Looking for somebody to support - Tell me what your candidates stands for.

For the next four years, I have been supporting John Kerry for President. Besides being my junior senator and a pretty good one at that, he is a man who cares about where our country goes, what the policies are, and who knows that a soundbyte is not going to run a country. May be this is the reason why he will never be president.

Yesterday, Kerry announced he would not run and I found myself in a position that I did not expect: figuring what were the issues that were driving me, among the many issues that a presidential candidate will have to address. What will make me work with the same enthusiasm for one of those who will run in 08: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich, and may be Clark and Gore?

I know some think that charisma, eloquence, or being from the South are enough of a reason for supporting somebody. This is not my case. I care about issues, and I know that I will not agree with 100 % with anybody, so, I need to know candidates' positions with a little bit of precision.

My main centers of interest:


I know Dennis Kucinich offer possibilities that I like in the Iraq and the healthcare issues, and Gore is obviously my favorite when it comes to the environment. I also have the feeling that Clark has propositions on some of these subjects, though I am not sure exactly why. For the rest, it is just a total blank or close to that.

Please feel me in. Tell me how your candidate will answer to these subjects.

ADDED (though it seemed obvious for me): Bashing Kerry in your answer is probably not the best way to convince me!

about what has been done in their name over many years that led us right into the Bush2 reign, 9-11 and this Iraq war?

Who is most likely to open the books and trust the American people as CITIZENS? That is what I would add for myself to the other qualities you posted.

How can it be a democracy when the public is not trusted with the truth?

I don't believe most presidential candidates on the reality side of the aisle are very far apart on the issues. Whatever the president wants is going to look a lot different when it gets out of Congress anyway.

I look for two things mainly. One, if nominated, can he or she win? Two, if he or she wins, can that person govern? I think management skill is far more important than being inspiring or whatever.

Richardson is a SW governor. Since WW2, every president except JFK was a VP, a former VP, a governor or was Eisenhower. Governors do not have the baggage that a lot of these Senate celebrities have. They can also define themselves since the media has not already done it for them. I don't think the country really wants a rock star like HRC or Obama. Also, we need to avoid the perception of being North East liberal elitists. As much as I admire John Kerry and think he would have made a great president, he was a lousy candidate. I think Richardson will have broad appeal, will help solidify support among Latinos and will give us street cred in typically red SW states. Plus his A rating from the NRA will nuetralize a divisive issue.

It is not enough to win. Jimmy Carter won, but he had a hard time governing. This is a trap for governors in particular since they are used to exerting much more power in their states than the president enjoys in Washington. Senators would be better, but they can't seem to get elected. I think Richardson's experience in the Clinton administration, in Congress and as governor give him a solid background in managing the Federal government.

On edit: If Gore or Clark declares, I'll have to rethink my position.

Hope you don't think I was Kerry-bashing. I have always thought highly of him as a person and as a senator. I think for a variety of reasons that have to do with public perception that he was not the best candidate for president.

voter rolls and rig machines all over the country to stay in office.

The revisionism of what actually happened in 2004 is absurd.

Kerry would be in the WH today if Terry McAuliffe had secured the election process during the FOUR YEARS he was charged to do it. Instead he let it get worse.

Still, it would not have been an issue if JK's campaign had been more aggressive against the swift-boating and just better focused generally. Also, if JK had not been such a controversial figure coming out of the Vietnam War he would have done better. I agree with everything he said and did in the peace movement, but a lot of people are rubbed the wrong way by it. Lastly, it is hard to escape the NE liberal label when he was Dukakis' lt. governor.

There was a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative report that came out in 2003-2004 about the atrocities that were committed in Vietnam, and the first time admissions of the men who committed them and witnessed them - Tiger Force. Two Toledo Blad reporters who later wrote a book about it.

THAT should have been the real story reVietnam that year if we had an honest media.

The swifts didn't stop the 60-65 million people who voted for Kerry - at least 10million more than voted Dem in 2000.

Blaming the swifts and Kerry does nothing but distract from the REAL PROBLEM that happened with the election fraud that Terry McAuliffe had four years to counter and he did NOTHING. He let it get worse in 2002 and even worse in 2004.

Had McAuliffe done the job HE was charged to do, Kerry would be in the WH today, and everyone would marvel at how he beat the most media-protected president in HISTORY.

Media is pretty lazy. The fact is all these things are realities that the candidate must manage. I know damn well that the media, the money and even the popular perception is stacked in favor of the Rs. That is a reality he have to accept as real and confront it. I don't see what McAulliff could have done about the fraud. That was within the perview of local boards of election and secretaries of state. I'm not blaming Kerry. I'm simply pointing out that there is legitimate criticism here. How can we learn if we are afraid to criticize our own leaders? Frankly, I don't think democracy has any room for hero worship. With someone with broader national appeal the election would not have been close enough for these things to matter. One thing Howard Dean emphasized in the '06 campaign is that sticking to bluish swing states is a recipe for disaster. Yet, both Gore and Kerry depended on it.

The 50 state strategy that rebuilt the collapsed party infrastructures in almost every red and swing state that Terry had neglected for years.

It is that infrastructure that does the everyday mundane but CRUCIAL job of vigilance to the tactics that are being used in that state or county to suppress votes and purge voter rolls, or distribute machines, or oversee the casting and the counting of the ballots.

In 2000 and 2002 there were many counties that didn't even have Dem HQ in red states and where they did have representatives of the party they were overwhelmed by the GOP machine.

Dean isn't doing Gore and Kerry's job - he's doing what was McAuliffe's job. McAuliffe had that Clinton-era strategy of targetted states in place when he took over. The Dem nominee wouldn't even be known until 6 months before the election and then they TAP INTO the party's infrastructure that is in place already. They can't build a whole new organization on top of every other duty on their plate at that point.

ANY Dem nominee would have had to go through the general election with the party infrastructure that was there in 2004, not the one they would have built. Heck, it took Dean over 20 months to get as far as he did with the rebuilding, and they still have alot of work to do before it's ready for 2008 in every state.

And it ws the DNC's Office of Voter Integrity that was charged with countering the GOP tactics of vote suppression, purging and the securing of the machines. How did they do in 2002? 2004?

A plan to get out of Iraq while staying respectuous of the Iraqi people, and in general, a foreign policy that considers that the US is part of a concert of nations and works with them with respect and without bullying,

Kucinich has a 12 point plan, you can watch the video here
http://kucinich.us/node/1976/play

---------
A solid commitment to a clean environment, and particularly to fighting global warming,

As a peace advocate, I hope to launch a major renewables effort so that Middle East oil fields do not loom so large as strategic or military targets. There has to be a renewable energy portfolio of 20% by 2010. And that means introducing wind, solar, hydrogen, geothermal, biomass, and all of the options that must be available and need incentivizing.

I would initiate a "Global Green Deal" to use our country's leadership in sustainable energy production to provide jobs at home, increase our independence from foreign oil, and aid developing nations with cheap, dependable, renewable energy technologies like wind and solar. A clean environment, a sustainable economy, and an intact ozone layer are not luxuries, but necessities for our planet's future.
---------
A solid plan for healthcare, preferably based on a single payer solution, but without a nationalized healthcare system,

Our health care system is broken, and H. R. 676, the Conyers-Kucinich bill, is the only comprehensive solution to the problem. It is also the system endorsed by more than 14,000 physicians from Physicians for a National Health Program.

--------
An education system that includes everybody, do not reject people either because of their ressources or their potential disabilities.

In the 107th and 108th Congresses, I introduced the Universal Pre-Kindergarten Act, a bill to create a free, universal, and voluntary pre-kindergarten program for 3- to 5-year-old children across the county. Universal pre-kindergarten would revolutionize America's commitment to early childhood education and change the nature of child care provision for the better. The cost of this program is $60 billion per year, which I plan to pay for by cutting the bloated Pentagon budget by 15%.

 was also an original co-sponsor of HR 935, the most comprehensive child care and education bill in the U.S. Congress, encompassing 33 federal programs to improve child well-being and education in America. In addition to universal pre-kindergarten, I have a plan to provide tuition-free higher education to millions of students in state universities.

There are 12 million young Americans who attend public institutions, colleges, and universities. They now pay, on average, over $10,000 a year. That adds up to $120 billion a year. That's less than the President's most recent tax cut for the wealthy. Even allowing for an increase in the cost per student and in the number of students enrolled, this remains a question of shifting priorities, not a need for new resources.

Anything about global warming...

And thanks for the education bill. I knew about the healthcare bill and Iraq bill and have been really impressed, but did not know the education bill.

n the summer of 2002, I was one of the few U.S. officials at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. To repair the earth, America must lead. We must reverse course on most Bush Administration policies and support the Kyoto Treaty that Bush rejected. We must strengthen environmental laws and increase penalties on polluters.

We have bigger fish to fry, like pressuring Congress to stop the war and impeach this nightmare regime. We have almost a year until we really need to care about Democratic primaries. Think about how much damage the Chimpturd can do in that amount of time.

We need to force Congress to take action now. Bush is threatening to attack Iran. He needs to be impeached...yesterday...and sent to the Hague.

I was only answering the question...but the first debate is coming up in April and Kucinich does need our help considering he will get no help from the Corporate media.

This is back-burner awareness stuff right now.