my criteria for backing a candidate . . .

[OneBlueSky]

I can live with any of the current candidates, even Lieberman (though I say that knowing he has no chance of being nominated) . . . they're all in the same ballpark on the issues -- this one better than that one here, that one better than this one there . . . therefore, my one and only criteria for selecting a candidate is: "Who has the best shot at beating Bush?" . . .

It's pretty obvious to me that the Democratic candidate will be one of three, and possibly up to five, people: Dean, Kerry, or Gephart, maybe Clark, and an outside chance that Gore may re-enter the race . . . I doubt that Gephart will make any noise, I think Clark will announce, and until Gore makes a move, I'll just leave him out of the equation . . . that leaves Dean, Kerry, and Clark . . . as it stands now it will be one of those three . . .

and as I look at those three, my take on electability at this point in time is 1) Clark, 2) Dean, and 3) Kerry . . . that doesn't mean I'm backing Clark -- like I said, I can live with any of them -- it just means that he seems to be the strongest potential candidate . . . when primary time rolls around, I'll cast my vote for whichever of the three seems strongest then (or maybe for Gore) . . . we can sort out the issues (and the prosecutions) later . . . right now, our job is to return our intellectially and morally challenged selectee to private life (and eventually, one would hope, to prison) . . . nothing else matters to me, because nothing will happen if we don't accomplish this single objective: defeating George W. Bush and his coterie of cheap-labor conservatives and amoral chickenhawks . . .

[Videlicet03]

1. Here's all you need to know in one sentence.

If you openly criticize the war, you have no chance to win the presidency.

[Jalixm]

2. How the hell do you figure that

[Videlicet03]

5. I can't think of too many doves who have won in time of war

Can you?

[Jalixm]

6. You don't have to be a dove to criticize an unnecessary war

None of the anti Iraq war candidates are what i would call doves. Dean supported bombing afghanistan, Gulf War I, and every other major conflict since Vietnam. Graham is perhaps more hawkish than even Joe, but opposed the war on the grounds that it was distracting us from the more important war on terrorism. The fact is that the Iraqi war is becoming more and more unpopular with the American people and we will see the anti war candidates flourish as a result. Not to diss Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards or Lieberman; they've just got a bit of an uphill battle as a result.

Edited for spelling.

[poskonig]

8. What happened to "mission accomplished?"

:eyes:

[redeye]

3. Really?

Dean seems very electable to me (and also to Jiacinto, who's a centrist and ardently believes in ABB), and he ain't exactly a war hawk.

[cherryperry]

4. OneBlueSky

just a question, no agenda, ok? How do you see Clark as the most electable?:dem:

[OneBlueSky]

7. like it or not, the national security issue will be a big one . . .

and regardless of Bush's shortcomings (and, lord knows, they are legion), the American electorate won't vote to oust him unless they perceive his opposition as someone who can handle foreign policy and decisions about how and when to use the military . . . Clark's military background and NATO experience will win over a lot of people who want to vote against Bush but won't unless they see the alternative as palatable . . . I think that Clark can both hold the Democratic base and pull in both moderates and paleo-conservatives (as opposed to cheap-labor conservatives, i.e. neo-cons) . . .