Why I am ABK until we run out of challengers

[NewHampster]

Anyone But Kerry

Why? Because this country has too much to lose.

If he gets the nomination I may waste my vote for him but until that time I will support Dean and any candidate that challenges the status quo offered by John Kerry.

I have always admired John Kerry. I agree with his views on almost all issues and a year ago I would have said I'd be voting for him.

Not anymore. Everything I read and hear tells me that Dean, Clark, Edwards, Lieberman, Kucinich and yes Sharpton all have a better chance of beating Bush. Kerry supporters know this too or they wouldn't be asking us why not in 100 threads/day.

Each of the others offer a clear choice over Dubya.
Each offers a much smaller target for Rove.
Each of them says what he means and means what he says.
Each of them is capable of inspiring somebody.
Each of them is electable and John Kerry is not.

Most of my inspiration today comes from reading Julie's Essay. Read it yourself at http://projectjulie.net/Dean

ABK for the duration

edited because I always forget someone. sorry dennis fans

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Heh, I though ABK was A B Kucinich....

[NewHampster]

2. And Kucinich too

damn it

[Uzybone]

3. Each offers a much smaller target for Rove.

LOL. Yeah Sharpton is a smaller target than Kerry or Kucinich (since you didn't mention him in your list). What a joke. Well at least you wont be voting for Bush in November.

[bushwakker]

5. Delusional

this place is becoming a joke.

[Dookus]

4. Then why is Kerry beating Bush in the polls now?

Do you REALLY think Sharpton has a better chance of beating Bush? Do you REALLY think Sharpton is a "smaller target" than Kerry?

I don't see it.

[NewHampster]

6. Todays polls are meaningless in November

we all know that.

Bush and his dogs haven't begun to fight yet because they enjoy watching us too much.

[Dookus]

7. No, they're not meaningless

unless by "meaningless" you mean they don't show Dean in the lead.

[quaker bill]

16. They are precisely meaningless

Various candidates of both parties have held commanding leads in such beauty contest polls this early in the cycle and gone to defeat. These polls are meaningless because they do not predict the outcome in November. They would be just as meaningless regardless of who was leading.

[Dookus]

17. if candidate A

polls at 52% and candidate B polls at 9%, that *IS* meaningful. It's not proof of anything, but it's a good indicator of which one is more likely to win.

[KoKo]

23. The polls are meaningless because "They" have months to "knock off"

Kerry....just like they did with Gore....wait and see. It's better for us to have "TWO" strong candidates this early than one. More time for Dem message to get out without the Media Whores Attacks on just one....and more time for both candidates to survive the attacks and get attention from the "average" American who is still clueless (due to Whore Media) about what Bush has done to the country.

I am fearful of a Kerry win right now because of this...and right now he has many "IF's" about him, for me....who is Dean/Kucinich.

[mlawson]

18. They are mostly meaningless, before the nat'l conventions.

In June 1992, Clinton was THIRD behind Poppy and Perot. That poll was meaningless. In August 1988, Dukakis had 25 points over Poppy. That one was also worthless, as it turned out. Even Mondale had excellent numbers against Ronnie in 1984, at times.

[lastliberalintexas]

19. Nothing to do with Dean at all

They are meaningless because they are national polls. We do not hold a national election for President- we hold 50 state elections for President.

Kerry may or may not be leading in state polls which would give us the electoral votes needed to win (hopefully that would be the case). I don't know, since I haven't seen polls from all 50 states. But a national poll IS meaningless- regardless of who it shows in the lead.

[progressivebydesign]

28. Meaningless because they are name recognition only now..

The unexamined candidate with a good jaw and familiar name and military service will always trump Bush right now. Will it hold when the cards are laid on the table? I wouldn't stake my democracy on those polls. No way.

[Old and In the Way]

8. Thanks for the chuckle......

Left is Right, up is down, black is white, and each Democratic is more electable than the acknowledged front runner who leads Bush 53-46 in national polling.

By all means vote for your choice, but you really should refrain from embarassing yourself on a national political board like this.

[Nashyra]

11. Sorry to be negative

but I will be anybody but Kerry until he is the last man standing.

[quaker bill]

20. The board is anonymous.

Believe Kerry is electable all you wish. Polls taken this early are rarely an accurate predictor of November election results. Dewey defeated Truman, right?

The selection of a candidate on some vaguely defined and amorphous pseudo-characteristic such as 'electability' is vacuous.

Several candidates provide a much stronger contrast to Bush* on the issues than John F. Kerry. The prospect of true change would fire up the base and get out the vote in a way that Kerry's subtle shading will never accomplish.

Republicans know this, which is why they do not shy away from a strong message. Democrats apparently have yet to learn. But then again there is always 2008.

[Old and In the Way]

22. Much better worded, but no more factual in your conclusions.

You have to discount the results to date and the multitudes of polling to the contrary to support your conclusion....please, just one little bit of data to support your counter-intuitive argument

[emulatorloo]

9. Do what you need to do, but

I find it bizarre that project Julie can say with a straight face that JK is "a lightweight." or say things like, "There has to be something of substance there for people to grab onto -- and in Kerry's case there just isn't. . ."

I'm afraid that those uninformed characterizations and assertions make the rest of her analysis suspect for me.

[lastliberalintexas]

12. Hmm, something of substance

Like his vote in opposition to this administration and their rush to war? Nope.

Like his vote in opposition to this administration's gutting of the Constitution? Nope.

Like his vote in opposition to this administration's awful testing scheme for public schools? Nope.

Like his vote in opposition to this administration's Medicare "reform"? Nope.

Like his belief that the middle class was somehow helped by this administration's tax cuts? Nope.

Kerry might have a good record over the past 30 years. But in the words of the flavor of the day Ms. Jackson, just what the heck has he done for me lately?

I don't want someone who is going to cave when public opinion seems to turn on him. I don't want to hear the typical BS about the political climate of the past 3 years, the constant drumbeat for war, the fear which paralyzed the nation, etc. You see, some elected officials actually ignored the Shrub propaganda and continued to vote in line with their histories- Kucinich, Feingold, Leahy, Byrd, Kennedy, to just name a few.

To you, Kerry might be a man of substance. To me, he's yet another Dem who lost his spine over the last 3 years and only regained his opposition voice AFTER Dean, Kucinich and a few others showed him it could be done. And he expects me to forget his complicity? Not bloody likely. But the saddest part is that most voters apparently have.

[emulatorloo]

27. Sometimes things aren't just black and white

or simple. These issues have been hashed over a number of times on DU. You're fixed in your opinion and you have your litmus tests and that's great if it works for you.

Nonetheless, Julie's claims that JK is a "lightweight" and lacking substance do not have credibility, given JKs record and biography.

[dawgman]

10. ABK? WHat do you have against Kucinich?

I keeeeed!!

[sandnsea]

13. A nice big target

Because he's a man who has stood for nice big ideals his entire life. I'll stick with that, thank you very much.

[quaker bill]

21. just curious

Which 'nice big ideal' was represented by his vote for IWR?

If this was an expression of an 'ideal' then I have reached a moral impasse with Mr. Kerry.

[emulatorloo]

30. The Big Ideal of "Non-Proliferation"

or that bad people who have bad bombs and want to hurt others with them should be disarmed through a process with war as a last resort.

Did Saddam turn out to have bad bombs? No.

Is the ideal therefore bad? No.

[GumboYaYa]

14. Kerry is near the bottom for me as well, but for different reasons.

First, I will vote for Kerry over Lieberman or Bush any day of the week.

I dislike Kerry, because he bores me to death. He is just an uninspiring candidate IMO. As a person born and raised in the South, I have a strong negative reaction to his Boston patrician upbringing. I'm a liberal Democrat and I feel that way. I'm certain that most moderate Southerners feel the same. I don't buy the "electability" of Kerry.

Also, his support of the Iraq war and subsequent flip-flops and obfuscation puts him at the bottom of my list. I will have a hard time voting for someone who voted for the IWR, but I will if it means getting rid of Bush.

[Padraig18]

25. well said

:)

[Old and In the Way]

26. As a person born and raised in New England,

I'm glad I didn't have the same regional prejudices when I voted for Jimmy Carter,Bill Clinton, and Al Gore.

But I've yet to see any candidate that doesn't change or finesse positions over a 30 year record. Not sure I want to elect purists/absolutists as my elected Rep, anyway.

[THUNDER HANDS]

15. Sharpton has a better chance than Kerry does?

wow, who knew?

[Monte Carlo]

24. That... really doesn't tell us anything.

I'm sorry if every candidate can't be as much of a character as Dean. Kerry has his faults, but I don't think you give him any credit at all.

[cthrumatrix]

29. I'm Dean until the end...

[ozone_man]

31. I'm NBD to the end too.

The end of what you ask? I'm not sure myself, but I'm hoping that if Dean doesn't make it all the way that there is a parallel path where we continue on. If not with Dean, then possibly a new grass roots leader, 3rd party, etc. We started something that cannot be put back in the box.

[Cuban_Liberal]

32. Count me in!

Until Sen. Kerry gets 50%+1 of the delegates, this isn't over!

[EvilJam]

33. me, too.

but, HD can't get anything going after "The Scream."
and, the others... well, maybe next time. - evil

[katieforeman]

34. Why not commit to Edwards?

I think he is by far and away the most electable. See my posting- Edwards is the most electable.