Democratic candidates poll
 

Yeah, it's early. I'm just so curious which one of these people you think should be the Democratic candidate, that I have to ask. There have been a lot of debates lately so there's plenty of info on where the candidates stand.

As for me, I'm not a Democrat, so I can't vote in primaries. Perhaps later I'll set up a Republican thread, but for now, the Clinton vs Obama vs Everyone Else stuff has me on the edge of my seat.

I believe these are the main runners - let me know if I missed anyone you'd vote for.

Give me a second to set up the poll...

I voted, but since I'm a Libertarian, my opinion will have no effect on the real winner of the primaries.

I'm a member of the Green party, still. (Pre-Bush, I was part of an active grassroots campaign to do away with the two-party system.) Guess I should actually change that now that I've been a democrat for... uh... seven years...

"Richardson for America . . . Because I've Got Money On it."

I have something like 480 days until I really need to decide, right?

At this point, I have no idea, I've been a registered democrat since I've been of voting age. I'm not entirely happy with any of the options and I'm also not well informed at this point. I'm trying to avoid it at least until January 2008.

I can say that after all these years I'm thinking of changing my affiliation to independent or libertarian or??

sorry an accidental double post

I have no friggin idea. There certainly isn't one that I feel is best at this point, although all of them are certainly more appealing than any republican candidate that I've seen. But as far as that list goes, I'm not sure that there is one of them that I want. Richardson probably comes closest.

I dig Richardson. While I've voted for a Democrat in every Presidential election, I've been a registered Libertarian for more than 2 decades. Like LSPE, I've considered switching back - if only to have a chance to vote in the primary elections - but there's a nagging voice in the back of my head that says, "Maybe this year the Libertarians won't be represented by a weirdo. Or at least the election won't be so close that you'll need to vote Democrat just to prevent the Republican from getting elected."

Logically, I know that both of those ideas are balderdash. The Libs will always have wackos, and my anti-right wing vote was never really that necessary in New York City, San Francisco, and won't be in Los Angeles.

Still...

I wish we had an option of "Anybody but Clinton"

I don't see why you'd need to be a registered or otherwise Democrat to vote in this poll.


My vote ... the super-unlikely-to-ever-be-nominated Dennis Kuchinich. He should be president of California when we sucede from the Union to form a more perfect nation.

Obama - because I don't want Clinton. And I think having someone with not a lot of political game experience won't be a bad thing.

I'm registered as a "decline to state" which means I can pick my ballot but from what I understand my vote doesn't count. How they know that my ballot is from a "decline to state" person is beyond me (so much for anonymous ballots, huh.)

To be honest - that's just my excuse to not pick one myself. I have not been keeping up with who's saying what, partially because I can't vote for any one of them in the primaries, and I won't be voting for any of them in the election. I echo mousepod's sentiments on this, pretty much. The other reason I haven't been keeping up is that I hate politics.

I am, however, interested in how you all you guys feel, especially those that are Dems.

I'd pick Richardson. I could actually see myself voting for Richardson depending n the Republican candidate.

I like Richardson too. Obama would be my 2nd choice.

So far I haven't narrowed it down to one, partly because this early I'm not really paying close attention to it all. But based on what I know there are two people on that list I'd currently be willing to vote for. Obama and Richardson.

Who is this "Richardson" and why don't I, a political junkie type, know the first thing about him or her?

Richardson, paging Mr. or Mrs. (Ms?) Richerdson. Please report to LoT.

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/

I have MONTHS before I have to decide and I plan on taking my time.

Well there you go. I'll subscribe to that newsletter and see what sticks. :cheers: :snap:

So far I like Obama's voice best

I am not endorsing him - I do not know much about him. I was just trying to help answer the question.

And that's all that really matters isn't it (well, that and looking good)?

At this point - it is most important since my news is coming to me over the radio

Yep, and which is why Richardson can't get my vote. Sorry, too fugly.

With all due respect, Kevy, linking to his propaganda does not help answer my question.

Can anybody tell me about him and where he stands, based on your own filtered swanky knowledge??

No, I think we're supposed to take into account whether we'd like to have a beer with him/her, aren't we?

Chris Matthews seems to rely on his sense of smell, but I've never been close enough to employ that method. Must just be a beltway thing.

I admit that photo of him isn't great, but in watching moving video of Bill Richardson I think he's reasonably attractive and certainly not ugly (watch the video on his home page; do you find him ugly in that)?

1. Richardson is a Clinton-democrat.

2. He has extensive executive experience. In addition to being governor he has held many executive branch positions including Secretary of Energy under Clinton. Also served in Congress for something like 8 terms so have legislative experience. Has good foreign relations experience as well having served as Ambassador to the United Nations. Frankly, he may be the most qualified candidate running for the office from either party.

3. He is pro-choice.

4. He is pro death penalty.

5. On gay issues he has a questionable past having voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, but back in 1996 almost everybody voted for it and Clinton signed it. Since then he has come out pretty solidly on the side of gay rights (including expanded rights protections in NM while governor).

6. He opposes the war and supports a prompt pull out from Iraq.

7. He supported the "comprehensive" immigration plan that recently died in Congress, I believe. If not explicitly that bill he support simultaneously creating a path to citizenship for illegals already here and strong border security to keep out new illegal immigrants. Unlike many Democrats in Congress (and the president) he seems to actually want the border controls implemented though not a fence.


Those are the issues I can think of where I have a sense of his position. Mostly from watching an interview of him a few weeks ago. I can't say that I have a ton of exposure but he has been very popular in New Mexico where they presumably know him best and seems to have the most legitimate cross aisle admiration (unlike fake admiration where a R or D expresses a liking of a candidate knowing that the recipient could never win a nomination).

So with him it is more that I haven't heard anything yet that disqualified him in my eyes than that I have seen enough to be certain I support him.

I actually know more about him than Obama, and consider him certainly more qualified. But I find myself supporting Obama because of his charisma as well as a desire to see a clean cut with history in the White House.

How nice it would be to have a president with no sordid connections to past administrations where top positions have a chance of going to relatively new people with new ways of looking at things. As much as I disagreed with many of their policies I think these were among the good things about the Clinton and Carter administrations. Republican presidents, as you might expect from the "conservative" label, tend to have too much yearning for the comfort of past power and that is one reason I have little interest in Hilary Clinton this time around.

Thus far, I would vote for either Obama or Richardson. I'm leaning toward Obama just to get back at my redneck uncle who keeps sending me anti-Obama propaganda. The 'necks are real nervous about him, and that is a plus in my book.

so, is the general consensus (here at least) that Hillary is wasting her time?

God, I hope so, Captain.

Geez. I try to make a friendly gesture...

I know zero about Richardson. However, if I wanted to find out about a candidate I would START at that candidate's web site. Why? Because that is presumably where they will state their platform, their beliefs, and is a good starting point for their background. I don't take that published on one's site as gospel, but nor do I take it as complete lies and fabrications (although I concede it is entirely possible).

But to make a good evaluation of a candidate, I would also continue researching his/her voting record, news articles about said candidate (preferably about past actions before becoming a candidate), opposing views about them (that don't resort to mudslinging), etc. I learn as much, both good and bad, about said candidate and make my own decision based on the information learned.

While my link was to just ONE site, the candidates own site, it DOES help you learn who he is - it looks like Alex was able to find a tremendous amount of information about Richardson. I am sorry that I do not have the time to perform a complete profile on him for you.

true. every 'no sale' usually starts with hearing their sales pitch

I don't disapprove of Hillary politically. I disagree with her on many issues but that isn't a reason to disapprove of someone.

The reasons I can't support her candidacy are mostly unfair to her. Simply put I think it is a bad idea to return a former president to the White House in any capacity, but particularly one where there is so little oversight and official responsibility. Now, I don't think the presidential spouse should just sit on their hands for four or eight years but I also think they should not be key figures in the administration. You think Cheney works magic behind the veil that exists around the mostly unofficial role of the vice president, there's absolutely nothing that can be done to the presidential spouse.

Now, it is certainly possible that Bill won't feel any need to be all that involved or that Hillary will create a firewall that keeps him out but I am uncomfortable with the situation enough that I'd rather avoid it.

Plus, I would like to see a break in power. I wasn't so much bothered by the "dynasty" aspect of Bush because I viewed it as an anomaly. Going 180 years between father/son presidents implies it isn't much to worry about. It isn't fair to Hillary but doing it again right away bothers me. If she's elected we're looking at the possibility of a 26 year span where the presidency stays within just two families. And then Jeb will want a turn.

Finally, I don't have much hope of the bi-partisan atmosphere of our government improving much. If Obama is elected I'm sure Republicans will find reason to revile him just as much as they did Clinton and if Fred Thompson is elected the vitriol will eventually match that targeted at Bush. So the hope for improvement is small but I think it is zero if Hillary Clinton is elected. Again, not fair to her.

That said, I don't think she is wasting her time. I'd say she is still the most likely Democrat to get the party nomination. However, among the major Democratic hopefuls I think she is the one most likely to shore up the Republican base enough to prevent a Democrat from winning the election.

I agree that part of evaluating has to be at least initially taking at face value what they have to say about themself. I haven't visited the official sites yet, but that is mostly because I'm still in a very passive state when it comes to gathering information about the candidates.

And apparently tonight I am in the mood to write books. (I'm hyper about some very good events for me at work today but don't have a good outlet for the hyperness; I predict a very long daytrip tomorrow.)

Not only do I not think Clinton is wasting her time ... I predict she will be our next president.


She's not my first choice. But we could do worse.




Obviously.

:D

http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/...dson#post40932

I educated myself.

Interesting guy. He was governor of New Mexico, an energy mogul, was Secretary of Energy, signed medical Mary J legislation, has rather decent foreign relations experience. While he voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, he added sexual orientation and gender identity to New Mexico's list of civil rights categories, and opposes the "don't ask, don't tell" policy....

what's he sound like?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tjOuL5qwNIc

Richardson has a lot going for him too.......


He's a Governor---the last 4 Presidential Elections were won by Governors....and 7 of the last 8.

He's from the right latitude..........Every Presidential Election since 1960 has been won by someone from the Sun Belt.

He's not a Senator............Kerry, Gore, Dole, Mondale, Jackson.....etc.

His name is Bill...............2 of the last 4 elections were won by someone named Bill:cheers: