And then there were 3...

[muscadine]

Or 6, depending on who is counting.

Lieberman is out. Kucinich and Sharpton are clearly not contenders. Dean's best showing was 3rd...I voted for Dean yesterday along with about 30,000 of my fellow Arizonans. But if I were still in TN, I probably wouldn't vote for him next week. Looking at it realistically, I'm not aware of any primary candidate who went on to win the nomination without winning a state by this point in the game (no, DC doesn't count). Clinton was the first (at least in recent times) to win neither Iowa nor NH, but went on to grab MO, ND, NM, OK, and SC. I may eat my words, but I doubt it. People is sheep (including me). :)

So, Clark, Edwards, and Kerry. Are you a supporter? Tell me why. And/or why you don't support these (other) candidates.

Comments

Added you to my friends list...

[alitzia.livejournal.com]

Hey there, Legolas...

I took some kind of Issues Quiz and ranked.. 1. Kucinich, 2. Kerry (I think) and 3. Clark...

Alas, I truly am new to this political thing, so some of the questions dealt with specific endeavors that I am unfamiliar with...

Re: Added you to my friends list...

[legolastn.livejournal.com]

My results are here. :)

[queerbychoice.livejournal.com]

I consider Kerry the best of those three on everything except Iraq, but that's a rather huge thing to omit. And I consider Clark the best of those three on Iraq. I find Edwards just totally unappealing on everything.

So for me it would come down to whether Iraq or "everything else" is more important. And I have no idea what the answer to that is.

Actually, I think I lean slightly toward Clark over Kerry. But not by much. And I refuse to vote for any of the three.

Bah, I don't even get to vote till March anyway, so my vote's pretty much meaningless.

Re:

[legolastn.livejournal.com]

I think in terms of deciding on a Presidential candidate, "everything else" is pretty clearly more important. Looking at the differences on Iraq among the candidates remaining, I don't see tons of difference. Sure, I don't think some of Kerry's past decisions concerning Iraq were ideal, but OTOH I don't think he would have taken us down the same path as Bush. He was more politically constrained in his choices as Senator than he would be as President.

Clark does have the most authority in the area, which lends credibility to his plans. But he could do an equally good job guiding the operations as Secretary of Defense, IMO. Of course, I like some of his "everything else," too, so that doesn't really simplify the choice for me (not that it matters now since my voice has already been heard).

Re:

[queerbychoice.livejournal.com]

See, I find Kerry's past decisions on Iraq to be absolutely monstrously horrifying, so the mere fact that I don't think he'd have gone quite as far as Bush does not really help him much in my eyes. To me, the scale of Kerry's badness in having helped authorize Bush to invade is fully enough to outweigh his "everything else."

[emiliewasmyeve.livejournal.com]

i prefer Edwards. honestly, i'll be ridiculously liberal in saying that i will vote for anyone other than Bush at this point. i think all of the democrats have positive attributes. if i had to choose one to be my roommate, it would be Dean. but he doesn't have the electibility for a presidential nominee and the conditions are to serious to risk it.

Kerry is wishy-washy and his voting records don't support what he says he believes in. Edwards with Bob Graham on the ticket would be the Republicans' worst nightmare. They are even saying so. Graham could very likely carry Florida and if Edwards got his home-state again it would be a shoe-in.

Re:

[legolastn.livejournal.com]

It's not ridiculously liberal. Most Democrats I know (and some non-Democrats) say they'll vote for ABB--Anyone But Bush.

I have not heard this Edwards/Graham scenario. Interesting. If Edwards does somehow check Kerry's momentum, he'll definitely need someone to bring a sense of gravitas to the ticket. The biggest criticism of his candidacy I've heard is his lack of experience.

[pould.livejournal.com]

Ummmmm..... I don't have a vote (being from the motherland 'n all) but if I did it would be for (*gulp*) Bush.

Sorry.....

Re:

[legolastn.livejournal.com]

*gasp*
*faints*

:D

If I actually believed Bush was walking the walk, instead of just talking the talk, I might be less adamant about his removal from office. As it is, though, I'm glad you're a Brit. ;)

Re:

[hyounpark.livejournal.com]

Because Jesus would be all about giving to the rich and giving less money to the poor? Or because Jesus would wage military war? Or because Jesus would deliberately bankrupt his own company to make himself rich? Or because Jesus would surround himself with sycophants who are just like him while denouncing the whores and beggars of the world? Or because Jesus would support large and impersonal institutions and churches at the expense of the average person?

Other than pronouncing his Christianity and showing the prayer card, what does Bush do that's actually Christian and in the spirit of Jesus Christ as he is portrayed in the Gospels?

Honestly,
Hyoun

Re:

[pould.livejournal.com]

OK, let's handle this sanely shall we?

i) You obviously think that this is what George Bush is doing. Do you want to provide some URLs to demonstrate this.

ii) Yes (see Revelation). The doctrine of Just War is far more complicated than "Jesus, meek and mild wouldn't hurt a fly". Remember, Christians believe that Jesus will return one day and, to not put too fine a point on it, kick the ass of all those who are opposing him and who are immoral.

iii) URL?

iv) "Whores" - I think that's just a bit OTT don't you? If you examine the internal politics of the Bush Administration you'll probably find much more wrangling and less "arse-licking" than you seem to propose.

v) Evidence? URL?

Re:

[hyounpark.livejournal.com]

I) His dividend tax cuts and his many many program cuts have provided less money to dole and police benefits and Veterans' Hospitals, among other things, while keeping this money within the administration. If you've ever looked at any of his budgets, you'll see how he cuts spending for special education and employee safety while calling it all "compassionate." For an article about the 2004 budget, try this. Or this. Or this.

II) If we were really waging a war on the immoral, why didn't we go to war against China (who is now our new best friend)? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Cuba? Or North Korea? Or many other immoral countries with huge human rights abuses? Picking just one country that was not vital to national security and either ignoring the rest or making friends with them is either hypocritical or stupid.

III) Bush pulled off his own mini-Enron before taking office where he was responsible for auditing the company, then insider profited his way before publicly announcing the company's problems.

IV) Bush gets on his high horse about how our AIDS funding should not go to organizations where abortion is supported. Who are more forsaken than AIDS patients in this world? Or how gay people are legally not equal to straight people, which is hardly "give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" in separating state responsibilities from church. He supports the establishment and politically beats down the downtrodden.

V) His corporate-friendly policies have been responsible for the stock market rise that does not reflect the employment or median income in the United States. Part of the reason that our US economy is rising is because of a flood in money that's artificially pumped the money supply and increased our deficit to pump up stock prices that bring up the net worth of the top 1% without providing living-wage jobs for the bottom 80%. Helping the stock market instead of providing jobs is not in the interest of the common man.

But, hey, he's a Christian, so he must be a good guy. I judge my politicians by their actions, not by their words.

Critically,
Hyoun

[fairylogic.livejournal.com]

I'm very sad that Dean is crashing like this. Partly just because I'm in Vermont, and think it would be a much better place if more of the country was like it is here. Plus he came out on top when I took the vote smart quiz and I like how passionate he is.

But honestly, at this point I'd vote for a poorly trained chimp over Bush (not that there's much of a difference!)

[glenrock.livejournal.com]

I know you read my carryings-on about who I'll vote for (or not) in November, but I have decided to vote in the open Democratic primary in Tennessee this Tuesday. I suppose my choice will have to be between Edwards and Kerry.

I absolutely will not vote for Dean because I did support the action in Iraq, and I just think he's nuts. So, no, he won't run off and attack Iraq or Iran or anyone "over there", but I can't shake the feeling that he might just wake up one morning and invade Delaware. Or pardon every turkey in America on Thanksgiving. Or yell "YEAAARRRRGGGHHH!" to the ambassador of Pakistan at an inopportune moment of nuclear arms negotiations.

I can't stand someone like Clark who changes his positions at will to suit the circumstances. There is no way this man can deny that six months ago he was a Bush-praising Republican who suddenly decided to switch because he might just get to be President if he said all the right things, whether he meant them or not. I do not think he will win Tennessee for the same reasons Gore lost this state in 2000. Gore was pro-gun and pro-life (and with Tipper, pro-censorship) as a Tennessee senator. But when he heard those positions might not play well in New England, or Minnesota (or Hollywood), he abandoned his principles and lost this state (and thus the Presidency).

Of course, I'd really have to hold my nose and squint to cast a ballot for a Massachusetts liberal. But if images of Teddy K and Dukakis can be exorcised from my mind at the time, I suppose it's possible. ;)

So that answers your question about why I'm not supporting someone. I'm still pondering where my eventual support will go next Tuesday and will probably have an entry very similar to this one in my journal soon.