Would you support a Drafted Candidate, if nominated?

No matter who it is, they would have been originally bantered about by a draft committee.

On Edit: I realize Nader wouldn't be nominated by US...

Draft(ed) Candidates:

* Kucinich { Google Cache of DraftKucinich.com }
* Gore { DraftGore.com }
* Clark { DraftClark.com }
* Nader { DraftNader2004.com }

Especially if it was someone I liked, and it proves that people worked hard enough to get him or her to run.

I must admit that I don't compeltely understand the formalities of a draft. I would consider a candidate emerging from a draft. Draft Al Gore? Possibly. Draft Jim Traficant? No way!

Draft Jim Traficant heh. Free Traficant wigs and people have made fun of Kucinich's hair in the past, I think its fine but is Jimmy T wearing a racoon or is that hair?

...be it Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, or whomever (Not that either is actually happening)

I don't include Wesley Clark in that because the "Draft Clark" thing has been going on for some time now, and it seems that a lot of Dems would easily back him as a VP nominee to the front runner (Dean or Kerry, it would seem most likely), so it seems Gen Clark is the 10th candidate in this race official or not. And there just isn't room for any more.

Although primaries will go well into the Spring of 04, we need to be realistic and get behind the likely nominee early next year to give the nominee time to campaign effectively in the face of the KKKarl Rove slander machine. Right now, a perspective Dean/Clark ticket looks like the best combination to meet that threat. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I've predicted the outcome of every election since 1984 correctly, and this is the ticket that I see beating the Bush Criminal Empire.

Draft Clark is a marketing campaign. Though I know some DUers who are supporters of Clark and I believe sincere (and people I respect), the people actually organizing the draft are prof campaign hacks.

but are selected (drafted) anyway at the convention.

It is often talked about, but is rather a romantic notion nowadays. In times past, when there were few primaries and many uncommitted delegates, it was possible that a true "draft" could succeed. Now, almost all delegates are awarded by primary and are the partisans of the candidate they represent.

It could still happen, but only in case of a deadlocked convention. The last time a Democratic convention opened without a certain winner determined beforehand by committed delegate total was 1968. Before that, it was 1932.

Our country is definitly going thru a very differant time then it should be ,I know 9/11 changed alot of things ,however the 2000 election is when all of this weirdness started ! The Dems in turn need to take drastic measures to ensure victory in 2004 , and if that means Drafting the person who is most reconized and has the best chance to win ,I say go for it , lets throw the opposition a curve ball they did not see coming ! I have nothing against most of the annouced runners ,I just dont think they will win ,hope Iam 100% wrong , dont think so ? Job #1 is beating bush in 04 and I cannot imagine a better feel good outcome then putting the guy in there that was the victum of the stealing. How dare they twist and bend Democracy for their own selfish reasons ! Lets show them crime dont pay !

One of the men currently campaigning for the nomination is going to emerge next spring with a lock on the nomination. Personally, I hope it's Dean. If not him, it will probably be Kucinich. Maybe Kerry.

But the romantic notion (as Adjoran so aptly put it) that the convention will open up without a winner in nominating votes is not merely romantic, but reveals a profound lack of understanding of how they system works.

Money is the most important factor. Usually the candidate who can raise the most money can win primaries. Second is momentum. Once a particular candidate wins a couple of primaries or caucus states, it's pretty much all over.

What will matter in the long run is that those of us whose favorite candidate doesn't win the nomination, quickly rallies behind the nominee. And don't think for a minute we'll be asked to rally behind Lieberman, Sharpton, or Mosely-Braun. Again, the way the system works it's just not possible for any of those three to be nominated.

The real question then is, will those of us who back Dean throw our support wholeheartedly behind Kerry? Will Kucinich fans campaign vigorously for Dean? I sincerely hope the answer is yes, for all of us.

It would entirely depend upon who was nominated.