Honesty Thread: What's Good, What's Bad about YOUR Candidate?

The rule for this thread is that each poster should restrict his or her commentary to his or her candidate and should briefly state the candidate's positives AND negatives. I'm intending this as an exercise in honest self-appraisal. I'm hoping we can show each other that we're closer in our perception of reality than we might think, given the sparks that fly between supporters of different candidates.

Allow me to demonstrate with my appraisal of Howard Dean:

Pluses:

Has charisma and guts.

Sharp, on-the-money critiques of Iraq war and aftermath, war on terror, crony capitalism, the tax cuts, and the anti-choice travesty Congress just passed.

Passion inspiring.

Appeals to young voters, Greens, misfit conservatives and libertarians, and nonvoters, as well as still-fuming Al Gore Democrats.

Profoundly sophisticated, innovative and groundbreaking use of Internet campaigning.

DLC hates him and offers him a nice big fat target for a Sista Soljah moment, campaign 2004-style.

Background as doctor and governor with reputation for bringing "universal" health coverage to his state.

Comes from state with a reputation for independence and thinking outside the box.

Pleasant, witty, down-to-earth way of speaking.

Civil union legislation underscores his heart being in the right place on human rights.

Libertarian position on guns underscores his quirkiness and originality as a politician.


Minuses:

From a small, relatively homogeneous state in the Northeast with a reputation for being left of the country.

Hasn't been able to make clear why his positions on trade and the tax cuts are right; hasn't answered criticisms of them in debates very well.

Lack of military service, unsterling record of evading the draft, could be exploited like crazy if he's the nominee (unless Dems show teeth on Bush's record).

Support for death penalty. Totally sucks.

Ties to AIPAC and DLC...just make you wonder...

Not quite as eloquent as I wish he was. He beats Bush, but doesn't come close to Clinton. Overuses phrases like, "I'm sick and tired..." and other "I" formulations.


Okay, get the picture? Anyone else care to try?

(Deanies, feel free to add to these. Try to keep the additions more or less balanced between pluses and minuses.)

I would support Dean with everything he has. However, the one that really irks me is the AIPAC connection. I wish he had some friends who were a part of APN or have a Muslim consultant.

Upside:

Best environmental record in the race

Solid liberal voting record across the board

Massive experience w/ Intel and Foreign Relations committees

Incredible endorsements (Beers, Wilson, Firefighters Assn.)

Brilliant

Author

War hero

Anti-war activist

Voted against Ashcroft

Voted against tax cuts

Downside:

Voted for IWR

Voted for Patriot Act

Voted for Homeland Security Act

Looks French

When speaking, gives one the sense of slowly sinking to the bottom of the ocean

"Another Massachusetts Liberal"

Possible member of insidious BFEE/Skull & Bones/Bildeberg/Mueller FBI High School Hockey Locker Room Conspiracy To Destroy Everything, but not yet proven.

Thank you for following the rules to a T.

:toast:

Damnit! I hate secret societies, especially since folks like me don't get let in. :-)

I don't pretend to represent all Clark supporters, but...

Pluses

Intelligent but not condescending.
Passionate but positive: appeals to desire in people to do good.
Known and respected abroad: Can pronounce names of countries AND leaders.
Accomplished military service record.
Humble origins / self-made.
Pro affirmative action.
Pro choice.
Pro environmental protection.
Supports progressive taxation.
Committed to multilateralism.
Appeals to anti-Washington frustration.

Minuses

Never held elected office (many consider this a negative, but I don't)
Soft on NAFTA and WTO.
Tends to overuse military analogies.
May be too cooperative with opposition.
Healthcare plan probably won't be universal single payer.
Has an unintended polarizing affect on democrats.
Late entry may be seen as trepidation.
Seemingly disorganized campaign staff (getting better).


That's almost equal.

:toast:

except the attitudes and beliefs that prevent people from seeing he's exactly what this country needs or from believing he can win. He'd be my choice even if I didn't agree with him on everything.

He comes across as more than a bit shrill. Hel-lo!
His healthcare plan will ruin small business.
He flip-flopped on abortion.

That's what I've heard anyway. :)

It's very difficult to get on the same page if we don't have evidence that people are thinking realistically--holistically, if you will--about their candidates. No one is perfect. No one.

and I didn't say he's perfect. Okay, so he flip-flopped on abortion ... if he actually did, which I admit I need to investigate. Find me a candidate with a more consistent record that I can also agree with, point for point. I think I'm probably too idealistic to be on the same page with you, and I'm not sure we need to be on the same page as long as we respect each other's views and eventually all get behind a single Democratic candidate. Dennis Kucinich is my #1 choice.

The thing about Dennis is, he not only understands what it's like not to be rich and powerful, but he also undertands that America is full of people who are not like him and not like each other but have to live together and have their basic needs met. I see a lot of things in his platform that will create a better society. I'm not sure some of them will work, but I think they're worth trying. This is the only candidate I fully agree with, believe, and trust. There are others I agree with on most things, but I don't believe some things they say and I don't trust them.

On the downside: He's short. His hair looks like a toupee. His voice is too high. He's too shrill or New Age or whatever. All superficial things that I tried to include in "attitudes and beliefs that prevent others from seeing he's exactly what this country needs or from believing he can win." Maybe I should have said I don't see any minuses worth mentioning.

Why do we need to be on the same page? And if we do need to be on the same page, is it really possible? Explain your vision, and I'll see if I can catch it.

We don't need to be following the same bliss, necessarily, or the same orders. But it's useful to me, at least, to know we can agree on most of the phenomena we're seeing--on the shape and size of things if not necessarily their meaning. I appreciate your loyalty to Kucinich. Truth be told, I can be persuaded to change. I'm more of an ABB type, myself.

My top five are Kucinich, Dean, Kerry (who may have to move down the list now that I've learned he's a Bonesman), Edwards, and ABB. I just finished reading that oldy-moldy psychology-of-Kucinich article on the other thread and am in the processing mode, trying to decide if it bothers me because it's nasty or because it might be somewhat truthful and then I have to deal with it. As will the candidate, if he wins the nomination.

On rereading, I realize I didn't respect the letter of your thread. I should have enumerated the minuses.

GOOD

he can win

can restore the Democrats' credibility on military matters

pro-gun

possibily the smartest candidate in the race.

will approach the use of military force with caution and care for the consequences.


BAD

He's been making a number of rookie political mistakes.

I'd like to see a little more moral outrage in his rhetoric.