Tell us why you think your candidate is the best choice for the nomination

I want to know why you think that your candidate is the best choice for the democratic nomination for President. There is a catch though - You are not allowed to bad mouth any other democratic candidate or the democratic party in general in the process.

HUH?

Means you have to make your argument based on the issues alone. I'll call anyone out who goes negative on their post.

Me - I'm supporting Howard Dean. I see alot of another governor from a small state in Howard Dean, not so much with his stance but the fact that Dean is using new ways to attract voters espcially with the Meetup stuff. And I feel Dean best mirrors my ideas on most of the issues I support out there when it comes to the War, Choice, Environment and many other issues. I especially like Dean's stance on Gun Control saying this should be a state issue. We lose more voters who should be democrats (especially the unions) because of the gun issue and I think Dean's stance on this area will play well in the union states that Al Gore lost in 2000 (aka West Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee to name a few). This and Free Trade are two very important issues, because when I talk politics with my family this is what they want to know about a candidate and these are NRA/Union members. And if I can convince them to vote for someone like Dean, I truly believe we can get others to crossover and vote for him. (and yes, I've been able to convince my family to crossover for both Rendell and Holden, both democrats)

I think all of the candidates have good qualities and Dean was a tough choice since I was also impressed with John Kerry and more recently Kucinich and Clark.

---

I support Howard Dean because he has rekindled the political spirit in me. I have not supported anyone this enthusiastically since Jimmy Carter in 1976--though I have always voted and worked for many Democratic nominees.

I admire his record as Governor of Vermont. He provided Health Insurance for most children in his state and more affordable prescription drug coverage for seniors. He did this while still balancing the budget and ending the most regressive form of taxes--sales taxes on clothing. He preserved over a million acres of land and shoreline in the state. He increased the minimum wage twice and helped create over 40,000 new jobs--a very high number considering the size of Vermont. He showed that he will protect the civil rights of all people when he signed the Civil Unions Bill.

In fact his support of the Civil Unions Bill was what a 15 year old student from Covington, Kentucky wrote about in an Essay which won the John F. Kennedy Library Profiles in Courage Award:
http://www.jfklibrary.org/pica_essay_winner_2001_dziczek.html

I admire his stand on Iraq which I consider to be an immoral act by the United States. Dean has been firm. I like his health care proposals. I like the fact that he is 100% pro-choice and will select pro-choice judges to be on the Supreme Court. I like his stand on balancing the budget--it has to be done or else the country will ultimately see higher unemployment and interest rates. I trust that Dean will support the civil rights of all given his stand on civil unions.

I think Howard Dean will be a great president.

He's the only Democrat in the race who

1) brings to the ticket a swing state, Florida, the 5th largest state worth 27 electoral votes, where he has been winning statewide elections by solid margins since 1978. In fact, he has never lost an election. Any Democrat outraged by Bush's electoral "victory" in Florida in 2000 should consider supporting Senator Graham. "I can beat George Bush in Florida and I won't need the US Supreme Court to cast the last ballot," he says.

2) has served as both a governor (1979-87) and U.S. Senator (1987-present) in the 4th largest state in the union. Four of the last five presidents were governors. Voters clearly value executive experience when selecting a president.

3) has proven strong appeal in Southern states that Democrats will need to win the election. Every successful Democratic presidential candidate for the last 30 years has hailed from the South.

4) has served as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, where he has been a leader in beefing up America's defenses against terrorism and in shining light on failures of the Bush administration -- an issue certain to be central in the 2004 election as Americans weigh their sense of security since 9/11/01.

5) voted AGAINST giving Bush authorization to go to war in Iraq , unlike fellow lawmakers Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt. He believes the war in Iraq has distracted America from quashing terrorists networks like Al Qaeda, that are far more of a threat to the safety and security of Americans than Iraq's supposed nuclear materials or weapons of mass destruction. "Osama Bin Forgotten," he quips.

6) doesn't fall into the trap of raising taxes on the middle class. Democrats should have learned from past elections that raising middle class taxes is a certain "loser" issue for them.

7) has a 37-year-record of executive and legislative accomplishments on education, the environment and the economy. He wants to fully fund the "no child left behind" legislation, raise teacher salaries, protect our cherished natural resources as he has done with Florida's Everglades, and roll back tax cuts for the super-wealthy.

8) has produced a comprehensive six-year plan for America's economic renewal. Observers compare it to the "Putting People First" economic plan Bill Clinton unveiled during the 1992 presidential campaign to great effect and success.

9) has tens of thousands of supporters (mostly Floridians who know, love and trust him) eager to volunteer for his campaign.

10) has a strategy to win the nomination. He doesn't need to win January contests in Iowa or New Hampshire (as Kerry, Dean and Gephardt MUST) to break out of the pack of Democratic presidential candidates. His "stomping ground" is much more likely to be February primaries in South Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Arizona, and Oklahoma.

*******

As to the supposed "charisma" issue--Graham's appearance on Garrison Keillor's show was a great success. He's got an easy-going, wise and appealing charisma.

With Graham, it's not all about the candidate, it's all about what he wants to do for this country and its future. He is the kind of man who could begin to heal the terrible rifts that have grown between us.

And please, spare us the "he'd make a good VP." He has strongest qualifications to be president, and he should be.

Is Florida the 4th or 5th largest state in the Union?

(see points #1 and #2)

But seriously - this is the kind of the debate we need!

Sorry. Too late now to edit. :(

(hey, it worked for my parents!)

:evilgrin:

I think America is having a moment like it did in the 1890s and 1930s, and Edwards speaks best to the issues that are critical.

At both of those times in American history, conservatives tried to create a world which shifted a great deal of wealth from the middle and working class to the wealthy. At the core of every conservative policy was this stealth project to create a world which made the rich richer without having to work hard, and made the poor work harder and harder for less so the rich could take the wealth they were creating. In the 1890s the Democrats ran a candidate who didn't speak specifically to his moment in history. His populism pitted agrararian workers against the factory owners AND their employees. Because the Democratic Party didn't understand the mood of America, Republicans won and were able to, very effectively expand their project of wealth insulation and expansion.

It was a fluke that saved America. Mark Hannah allowed the wrong Republican to sit on a ticket with his Golden Boy, William McKinley. When McKinley was assassinate by an anarchist, crazy TR undermined the Republicans by pushing through anti-monopoly laws and an income tax which created a stronger economy, and spread wealth more fairly and efficiently. (This is what Clinton was talking about when he said the Democratic version of society actually creates more wealth). Well, TR's successes were only temporary, because they created even more wealth for America, which the Republicans coveted even more, so the Republicans got their act together, and got down to ripping off the middle and working class. Then came FDR, who fought hard to protect the working and middle class again.

Since FDR, America has gotten richer, and Republicans are coveting that wealth, and we're backsliding again.

In this year's crop of candidates, I see Democrats who remind me of the 1890s -- they're talking about things that are important. But they're not talking about THE important things. They don't understand the moment in history. They don't understand that this is all about the shifting of wealth to the wealthy. They don't have the right chat to gently nudge people into realizing what they're experiencing.

In this year's crop of candidates, I see one candidate who has exactly the right chat to make issues click in people's heads. It's Edwards. The trajectory of his life -- his biography -- have a coherent logic that captures exactly the reality of the American experience. And everything he proposes fits into that logic and is exactly the right thing to do to get America back on that wealth and happiness creating, wealth sharing trajectory that the two Roosevelts and JFK, Johnson and Clinton pursued.

If I may steal from the Edwards supporter above, I too think since Roosevelt the regular guy has been allowed to make money, especially under Bill Clinton..The Republican bought the election for Bush, to turn this around, and he did his job...where is the money now, and who are the investors in the market...Not the regular guy!

Edward, the son of a working man who had enough ambition to pull him self up by the boot straps,would understand the working man, and since he is a successful man he would understand the more affluent in the nation.

In other words Edwards is the very picture of the sons that America is proud to have as their president. He would work for the betterment of the nation. Some will say not enough experience, however we have leaders in the nation to fill him in where he is lacking..evidentally Senator Edwards is a quick study. I think he is ready for the Job..As Clinton surely was, with a bright cabinet, with men like Rubin..he is going to be fine

I also like Edwards for President. I liked that his healthcare platform started with pharmaceutical reform. He just seems to make the most sense to me. I also find him to be a compelling and intelligent speaker who is thoughtful and careful in his comments. I think it is important that I cannot find him attacking any other Democrat, anywhere. I have not come across any shots that he has taken at Dean or anyone else. He will make critical comments about the current administration, but they never sound bitter or petty. I guess they just don't sound like shots, if you know what I mean.

I also think that his background and the fact that he is self-made make him attractive to me. You have to admire the kind of guts and intelligence that take you from a millworking family to self-made millionaire and US Senator before you are fifty. Combine those traits with integrity, charisma and honesty and I think that John Edwards would make the perfect contrast to George Bush.

I like Howard Dean's passion and I like his positions on many issues, but I have to choose Kerry as my top pick. Kerry has a HUGE level of experience in foreign policy, something that I think would be a major problem for Dean early on. I'm not saying that Dean wouldn't adjust, but it wouldn't happen as quickly. I also want someone who knows how Washington works and can work with Congress -- in my opinion, outsider presidencies are generally overrated -- Carter's presidency, Reagan's first term (well, for us Dems, Reagan's entire tenure), Clinton's first two years -- all disasters. I want someone who isn't lost when they first get into the Oval Office. I want somebody who knows the issues and has solidly liberal credentials without being too far left that they can't be elected.

Another HUGE reason I support Kerry is unity. We are in trouble if we can't unite behind a candidate. Kerry is the candidate who is BEST PLACED at uniting the party -- sure there'll be some holdouts, but Kerry can unite nearly all the party behind him, even if for a large portion of them he's a second choice. He's acceptable to most Deaniacs and liberals, he's extremely acceptable to environmentalists, he's acceptable to labor without being protectionist, something that will help with swing voters and upscale suburbanites, and he's acceptable to the DLC centrists. Edwards, to a lesser extent can extend this same kind of appeal, but on the whole, Edwards strikes me as secondary to Kerry.

Plus, Kerry can have a real eloquence when he's on target -- he can convey passion and anger and can communicate his agenda to the country. Again, it's not as much as Dean, but it's something that's not acknowledged enough.

All that said, I acknowledge that so far his campaign has disappointed me somewhat -- he's taken stands so far that are quite cautious and has pandered. Hopefully his policy initiatives to be revealed in the fall will solve that problem.

You hear him and you like him. Something about his voice that commands attention, and the content of his speeches hits home. People uninvolved with politics, and even some lifelong Republicans, hear him speak and come away not just supporters but donors.

He doesn't mince words. His stand on civil unions is brilliant: call it an equal rights issue (it is, of course, but what other candidate has said that?). His take on the war is deeper than the media wants to give him credit for: he's not anti-all-war-everywhere, he's just anti-idiocy. His stance on abortion carries more weight than the average lawmaker's would, since he's a doctor. I would trust him to implement healthcare reform more than I would someone without a medical background.

I'm torn between Dean and Clark. Clark I like for his C.V.; It's impressive as hell. I'd hire him. Eloquent and mild-mannered (mostly), he comes across well on camera, having had a lot of practice on CNN. I think he will help any ticket, especially one that the media wants to label "soft on defense". Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean would rally our base and send Bush packing.

I've also been impressed with Graham, Kucinich, Kerry, Mosely-Braun and Sharpton. When Al was asked if he supported gay marriage, he said, "You might as well ask me if I support black marriage or white marriage." You could almost hear the sound of light switches going on in people's minds. There are so many good ideas in this group of candidates, it would be a shame to limit ourselves to just one or two people's ideas. I'm hoping we can pool all our ideas together no matter who the nominee is. Rove delights when we tear each other down, but cowers when we work together.

Working together instead of against each other...what a concept.

with international issues - which is EXTREMELY important right now - he has a record in Washington - does your candidate?

I've got to say that I got REALLY turned off to his campaign because of the "negative" campaigning - he would do well to fire Joe Trippi - the one starting all the problems.

You have got to admit that DU was flooded with Dean posts because of Joe Trippi's mantra - it was a HUGE turnoff.

I don't care to hear about "meetups" - perhaps that works for college kids, but not for the general public.

Before all of this stared, Dean was my number 2 choice - he's at the extreme bottom of my list now and I hope he does not get the nomination - I feel like I have been beseiged by marketing calls - and this is yet another one.

That was the point about this whole thread - to start postive posts about our candidates and why we support them!

There is a catch though - You are not allowed to bad mouth any other democratic candidate or the democratic party in general in the process.
HUH?
Means you have to make your argument based on the issues alone. I'll call anyone out who goes negative on their post.

Methinks there's some pretty clear negativity on display already... should we analyze from which camps against which? :-)

I'm happy that disenfranchised young voters are becoming active.

But, my vote is leaning towards Kerry.

He's got loads of foreign policy experience.

He will not allow Bush and Rove to brow beat him on National Security.

His political history is solid on environment and civil rights.

His economic plan is progressive and does not rely upon across the board tax increases, rather it rolls back the special treatment that BushCo. has given to the rich.

I've seen him in person several times (I've seen all of the candidates except for Kucinich) and know that he carries his message well.

I won't bash Dean as I know he is a sincere man with a lot of energy but I disagree with his tax plan and believe that his lack of security and foreign policy experience will hurt him and other Dems running in 2004. I hope Dean keeps to his promise and will back the nominee, whoever it is.

heck I've probably done it.

But I really want to start seeing healthy positive debates about the candidates and I'm hoping to start it with threads like these.

Personally, I can't point to one group and say "YOU - ALL YOU DO IS BAD MOUTH ALL THE CANDIDATES BUT YOUR OWN" because we all do it.

Maybe if we have success with this thread we can start other threads that are "positive-only" We choose a subject and we debate from there??!!!

and he is the essence of honesty and integrity. He is the one candidate who will make America a better place.

Howard Dean has a great deal of positive energy behind his campaign, and has IMHO a good shot at winning WV, NH, AR, TN, FL, etc. because of his many moderate stances, especially on the gun issue. I also find his foreign-policy views to be refreshing, as also is his youth-friendly, tech-friendly campaign style.

He voted for the war, the patriot act and homeland security. shoot him.

John F. Kerry is the real deal. Kerry has done more in the service of this country than ANY other candidate. Practically his entire adult life has been devoted to making America a better place.

As a US Navy commanding officer, he volunteered for the most dangerous missions. He earned a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts for gallantry in combat.

When he came home, he did all he could to end the war as a civilian. He helped form the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testified before Congress, framing the issue with his question: "How do you ask a man to die for a mistake?"

When he was a Massachusetts DA, he busted the Mafia. Not just anybody, Kerry went after a well-connected big shot who had friends in high places. His work led to the nomination for candidate as Lt. Governor, which he won.

As a Senator, he's known for going after the crooks in even higher places and on both sides of the aisle. He busted Ollie North and the drug-runners sending the Contras money, as well as the Iranian terrorists banking at Clark Clifford's BCCI.

His support of Liberal causes is clear. Kerry has an 18-year voting record where he has demonstrated his support of labor, women's issues, the environment, education, small businesses and other issues of conern to ALL the people.

Regarding the Iraq war vote: Kerry did what he thought was best for protecting the United States from further attack. Remember, 9-11? Kerry does and he'll damn sure remember to investigate it and who's at fault — here and abroad — and make certain it doesn't happen again.

As President, John F. Kerry would bust the Bush Organized Crime Family and send the bloody lot of them to prison for the rest of their natural days. That's why Smirk, Sneer, Turd Blossom and the rest of them are crapping their pants worrying about John F Kerry. He's the real deal and he's going to put a world of hurt on the crooks.

One more thing: John Kerry doesn't forget his friends. Kerry's on the left of this photo, sailing with John F. Kennedy, center.

A fair question. I have not yet settled on a candidate yet, and have considered most of their positive qualities. This has allowed me to narrow the group of candidates that I am considering to three or four. But it will be the negative qualities brought out by their opponents and the media that will help me to narrow my list down to one.

So the positive and negative qualities of every candidate must be considered in order to make a truthful and intelligent choice. I agree that sometimes the facts are not always what we wish to hear, but they will come out either in the primaries or the general election.

because I've written a lot about Clark this week. So please bear with me if you've read this before.

Anyway, here goes:

-Clark has consistently articulated since last year a coherent and realistic critique of the war and the Bush Admin's policy.

-But he hasn't just been saying "Bush is bad." Or "war is bad." Clark has clearly and intelligently articulated why he thinks war was unnecesary AND presented a realistic, multilateral alternative that would be better for both America and the world community, in both terms of both morality and law. He places a great emphasis on international law and international institutions, two things that this country has been pretty prickly toward. I think his credentials would make it possible for him to drag the U.S. into fuller and fairer participation in these institutions.

-He is a very clear speaker who is able to communicate complex positions in terms normal people can understand, but without dumbing down his message. He's quick on his feet and does very well in interviews. He doesn't mince words and he doesn't come across as whiny or overly negative--but when he does hit, watch out! I think Tom DeLay is still picking pieces of Clark's shoe leather out of his butt...

-He takes a long-term view of the environment, the economy, and the constitution. America needs more people who are willing and able to look at things seriously from a "100-year" timespan point of view. He's a solid progressive who can articulate his positions in terms that make them seem reasonable to moderate conservatives. He can talk about economic justice in a way that won't strike red staters as whiny. And he's solid on all of the core progressive issues: pro-choice, very skeptical of the PATRIOT Act, would strongly uphold separation between church and state, opposes ANWR drilling, supports more federal education funding, and so on.

-He's from the south, he's telegenic, has great academic, military, and business credentials. He has a moderate position on guns, lack of political baggage, and background as a general, so it's very hard to paint him as a "librul radical." People know him from his stint as CNN war analyst. And of course can speak to security issues with a great deal of credibility. All of this gives him a prima facie great profile in terms of electability.

-Clinton likes him and thinks he'd make a good prez. A good number of traditional lefty Dems are among his supporters. And so does Michael Moore. That captures like 96% of the Democratic Party, doesn't it? :)

He has a burgeoning Internet draft movement that's generating a lot of buzz and some money, and he's done nothing to promote it--that has to say something about his charisma.

Also, this http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2003/030801_mfe_clark_1.html">Esquire profile is very sweet. There's no way you can't lurve him after reading it. :P

He has tons of experience with all issues.
He voted for the war, but not this way. He wouldn't have voted for it if he knew Bush would go it alone. In fact, he only voted for it after Bush promised to go to the UN.
He speaks out against Bush at every oppotunity.
He knows what can pass and what cannot. His healthcare plan is the most realistic.
With all of the candiates out there, he's getting lost because people are bashing him for the war vote but he can beat Bush with one hand tied behind his back.
He has great name recognition and can carry a great many states.
His union backing will garner a lot of votes.
You can believe everything he says. He's never been one to lie for a vote.
AND he's just a great guy.

It really sums up the reasons why I like Gephardt (although he's not my first choice at the moment).

:hi:

The destruction of our manufacturing base is a real problem in this country. In a serious "race to the bottom", we've seen too many corporations take their jobs to Mexico or China. I know several folks who work in manufacturing and seriously believe that if Dick Gephardt is not elected they will more than likely be without a job in the near future. I believe and his record shows that he understands the threat facing this country if the manufacturing base is destroyed. His fight against Fast Track, NAFTA, Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, and trade agreements that do not have labor and environmental protections underscore his plan to stop the hemorrhaging of millions of family-supporting jobs in America. In the coming years, more unfair trade agreements like FTAA and/or CAFTA are likely to pass. I know under a Gephardt presidency these agreements would be vetoed. I can't say that about the others, except Kucinich, the really only seem to advocate "fair trade" when they're talking in front of a labor or union crowd. With something this important, I have to go with my gut and what their records say. Congressman Gephardt has been there for industrial unions time and time again. Now it's our time to be there for him. The problem with the current occupant in the White House is that he doesn't see the faces behind the stastics. We doesn't personally know anyone who has lost their job thanks to this "race to the bottom." He doesn't know what it's like to have to strike for better wages or retirement benefits. He was born with it. Because of his humble background, Dick Gephardt does and I thank him for that. And I know that's who he'll be thinking of if elected

Wes Clark has a collection of life experiences that make him at least as qualified, if not more so, than any candidate in the race. Besides the obvious military experience, he was one of the chief negotiators of the Dayton Peace Accord, he's got a masters degree in economics with experience in investment banking, as well as at least some experience as board chairman of a clean energy technology development firm. His military career has left him with a significant amount of experience in social service administration, and his record is notable for improvements in education and family well-being in his commands.

Clark is solidly in the democratic camp in our core values. He supports reproductive rights, supports reform or repeal of the Patriot Act, supports the goal of universal health care, and quality in education. He's filed briefs in the USSC supporting affirmative action. He opposes ANWR drilling, supports energy conservation programs, and believes global warming to require action. He believes gun ownership is best left up to the states and people, but thinks that those who really, really like assault weapons ought to join the Army.

In foreign policy, he has a track record of working against genocide and tyranny, while supporting multilateralism and a return to America's traditional foreign policy. While he sheds no tears about Saddam Hussein's loss of employment, he opposed, and opposes, the lack of truth and zealotry by which the government went to war. With 60-70% of people still supporting, at least retrospectively, the war with Iraq, Clark can provide criticism tempered with impeccable credentials of working for national security, as well as a track record of fighting evil-doers and other beasties. And even Karl Rove is going to have to work hard at smearing the patriotism of a general of full rank.

Clark is also , the candidate most likely to have the right combination of qualities to be able to both win the election and win the bully pulpit. While I realize that this is subjective, Clark seems to be making the most effort to pawn off (correctly) moderately liberal stances as being representative of the ideals of mainstream America. This, in combination with the partially-correct perception of Clark coming in as an outsider, would lead to him being able to push hard at a Congress that at best will be closely divided. Charisma is also subjective, but the guy's worked as a television personality.

All that, and he's a Catholic from a swing state.

Carol Moseley Braun will be the best President of the United States:


• Because she will defend and uphold the Constitution, as she consistently has throughout her career.
  
  
• Becuase she will pursue diplomacy before warfare, improve our international standing, and truly protect our national security interests.
  
  
• Because she is fearless, and will lead us into a brighter future.
  
  
• Because she will fix our broken health care delivery system, providing single-payer universal coverage that will make us healthier, and help our economy.
  
  
• Because she will uphold international law, and actually bring terrorists to justice.
  
  
• Because she will appoint judges who understand the Constitution and civil liberties, restoring balance to our judiciary.
  
  
• Because she has a winning smile.
  
  
• Because she sees that education matters to all of us, and will fund public schools with a vengance.
  
  
• Because she sees to the heart of things, and when she speaks, she is more concerned with getting across a basic idea than she is with demonstrating her oratorical or intellectual prowess.
  
  
• Because she thinks nuclear power is not the way to go, and prefers renewables; she cares about the future of our planet.
  
  
• Because she knows that nuclear non-proliferation begins at home.
  
  
• Because of all the amendments in the Bill of Rights, she holds the First Amendment dear.
  
  
• And the Fourth.
  
  
• Because she will work well with the Congress, and accomplish the people's business with neither rancor nor compromise on the things that matter.
  
  
• Because she is not malicious; she is truly compassionate.
  
  
• Because she will fix the budget without punishing the poor or placing more burdens on working people.

....