have you been supporting the same candidate all along or did you switch?

I was undecided until around May at which point I began supporting Dean and never stopped.

it'd be nice if everyone replies in the same manner as I did above — and avoids saying things like, "well, I supported X until I read this link… no way I could continue supporting him after that." — but I won't be holding my breath.

I like Kooch...but Carol is pretty impressive.

I first looked at candidates then and was disappointed that I couldn't find a Dem who wasn't (in my opinion) "business as usual". Dean was different, and still is. I've never considered supporting another candidate in the primary.

i supported dean, and then clark came, i was interested in him long before he came into the race, since they started talking about him around may

is Dean/Clark. Together they make Bushie/Cheney look like the maniacal pair they really are.

I was mixed between them all until Dean decided to make political hay out of the Bush Niger lies instead of joining with all the candidates to really expose this Presidency. That's when I knew I would never support him. Then it was between Edwards and Kerry and then as I saw Kerry speak more and read what he'd actually accomplished in the last 20 years, the choice was easy.

was mixed between them all until Dean decided to make political hay out of the Bush Niger lies instead of joining with all the candidates to really expose this Presidency.

:wtf:

Dean didn't join with the other candidates, he used the Niger lies to continue elevating himself as the 'anti-war candidate'. Every time another candidate spoke out, there was Dean, bashing them for voting for the war. It was as if he thought he could topple Bush all by himself. He put his personal political ambitions over the country.

That part of his personality becomes more clear with his recent d.c. insider and cockroach statements. He's on some kind of head trip, believing his own rhetoric. You can't accomplish anything when you alienate the people you need to support you. I don't know what he thinks he's doing.

And you can't get anything accomplished if you allow Congress to waste time and energy on incessant battles of ego. Yes, Dean can come off as being a bit abrasive at times, but that's part of what makes him so effective. He's right in that Congress will be scurrying around like a bunch of cockroaches under his presidency for a little while. They've never had a president that really holds them accountable and gets on their case to be effective and get things accomplished. Frankly, it's high time they did have that. Just imagine how much could be accomplished if someone was able to step in and get and keep Congress on task. At first they will hate his guts for it, but they'll thank him later when they finally get things passed that have been stuck on the bargaining table for ages. If you want real progress, Howard Dean is the guy who will deliver it.

I had been waiting for Kucinich to throw his hat in.

I think all 9 (10) of the candidates have things about them that I like.

then back to Clark...and now, it's really Clark!

I guess that means I'm "undecided"

I've never been into Kerry much, but I thought he looked especially presidential on Hardball tonight.

On second thought, he's a Skull & Boneser, though, right?

Back to Dean & Clark

I've always been DEAN!

DEAAAAAAAAAAN!

GENERATION DEAN!!!!!!!

WOOOOOOT. DOCTOR IS IN BABY!

I first liked Dean, but then didn't, so I kinda supported Kerry and Edwards. As I learned more about Clark I got sucked in. I still like Kerry and Edwards thought. I just think Clark is a good mix of Edwards and Kerry.

Mike

this campaign from the very begining and from Day 1 of Bush*'s occupation of the white house, I was looking at those possibilities to beat Bush* (as I'm sure is the case with most here on DU)...

I remember Kerry coming out early and taking the president on and I've really liked him. Then Dean came along and his campaign out of nowhere was indeed very exciting. He also had a strong stance on the war, and I was admittadly very dissapointed with Kerry's convoluted reasoning regarding his stance on the war. Still, Dean's personality never seemed to "click" for me, and I saw him flopping on various issues (I still think he has some great ideas though and I still appreciate the enthisiasm he's brought)...but still that started turning me off...This coincided with Clark's entry into the race and his amazing resume as well as defense of liberalism on Maher's show was very appealing...The last few weeks have given me pause on Clark, but at this point I'm still debating between Kerry and Clark, though I really do feel Kerry has the stronger record.

Would love to see any of the three, or Edwards, in the WH. Don't decide on single issue, but on personal qualities, and electability.

I hesitated initially due to his hawkish position on Israel, which he has since courageously moderated and subsequently bore heat from the likes of both Kerry and Lieberman. So why isn't Kerry condemned for his pandering to Israel?

Oddly enough it was Pitt's interview that was the deciding factor. Looks like Kerry never was willing to stoop down to an internet audience - where Dean was willing to reach.

Dean won my vote through sheer effort. No one handed him to us on a platter, and he never assumed the title. He worked for every vote.

switched to Kucinich.

I've been for Dean since last year, and can see the merits of Clark, Kerry and Edwards - and am liking what Gephart has been saying. I'd love to see a Dean/Clark ticket; I think it could not only win, but actually be good for the country.

Started with Kerry, then Dean, then Clark - like Edwards - now back to Kerry primarily on experience issue - and of course "electablility".

We MUST have disaffected Repugs to win by a convincing margin. I do not think they will go for Dean - he "scares" them with his hot rhetoric and GW will still seem like the "nicer" guy to them - even though we all know he is not.

even though I don't think he has a chance this election. My second choice is Dean.

since day 1, much to the dismay of my older, "politically tuned-in" brother. Hes a Deanie, but I told him if everyone voted their conscience and not on "who can win," DK would win in a heartbeat.

although I like Kucinich a lot I find that Dean has some type of charisma that Kucinich doesn't have.

I was originally for Dean, but my support was lukewarm at best (nothing against him, i think he is and will be a great candidate). I started reading up on the others and felt myself identifying more and more with what Kucinich had to say. So he has my support until he drops out or wins the white house (yes there's little hope of that but...one can dream can't one?)

He considered running in 2000 for a short time, and I was hoping he would run, but his kids didn't want him to until they were older. When he announced he wouldn't be running for re-election and hinted that he would run for president I was ready to vote for him. I've been in his corner since day one and will still be in his corner when he runs for re-election in 2008.

Vermonter for Howard Dean, all the way! Go Ho Ho!

I didn't think any of the candidates in the field could take on Bush and have a good shot at winning while a war was going on, even a "shadow" war like the "war" on terrorism. There are just too many people out there who consider it their duty to support the administration while there are soldiers in the field.

Additionally, the Dem candidates were primarily Beltway insiders and I didn't think that was going to fly. When the Draft Clark thing showed up on my radar I signed on because the idea of pitting a seasoned soldier against Bush seemed much more likely to succeed than any other Democratic candidate.

My position on this race from the beginning was I would support Anybody But Bush. Removing that man from office was my prime consideration and if Mortimer Snerd had a chance of beating him, then I'd vote for him.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1020-08.htm

So a military figurehead is a solution? Hasn't been working for israel--look at the cycle they are locked into and we are being drawn into as well. No thanks, not the image likely to increase our international standing.

Dean from the 1st time I heard him speak.

until Clark became just a whisper. I recieved my "pin" that declared me one of the first 700 to officially support Clark. I donated to the effort at the very begining, I am mentioning this only because I have consistenly said that I would fight for the candidate of my choice and work as hard for the eventual nominee if it turns out to someone other than my first choice. I guess you can say that I will put my "money" where my mouth is after the primaries, I have respect for all of them, but there is one I don't particularly like, even though ABB is my final goal, shallow as that might seem to some here.

Being from Massachusetts, I was privy to his ambitions before most people were. I believe now what I belived then; he is our best shot for ousting Bush, withstanding the GOP media onslaught, and holding the torch for the Democrats. I have nothing against the other candidates (I've been warming greatly towards Dean), but Kerry is still my choice. Hooray for close-mindedness!

I was a big Dean fan but didn't realize that there were tons of people just like me until May.

Martin Sheen's West Wing Character for President!

Just kidding.

Have given some support to several campaigns (am in the - more voices force more media coverage on more topics camp).

Always have believed that the primary process is important - and can be rather dynamic - and thus don't fully 'pick a horse' so early in the game.

Leaves me watching the campaigns as much as the candidates at this point. Sadly, in this race, due to the extreme advantages of the BushMachine, I think that the campaign and its strategies are going to be as important to the overall win as the candidate. But while I am impressed with a few campaigns... I do not presume to assume how these will actually pan out in the early primaries. Will keep watching with an interested eye. Keep commenting. And periodically try to get you all with a horse in the race who practice in denegrating other horses - to back off. Because in the end - we need not only to pull together - but to be willing to work our TAILS off, on the front lines (in our own communities) for that candidate.

Democrats CAN NOT win because we go to the polls holding our nose and vote. We have to become the teams that fight the rw rhetoric on a fast response, one on one level. Building divisions that hold deep animosity (as I far too frequently read here) will harm us irreprocably.

Against the war, and seemingly with a plan for the health care crisis here in America. But after some research, I found out that Dennis Kucinich had a better plan for health care, and was actually opposed to the war much earlier than Mr. Dean. What's more, DK put his words into action in opposing the war and finding a solution to the health care problem that he knows works - it's the same health care plan he has!

I haven't changed my mind about him, and I'd like to see him with Clarke as his VP. I think that ticket would have the best chance of beating Bush. Of course I'll vote for whichever Dem runs, but I'd love for it to be John Kerry.

inspect for 60 more days and grab some allies in the meanwhile.

Now only Kucinich in the primaries. We need to revitalize this party and being a DLC-er and balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and middle class as main priorities is just not going to hack it. DK has the clearest program ideas, and has been the same for years: NOT 'blowing in the wind' or coming out with the Bush "criticism-of-the-day-to-get-press!"

Dean is still a very close second choice and I will be excited if he wins. Nevertheless, General Clark is still my first choice and I like ALL of the candidates that we have running. I have come close to abandoning DU because of the negative postings about democratic candidates on this board.