE vote will be very simple. Especially since the Democratic nominee is the only vehicle this year for defeating the GOP. Since my state's caucus is irrelevant, who I decide on doesn't really matter much, but I'm having a difficult time of things as far as choosing a candidate. I'm leaning towards Edwards or Kucinich at this point, now that Dodd's out. I probably will go with Kucinich.

What are your thoughts along these lines?

[fenriswolf]

1. im with you on that one

still holding out on a wing and a prayer for kooch.

[Zorra]

2. I'm voting for Kucinich, because I trust him, and he has a platform that I believe in. n/t

[Mz Pip]

3. Too soon to tell if

your state will be irrelevant at this point. If it turns out to be so then vote for your first choice regardless.

Whatever flaws there are in our democracy (and there certainly are a few) it's what we have and quite a bit better than what most places have. This is what we have. It ain't perfect but I'd rather live here than pretty much anywhere else.

As much as I would like a candidate that agreed with me on all the issues I know that isn't going to happen. Sometimes I think that I chose my candidate on the basis of who will do the least amount of damage. I can almost with totally certainty guarantee that whoever the Republican nominee is, he will do more damage than any of the Democratic nominees.

I've pretty must settled on the fact that the most I can really really hope for with a Democrat in the White House is NO MORE SCALIAS. It may not be much but it's enough for me.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[peace13]

4. Go Dennis! n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. i like them all to a degree. i will vote for the dem.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

6. Al Gore would make my decision a lot easier

Of course Gore would be criticized for having chosen Joe Lieberman as his running mate. I'm sure the supporters of other Democratic candidates and Republicans as well would be able to dig up dirt on Gore. Every politician collects baggage along the way that will offend someone. But what I like about Al Gore is that he's gone on to do something with his life of a major nature for the public good without being a politician and without seeking the reward of public office. To me, that cleanses him of a lot of the sleaze and mistrust that other politicians collect. He's committed himself not just to making money outside of politics but to really standing for something. His stand on global warming isn't just a politician's lip service to an issue that might get him elected or a mark to embellish his C.V. as a politician. He has proven to me that he really believes in what he says. That would be worthy of my trust and my vote.

[Yael]

7. Your profile doesn't indicate when you causus/primary

I am in April. I hear the frustration on the limitations.

[depakid]

8. Sounds to me like you might enjoy this:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/18/6446/

;-)

[Fabio]

9. I trust edwards the least.

I think he will say anything to get elected. I'd dont yearn for clintonism, but I think hillary is thoughtful and very in command. Obama appeals to my heart, and he is IMHO more than an amazing speaker.

Generally, I want the government to start working for us better -- and more importantly -- our kids and their kids. A government that takes care of the ill, wants to educate its kids to be their best, preserves the future physical planet and generally acts like a force of good.

Any candidate become president could do that -- very much including edwards and the others -- but I will give them credit as it is earned. The political talk of "what I will do when I am president" is too cheap.

[AJ9000]

14. Edwards is almost a sure winner in 08. HRC or Obama would be a close one.

[Fabio]

15. Some polls suggest that.

Others dont. I can guarantee you he is not a sure fire winner - he may be very competitive - but let's not delve into definitive statements.

[ginchinchili]

10. I personally think the Democrats have set themselves up for a trainwreck.

It's going to be ugly and Democrats all over the country are going to be standing around the morning after the election scratching their heads and, instead of figuring out where they went wrong so not to repeat the mistakes next time, they will make excuses and learn nothing. Yes, I'm pessimistic and have good reason to be. Democrats haven't just drank the Koolaide, they're drowning in it. The two main front runners are a guy with little experience and no foreign policy experience at a time when our nation is at war, and a woman who would be going into a general election with some of the highest disapproval ratings that any nominee has had going into a general election, including Bush. If the Democrats were the least bit smart they would have made winning the one and only priority. After that Democrats could hammer out their agenda. But they're trying to prove something to a world that could care less about how politically correct the United States can be. I'm convinced that the Democrats don't really want to be in charge and are determined to lose.

[jpgray]

11. I think any of the major candidates would do very well. But I agree their strategy could be better

I'm not going to say "the media is going to turn on Obama," because they show far more signs of genuinely liking him than they did Gore or Kerry, but if they -do- turn on him, it's going to get ugly. Edwards's record in the Senate is completely lackluster and avoids all controversy (ditto Obama, especially on the funding votes), and Hillary's record is -very- nasty in places. Their rhetoric is really a collection of platitudes--choosing to believe one over the other doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since each is unsettling in his or her way. Obama echoes far too many right wing talking points on Social Security, the Great Society, Jimmy Carter, bipartisanship, etc. Edwards's rhetoric on poverty would be a lot more believable with a more solid record behind it, and Hillary has rampant triangulation syndrome.

Knowing where it comes from and why it is happening (the massively money-fueled campaign cycle and trivial media coverage almost demand such behavior) doesn't make the pill easier to swallow. However they are all possessed of some good qualities that are at least worth a GE vote considering the alternative.

[Yuugal]

13. Sad isn't it?

"I'm convinced that the Democrats don't really want to be in charge and are determined to lose."

I don't think its that. Dems just decided to split themselves into pieces as usual. We have the people who want the first woman president fighting the people who want the first black president fighting the people who want to dig up FDR and run him.

My solution would have been this wonderful lady:



She is the real deal. Ah well.

[eridani]

12. If you live in a caucus state, DEFINITELY Kucinich

If Edwards is a protest vote, Kucinich is a protest vote that is ten times stronger. This applies to precinct level caucuses. If it turns out that switching to Edwards at the county/LD or CD levels could force a brokered convention, I'll consider that. However Kucinich + Edwards delegates could have that effect as easily as Edwards delegates alone.

[comradebillyboy]

16. I don't ever turst any pol, not even the ones I vote for.

its bad for democracy to trust the people in power. they all need to be watched with the utmost skepticism and scrutiny to keep them from abusing the power they are entrusted with.