For those of you without a favorite horse in the (08) race .......

.... how are you feeling about things right now?

Are you excited at the prospects and find yourself unable to make a choice because they're all so good?

Have you basically tuned out?

Can you see yourself getting excited later?

I'm not in love with, or in hate with, or even very much 'in like' with, any of the candidates. I'm angry at the system, though. This is the first cycle since 1952 when the field was potentially wide open and the media has already annointed a few, and done so far earlier than reason would ever have allowed us to predict.

Personally, I find the media support of *any* candidate bad news. But I guess it helps them, overall, since the sheeple tend to be just plain stupid.

We've got a fair number of solid candidates -- overall I think this is a much better field of candidates than we've had in a long time.

And the Republican candidates seem much weaker than usual.

.... Rudy?

.... another actor acting like he knows enough to be president?

.... the scion of a Detroit fortune and who, as his ultimate life accomplishment, won the sperm lottery?

.... an old, batshit crazy man who is branded as a maverick and yet has pandered to every right wing nutter group in existence ..... while allowing his family to be slandered?

You're right ..... the worst of ours is head and shoulders above the best of theirs.

him and his military strategy on terrorism and Iraq as many still were from Sept.11, 2001 thru the fall of 2006.

That's an ENORMOUS difference and benefit to the candidates this go-round.

Which of their professional resumes and list of accomplishments would have been so strong had they run in 2004?

:shrug:

It's so bad that I have a feeling the Republicans are mailing this one in and playing for 2012,after 4 years of totally slamming whatever Dem wins..and I do think whoever our nominee is they will win,and probably by a decent margin.

I've read a few things over the years that suggests this was what they did in '76 (though Ford did well).The theory was that they expected the Dems to win,and instead of running Reagan with Watergate still fresh in everyone's mind they held him back until '80.

I think the thing the Dems have to be the most careful about is what they do AFTER they win the White House.The Repubs will do the same things they did to Bill,and we could end up spending four years totally on the defensive,and I would also expect some kind of serious attack in America in that time as well.And we know what charges the Dems will get slammed with if such a thing happens.(I truly hope I'm wrong on this,but fear I'll be right)

I don't think the Dems can afford to spend four years pussyfooting around.We have the Repubs almost literally on the run,more so than anytime in my life.If we can keep the pressure on now,and through the one (or two!) terms,we can really deal a major blow to them for a long time.In some ways Bush has done to his Party what we never could,and we need to take as much advantage from this as we can.We think we're always split here on the Left,but compared to how rapidly the Repubs are splintering right now we're in a better position than ever to make some dramatic and effective changes.

My fear is that we'll get in and play it all very safe and not show any real ideas or energy,playing right into their hands.

right now, however, my favorite horse in the 08 race is whomever the Dems nominate.

He was going after the Coast Guard Asshats in a congressional hearing. The bit was the one where my rep, Elijah Cummings, was talking about that failed Coast Guard ship modification program that resulted in 14 ruined ships. Taylor was a pretty tough questioner.

He is a dyed in the wool DINO but a little banty rooster when he gets his claws into something or someone. He balances his votes to keep the knuckledraggers from getting too irate but he is Jane Fonda compared to the trash that have run against him the past few elections. Being a Coast Guard Vet I think he takes the nonsense of last nights story rather personally. I had to chuckle when he talked about extending his shrimp boat and didn't fuck it up.

I think Nov. 08 is a lo-o-o-ong ways away....

.

And the repugs running aren't exciting their base.

I'm not paying a lot of attention. The primaries are a looooong way away. I don't like this squished primary season at all though. I'm afraid it's going to be a real hardship on the candidates (ours; I couldn't give a rat's ass about the repugs). It's already bruising if DU is any indication.

good, too. I think we'll win.

Many people reading this might know my guy (Kerry) bowed out and I'm none too happy with the field. I don't think any of them measure up to Kerry's abilities - with the possible exception of Richardson, but I disagree with him on a lot of positions. But, I think that none of the field match my positions nearly as well as Kerry, so I am just SOL on that score, and looking for the one who will most competently turn this country around and get us on a better course, and that's why I'm looking at Richardson very closely.

But in the end, I realize every one - even the despised Hillary - is better than what the republicans offer. I'll be at the poll anyway, and pushing the straight Dem button for sure, so if I don't like who's at the top of the ticket, I just won't look. :)

I can factor in confidence.

My opinion - choosing a definite person NOW is wrong. You'll automatically shut down on issues that your *guy* or *gal* doesn't resonate. And that's what we don't need now.

I don't like being told who I should support at this point, though, so the media cacaphony of clinton/obama does more to turn me off at this point.
Its like I'm standing at the sidelines while other people vote with their propagandists, only hoping whoever makes it through the primaries is a good option. But either way, I'll support the nominee.

at least not one in the running. I'm sure that will change and become excited about the eventual nominee. But for right now, in order of preference:

What keeps me from being excited about Richardson is that he does not appear dissatified enough with the status quo. I understand he's low key, but you have to communicate hope, as well as anger at the way things are now. Especially after six years of Bush. But he does have the most experience and the most well developed positions.

What keeps me from being excited about Edwards is his flip-flopping, especially on Iraq. In 2004, he went out of his way to sound like a pro-war hawk and now he seems to want to erase that. But his concern about the two America is badly needed and he sometimes seems like the only person on the national stage to have the working class as a priority.

What keeps me from getting excited about Obama is his lack of experience. Washington has a way of eating up wunderkind, no matter how smart or visionary. But he could surprise once in office. As Garrison Keillor said: "let the skinny dog run."

What keeps me from supporting Clinton is her triangulation and caution. Somehow it taints her more than it did with Bill, maybe because he was better at creating hope. But from her partnership with Bill, she is probably the most experienced and accomplished at executive branch politics.

But all of them, and the other candidates too, would make vastly better presidents than any Republican candidate.

Maybe I'm just being nostalgic, but I thought the 2004 candidates had a bit more heft to them. I considered half the candidates last time to be subjectively of presidential timber (having no other qualities than "itness" as my criterion). This time around, I see two with that quality and maybe, maybe, two more on the fence. Again, this is all subjective. But I still think we have a lot of room for more entrants.

for the most part by generally limited low standards, IMO.

1. They are all better then any GOP candidates by a mile
2. Most voted for the IWR, and all seem to now have all of the answers (yawn)on what to do in Iraq, with many being able to fit the plan onto a one line bumper sticker (it's unbelievable, literally).
3. Most do not generate any passion from me, because conviction apparently is negotiable and appears to be part of a calculated campaign (there goes "authenticity") for most, but not all.
4. There are so many issues that are out of our control that will come up (that's what is said about life too), and how the candidates react to those will be the test (for me).

And so, it won't be until much later that I make my own determination based on my own criteria. Until then, I'm keeping my powder dry.......

In reference to possibly being "excited"......for now? NO, not so much.

than the best Republican.

:kick:

and raise you a few more!!!!

I am completely disatisfied with the current choices and if Gore or Clark doesn't enter (I strongly believe both of them will) I will not be voting D in the upcoming election.

I agree that I would be very happy with Gore and Clark in the race.

I just can not agree about third party. It is a wasted vote, in my opinion.

but I am unenthusiastic about the candidates. In November, 2003 (I know that's later - but that year WAS later) there were 3 candidates I was excited about. My biggest concern was that they were cut too much into each others base hurting each other -- They were from MA and VT. (Clark was the third, but I didn't know enough about them.)

I am no more impressed by Edwards than in 2004, I still have Clinton fatique, Biden can be excellent or awful, I don't trust Richardson. That leave me with Obama, who I am not certain has enough experience and Dodd, who I'm not sure if he can get any support.

It is far more fun to be enthusiastic. But some years that will happen and some years it won't - I envy those really happy with a canddiate. It's a nice feeling.

Barack Obama and John Edwards look good, but I'm not sold on either one.
Hillary Clinton isn't my first choice, but I haven't ruled her out.

However, the Dem field as it stands is definitely formidable.

I'm quite the opposite of "excited at the prospects and find yourself unable to make a choice because they're all so good."

I'm in that "this sucks - none of them can win" camp. I chalk that up to where I live (purple state) and the fact that so many running are the same, tired vanilla we see in all politicians. I like some things about most of them (there is one I can't stand), but not enough to make me go "WOW!"

Sorry to be less than optimistic on a Democratic message board, but I simply don't see that "hero" yet.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think the Republican side is far, far worse, but I also know that in order to win the golden ring, we have to flip some red/purple states and I don't see any of our front-runners doing that, given our Reich wing media in the red/purple state. I'm EXTREMELY worried Fred Thompson's going to jump in and, well, there goes any chance we'd have to get the white male swing votes in the Heartland - a block of voters we need, desperately, in order to win.

Again, I apologize for me complete lack of enthusiasm. I'm just not "there" yet.

especially after today's Florida change.

No matter how you cut it, most voters will have no say in the selection of our candidate.

But, perhaps, this ugly rush to the front may finally convince - who, exactly, I am not sure - to change the primaries to a rotating basis. To have several regional primaries whose order change each election cycle.

Everyone's got their minds made up about Hillary, Edwards might win or lose some votes depending on new information, and Obama people really aren't very informed about.

Therefore, there's a LOT of time for people to really, really, really get to know Edwards and Obama, who are prey to some of the same weaknesses. Obama is in the position Edwards was in in 2003. One term in office, good looking, gives a good speech. But the question is what have each of them DONE with their single term? And what has Edwards done since losing the 2004 election?

Obama has the advantage of having avoided the IWR and the Patriot Act. He's also got a slightly weaker personal narrative, which may be bad or good. Edwards comes from plain folks, we all know that. Bill already ran and won on that narrative. But now Edwards has made it VERY big, while Bill was still living in the (modest) Arkansas governor's "mansion" while he was running. Also, what is Edwards going to say about losing in 2004? He's said a few things about it, but he's already lost a couple times on the national stage, and he needs a story for that too.

Obama, OTOH, needs a good story about what he's been doing in the Senate.

In summary, I think each of the "Big Three" has a lot of weaknesses, and we'll get plenty of looks at those weaknesses in the upcoming months. And hey, remember what they did to Howard Dean...

I am certainly good with the top three ....

I will vote for one of them ... definitely ...

Sadly ... I find many of my friends here are creating such tension and personal animus against one or the other Democratic candidate that it might be damned near impossible to depend on them come 2008 ...

Why would a Clinton hater come around that November and support her ?

Why would the Obama supporters who have lambasted Edwards suddenly have a change of heart and rise in support of an Edwards candidacy ?

And many of the Clark supporters ( I adore Clark, BTW ) seem to bark and snarl as they swing at everyone that moves .....

More importantly : Where would integrity and credibility come from ? ..... How can you honestly and with any integrity whatsoever come back and say you support one whom you have ruthlessly lambasted for over a year ? .... I recognize that personal integrity is what drives many of these attacks, but what becomes the difference between justifiable arguments based on solid fact versus rhetorical arguments born of ego ? .... I see a huge difference, and I know I am not alone ....

I guess this is nature .... I guess this is the reality of intertribal warfare .... DU is no different from any other smelly human habitation ....

It is neurotic and ugly ....

Does anybody think their vicious attacks will be forgotten ? .... Will there be apologies forthcoming ? .... I doubt it ....

I am human first, family second, citizen third and party fourth .... I respect the top three because of their basic humanity .... and I reject attacks based on candidate preference or ego need .... One CAN support a specific candidate without pulling out a hatchet ....

I already know I will vote for the nominee ..... and I will certainly leave the mudslinging to many of you ..... but I hope you regain a semblance of civility once this all blows over ....

I have never attacked a single candidate .... I love all of them .....

Well ..... except Joe ......

More anti-Clarkie propaganda.

If someone acts the ass, then they deserve to be called on it ....

If that makes me the occasional 'Anti-Clarkie', then so be it ....

IF the Clarkie is the one closing their eyes and madly swinging their fists, then yes : I am an 'Anti Clarkie' ... I don't care if they are ANTI Edwards or ANTI Hillary or ANTI Obama ; IF they viciously attack our candidates with unsubstantiated innuendos or rhetorical bluster ; then they can go to hell ....

Funny how you couch the reference : I love all the Democratic candidates, and you complain I'm 'Anti Clarkie', even though I also love Clark ....

So now I must like all the Clarkies too ? .... Give me a fucking break ...

Now THAT is utter horseshit ....

Im not voting for Clarkies ... but I would vote for Clark .... funny how that works, eh ? ....

Perhaps it is because Clark himself, unlike many of his supporters here, is a class act and a brilliant , caring human being ....

It seems some of Clark's supporters here have made a bed they don't want to sleep in .... tough bananas ....

Tell you what : I still refuse to hold Clark responsible for the crass behaviour of some of his supporters here in DU ... and that applies to ill mannered supporters of ANY candidate .... It isnt their fault that supporters act like students at a high school football game ....

Utter horsehit ..... BAH ! ....