Who is your least favorite of the Democratic Presidential possible candidates and why?

[Lord Byron]

Official candidates who have filed with the FEC for the Democratic Party:

* Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut
* Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina
* Former Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska
* Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio
* Former Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa

Candidates who have expressed serious interest:

* Senator Joe Biden of Delaware (Unite Our States PAC)<5>
* Retired General Wesley Clark of Arkansas (WesPAC - Securing America)<6>
* Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York (HILLPAC)<7>
* Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts (Keeping America's Promise)<8>
* Senator Barack Obama of Illinois (HOPEFUND PAC)<9>
* Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico (Moving America Forward PAC)<10>
* Reverend Al Sharpton of New York <11>

Candidate who might show up later
* Al Gore


Also, what does anyone know about Mike Gravel? I've heard NOTHING about him. He used to be Senator. Is he good?

[ananda]

1. My least favorite is Biden. My most favorite..

.. of course is Gore.

Edwards will do just fine, though.

[Phredicles]

8. Yeah, Biden (D-MBNA), a.k.a. "Joementum Lite";

smarmy, smirky, incredibly irritating, windy speaking style.

Dishonorable mention to H.Clinton; it's hard to put into words how much she has disappointed me since she became a senator.

[LynneSin]

88. you know there is no MBNA

:eyes:

[geiger]

60. Biden

[Supersedeas]

89. Biden

[MADem]

2. Mike Gravel, but only because he hasn't piped up much.

That said, I don't hate the guy and I will be happy to listen to him. I will be happy to listen to ALL of them....

[PaDem]

32. I thought I read where Gravel supports some kind of a flat tax.........

or fair tax scheme. I saw that and didn't explore any further. I know he read the "Pentagon Papers" into the minutes on the senate floor back in the day.

[MADem]

47. It's just that I know so little about him that earns him the 'least favorite' title....

I wouldn't know the guy if I ran him over with a bus!

[GrumpyGreg]

3. Sharpton

He's a hater and a trouble maker and should just go away.

[ProudDad]

110. "he's a hater"

is a right-wing talking point.

You could say, "I hate him and he should just go away." That may be more accurate...

[Evergreen Emerald]

115. really?

When Sharpton speaks I always think, "finally, someone speaks the truth." He is a breath of fresh air. I like Al--though not for president.

[kimmerspixelated]

4. HILARY!

America please don't elect this woman for Prez! It's great that she is a woman, but we need NEW BLOOD! ...I am crestfallen about Gore not running, still love Kerry but know he won't win. Clark/Obama. ...But Kucinich really has the kind of nix on the war-funding balls I like!

[k_jerome]

6. so, just out of curiousity...

do you mispell her first name and call her by it out of disrespect or ignorance? i notice you do not refer to the other candidates by their first names.

just curious.

[Blue_In_AK]

12. I think people refer to Hillary as Hillary

to keep from confusing her with her husband Bill. Of course, she's the only Clinton in this race, but I don't think it's necessarily disrespectful to refer to her by her first name. Besides, she's the only Hillary out there. If we were to say "I'm for John," or "I'm for Joe," nobody would know who we were talking about ... but if you say, "I'm for Hillary," there's no doubt.

[leftynyc]

56. Also, when she was running for Senator

all her signs said Hillary! As I recall, the name Clinton wasn't on her signs. I don't presume to know the poster's position, however, I wouldn't automatically assume it was a sign of disrespect.

[Clark2008]

77. Yeah - people say, "Yes to Wes!" And the "Wes Wing" all the time.

So he is known by his first name, as well.

Heck, folks around here call Dennis Kucninch, "The Kooch."

I don't think it's a lack of respect.

[catgirl]

93. I agree

It's irritating that this question keeps appearing.
Is it out of disrespect? Let's not turn this into a
"womens libber" thing. Of course that's what the
repugs will do. The lesbos want Hillary! Whoops,
better not give them any ideas!

[SaveElmer]

34. You want new blood...

Yet your candidate has run for President twice already, and been vice President twice...

Al Gore has been on the Democratic ballot in 3 out of the last four elections...

And he ran for President in 1988...

[Stevepol]

5. My least favorite is Dodd

because he apparently has been unable to figure out that electronic voting is anti-democratic, something that almost any kid in the 9th grade in the US with a C average could figure out. Not only that, but he was apparently, according the Mark Crispin Miller, he was the one who convinced Kerry not to contest in OH or elsewhere because of the DREs. Nothing there, move along, move on. "We've checked this out." Who's "we"???

Nobody but nobody has checked out these machines and has found them hunkey dorey, except for the reps for the companies themselves.

[k_jerome]

7. Clark or Vilsack. nt.

[Mass]

9. John Edwards

Hillary is close second.

[OregonBlue]

10. Least favorite is Kerry, been there done that! I like Edwards and Richarson.

Edwards is charismatic, Richardson is a great diplomat.

[benny05]

11. Hillary

Disingenuous, narcissist, egocentric

[Geek_Girl]

13. Hillary

Mainly because I'm disappointed with her position (or lack of) on Iraq. But I do like her on domestic issues.

My favorite on that list is Gore I just doubt that he'll run.

[k8conant]

14. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton...

I am a woman and I'd be willing to vote for a woman but not her. She has disappointed me greatly shmoozing with the chickenhawks.

I favor Edwards and Obama.

We shall overcome...

[Lord Byron]

15. Hillary Clinton

How come she leads in all the national polls? She seems disingenuous and she's always kowtowing to the investment banks.

[Faryn Balyncd]

16. Rupert - - Murdock's - - FAVORITE - - - - HILLARY CLINTON

Why does Rupert Murdock host Hillary Clinton fundraisers?

Why do Fox News polls pretend Gore and Clark don't exist?

Why have Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, Glenn Beck, et al been salivating over a Hillary Clinton candidacy?

[PresidentObama]

17. Hillary Clinton.

[doublethink]

18. The Geico Cave Man ... my least favorite ....

Why? Because of what Einstein said .....

“I don't know what weapons World War Three will be fought with, but World War four will be fought with sticks and stones.”
Albert Einstein

My reasoning is because if we can't get Bushie to stop his war-mongering ways .... well our next President will be a caveman and we'll have to start over. Peace.

[Blue_In_AK]

68. The Caveman is one of my favorite candidates...

At least he has feelings, unlike the current (p)Resident.

[doublethink]

72. I agree completely ......

:thumbsup: Peace.

[Bjorn Against]

101. I thought the current pResident was a caveman

He doesn't believe in evolution because quite obviously he has not evolved. I have had enough Neanderthal politics, it is time to get someone who is fully evolved.

[MalloyLiberal]

19. I don't know Clark has expressed interest

He didn't seem interested when Stephanie Miller kept begging him.

Least favorite is Sharpton, but also don't like:

Biden
Clinton
Obama
Richardson
Vilsack
Dodd

So that leaves:
Edwards
Gravel (I have no clue who they are)
Kucinich (not gonna happen, sadly)
Kerry (we've been here before and they love twisting his words, so no)
Clark (once again, not interested?)
Gore (not interested?)

So that leaves:
Edwards
Gravel...

Um.....

[Lord Byron]

20. Why don't you like Obama?

[MalloyLiberal]

21. Supporting Lieberman, not calling for cutting funds

All charisma, no substance.

[ripple]

28. Most dems supported Lieberman until he lost the primary

and then they supported Lamont. Obama is no different.

Cutting funds for the troops already in Iraq is a risky maneuver and not one I suspect many dems will be willing to make at this point.

At least Obama hasn't been hypocritical with his Iraq position. He opposed the war from it's inception and he continues to oppose it. The debate now is how to get the hell out, leaving behind the best of the worst possible outcomes.

Obama has plenty of substance, including a plan to withdraw from Iraq. There is a plethora of information about his positions available, both online and from his books. Even if you disagree with some of his positions, it's incorrect to claim that he lacks substance.

[blm]

35. and he stated he had no interest in investigating Bush's lead up to war. No interest

in DSM inquiry. Against Iraq withdrawal vote in June 2006. And was against Alito filibuster publically before he quietly voted for it.

But, the biggest has GOT to be does not WANT investigations into how and why this country was taken to war. And he's been very PUBLIC about it. Who is he trying to please with that statement?

[ripple]

63. He's stated publicly that the administration

cherry-picked info and told half-truths to the American people. In my view, some of those calling for investigations are doing so to save their own assess politically, because they voted "yes" on the IWR. It's much easier to claim to have been mislead than it is to actually take responsibility for a very bad decision.

Obama has been a consistent opponent of the war since it was first talked about and it's clear that had he been in the Senate at the time the IWR vote went down, he would have voted "nay". Why bash someone who had the courage to publicly oppose the plan to go to war? It seems to me that it would be much more appropriate to criticize those who were actually complicit in getting us there to begin with.

Obama's point is that right now, his priority is finding the best way out of Iraq, rather than spending valuable time and resources investigating how we got there. We're there and the situation is extremely dire. Would I like to see Bushco investigated and charged with war crimes? You betcha! Do I understand why Obama is taking the position he is? You betcha! There is plenty of room for disagreement about what should take priority. Because someone happens to disagree with what you believe should be prioritized, doesn't mean there is some deeper, conspiratorial motive. It simply means you disagree.

In June 2006, Obama opposed Kerry's proposal, but supported Levin's proposal for phased withdrawal. To say that he opposed troop withdrawal is June misleading. Since Kerry voted "no" on Levin's amendment, the same misleading characterization could be made of him.

As for the Alito filibuster, he voted for it. Even if he initially had some reservations, he did the right thing in the end- and probably after a great deal of careful consideration. I find it pretty damned annoying to see the "flip-flopper" attack used against a fellow dem, especially one who did the right thing. Haven't we had enough of rigid politicians who are completely unwilling to reconsider their position, even when faced with overwhelming evidence supporting another view??

[blm]

70. One vote was binding the other was NONBINDING and at a time when civil war in Iraq

was a KNOWN reality in DC for at least 5 months at that point.

Investigations into DSM ( a June 2005 rejection) and lead up to Iraq war are NECESSARY to also avoid the same lead up into Iran. Investigations also serve to define the FACTS for the historic record.

His public rejections of investigations into Iraq also included his claims that the investigations are NOT needed because it would be RE-LITIGATING the Iraq war decisions. That is a false statement as we all know that the Iraq war lead up has NEVER been legally examined.

From Larry King Live:
>>>
First of all, do you agree with the vice president?

OBAMA: I think it is hard not to make the assessment that this has been a misconceived mission from the start, not just in execution, but in conception. In fact, actually, the military has performed brilliantly. The problem was the way we conceived the mission was based on ideology. It was not based on facts on the ground.

But the fact is, is that what I'm not interested in doing is re- litigating the decision to get in. I think that what the Iraq Study Group provides us an opportunity to do is to start looking forward on a bipartisan basis, to try to figure out how can we make the best of a bad situation?

It is still possible for us to arrive at a situation in which there is stability in Iraq, that it has not become a nest of terrorist activity .....

>>>>

Further, when Obama voted against Kerry-Feingold, he misrepresented the bill as a 'precipitous withdrawal' that had no security measures - that was untrue and another way to say 'cut and run' for your audience. Obama KNEW Iraq was in civil war at this point - everyone in DC knew it had been in civil war for 5 months at the time of this vote.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for managing this fine amendment.

In October of 2002, I delivered a speech opposing the war in Iraq.

I said that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless man, but that he posed no imminent and direct threat to the United States.

I said that a war in Iraq would take our focus away from our efforts to defeat al-Qaida.

And, with a volatile mix of ethnic groups and a complicated history, I said that the invasion and occupation of Iraq would require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

In short, I felt the decision unfolding then to invade Iraq was being made without a clear rationale, based more on ideology and politics than fact and reason.

It is with no great pleasure that I recall this now. Too many young men and women have died. Too many have been maimed. Too many hearts have been broken. I fervently wish I had been wrong about this war; that my concerns had been unfounded.

America and the American people have paid a high price for the decision to invade Iraq and myriad mistakes that followed. I believe that history will not judge the authors of this war kindly.

For all these reasons, I would like nothing more than to support the Kerry amendment; to bring our brave troops home on a date certain, and spare the American people more pain, suffering and sorrow.

But having visited Iraq, I am also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this administration. It could compound them.

It could compound them by plunging Iraq into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis.

We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way.

I share many of the goals set forth in the Kerry amendment. We should send a clear message to the Iraqis that we won't be there forever, and that by next year our primary role should be to conduct counterinsurgency actions, train Iraqi security forces, and provide needed logistical support.

Moreover, I share the frustration with an administration whose policies with respect to Iraq seem to simply repeat the simple-minded refrains of ``we know best'' and ``stay the course.'' It's not acceptable to conduct a war where our goals and strategies drift aimlessly regardless of the cost in lives or dollars spent, and where we end up with arbitrary, poll-driven troop reductions by the administration--the worst of all possible outcomes.

As one who strongly opposed the decision to go to war and who has met with servicemen and women injured in this conflict and seen the pain of the parents and loved ones of those who have died in Iraq, I would like nothing more than for our military involvement to end.

But I do not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best approach to achieving, in a methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals that should drive our Iraq policy: that is, (1) stabilizing Iraq and giving the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; (2) containing and ultimately defeating the insurgency in Iraq; and (3) bringing our troops safely home.

What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq. A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy.

For example, let's say that a phased withdrawal results in 50,000 troops in Iraq by July 19, 2007. If, at that point, our generals and the Iraqi Government tell us that having those troops in Iraq for an additional 3 or 6 months would enhance stability and security in the region, this amendment would potentially prevent us from pursuing the optimal policy.

It is for this reason that I cannot support the Kerry amendment. Instead, I am a cosponsor of the Levin amendment, which gives us the best opportunity to find this balance between our need to begin a phase-down and our need to help stabilize Iraq. It tells the Iraqis that we won't be there forever so that they need to move forward on uniting and securing their country. I agree with Senator Warner that the message should be ``we really mean business, Iraqis, get on with it.'' At the same time, the amendment also provides the Iraqis the time and the opportunity to accomplish this critical goal.

Essential to a successful policy is the administration listening to its generals and diplomats and members of Congress especially those who disagree with their policies and believe it is time to start bringing our troops home.

The overwhelming majority of the Senate is already on record voting for an amendment stating that calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security, creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq. The Levin amendment builds on this approach.

The White House should follow this principle as well. Visiting Iraq for a few hours cannot resuscitate or justify a failed policy. No amount of spin or photo opportunities can change the bottom line: this war has been poorly conceived and poorly managed by the White House, and that is why it has been so poorly received by the American people..

And it is troubling to already see Karl Rove in New Hampshire, treating this as a political attack opportunity instead of a major national challenge around which to rally the country.

There are no easy answers to this war. I understand that many Americans want to see our troops come home. The chaos, violence, and horrors in Iraq are gut-wrenching reminders of what our men and women in uniform, some just months out of high school, must confront on a daily basis. They are doing this heroically, they are doing this selflessly, and more than 2,500 of them have now made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.

Not one of us wants to see our servicemen and women in harm's way a day longer than they have to be. And that's why we must find the most responsible way to bring them home as quickly as possible, while still leaving the foundation of a secure Iraq that will not endanger the free world.

Sen. Obama, US Senate, June 21, 2006

[ripple]

74. And one resolution didn't stand a chance in hell of passing,

while the other did. It's certainly your prerogative to disagree with Obama's support of Levin's amendment over Kerry's, but you are again misrepresenting his position with regard to Iraq.

I've seen and read the King clip(you seem to post it often) and I stand by my assessment of Obama's priorities. The Iraq war was litigated before our nation ever went in. That was the law Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, and others debated and passed giving Bush the authority to invade.

I honestly don't understand why you don't seem angry at any of the people who actually got us into Iraq in the first place. Instead, you're directing your anger at someone who a) believes getting us out of Iraq should take top priority and b) someone who would have never voted to give Bushco the authority to go in.

Makes no sense to me. :shrug:

[blm]

87. How and why we went into Iraq was never LITIGATED. There was no legal examination of Bush's lies

and the IWR did not send this nation into war - Bush did in VIOLATION of the guidelines of the IWR. Bush made the decision to use military force even though weqapon inspectors and the diplomacy were proving successful and proving war was not needed.

There was NEVER any legal examination of that decision and the letter of inquiry into the DSM that Obama refused to sign was part of the legal examination of that decision.

Either the decision to go to war was already legally examined or it wasn't. Obama is saying it already was examined legally and doesn't NEED further examination.

And there is no excuse at all for claiming that Kerry-Feingold had no security provisions or that it was precipitous 9aka cut and run) especially considering Iraq was in civil war at the time of the vote and everyone in DC knew it.

[ripple]

90. Actually, it WAS litigated

There are two definitions for the term ‘litigate’:

1. To contest in legal proceedings

2. To engage in legal proceedings.

I think passing a piece of legislation could certainly be considered a legal proceeding, so that’s where I was coming from with my last post.

If you prefer the first definition, which I interpret to mean a court challenge, that occurred as well.

From the library of Congress:

www.fas.org/man/crs/RL31715.pdf

'“Subsequent to enactment of the authorization but prior to the initiation of
military action, twelve members of the House of Representatives, along with a
number of U.S. soldiers and the families of soldiers, filed suit against President Bush
seeking to enjoin military action against Iraq on the grounds it would exceed the
authority granted by the October resolution or, alternatively, that the October
resolution unconstitutionally delegated Congress’ power to declare war to the
President. On February 24, 2003, the trial court dismissed the suit on the grounds it
raised a nonjusticiable political question; and on March 13, 2003, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, albeit on different grounds. The appellate
court stated that, although the mobilization of U.S. forces clearly imposed hardships
on the plaintiffs soldiers and family members, the situation was too fluid to determine
whether there was an irreconcilable conflict between the political branches on the
matter of using force; and, thus, the separation of powers issues raised by the suit
were not ripe for judicial review. On the delegation issue, the appellate court ruled
that the Constitution allows Congress to confer substantial discretionary authority on
the President, particularly with respect to foreign affairs, and that in this instance
there was no “clear evidence of congressional abandonment of the authority to
declare war to the President.” “he appropriate recourse for those who oppose war
with Iraq,” the First Circuit concluded, “lies with the political branches.” See Doe
v. Bush, 240 F.Supp.2d 95 (D. Mass. Feb. 24, 2003), aff’d, 322 F.3d 109 (1st Cir.
March 13, 2003), rehearing denied, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 4830 (1st Cir. March 18,
2003).”'

The fact that the lead-up to the Iraq war hasn't been litigated to your liking doesn't make Obama's statement inaccurate.

I respect your disagreement about an immediate withdrawal vs. phased redeployment. It's certainly a valid debate and one that's still going strong on the Hill- especially within our own party. The fact that Obama has a view that differs from yours (or the candidate you support) doesn't make his motives insincere.

Again, you mislead by claiming that Obama was trying to paint Kerry/Feingold as "cut and run" dems. That simply is not the case. In fact, if I might get back to my earlier point, one of the co-sponsors of that particular resolution voted to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq to begin with. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting something, but you appear to be giving that individual a free pass, while laying the blame on Obama for having a different opinion about how to fix a mess he didn't create- and one he predicted and strenuously opposed, in fact.

[blm]

94. If I thought IWR led this country to war, I would agree with you, but I don't

believe the IWR led this country to war, and in fact, would have prevented war with any other president implementing it, even Reagan.

The LEAD UP to Iraq was NEVER litigated because Bush was never questioned about HOW he came to decide that Iraq was a threat to national secuirity even after weapon inspections and diplomatice efforts WERE working successfully to avoid use of military force. - as per the IWR giudelines.

Obama is clearly saying that NO INVESTIGATION IS WARRANTED - well the Downing Street Memos prove otherwise.

[ripple]

106. You know, I don't disagree with you about the investigation aspect

I would like to see them, as well, especially with regard to the DSM. I think what Obama is saying is that we are in a situation that deserves and requires our immediate and full attention. There will be plenty of time to place blame, but right now, our troops and the people of Iraq are in a crisis situation.

Obama has not said that no investigation is warranted. That's your own interpretation of his remarks. Obama's comments have been proven to be true, despite your claims to the contrary. You can insert you own conjecture all you want, but that certainly doesn't change the veracity of his statement.

As for your dismissal of the importance of the IWR, I believe that in some ways, you're using much of the same logic I used when I opposed the resolution to begin with. It's impossible to prove a negative. The weapons weren't there, but there was no way to prove otherwise. The way in which the resolution was worded allowed no deviation from what we know Bushco viewed as a foregone conclusion. Again, that goes straight back to the people who signed onto that piece of legislation.

Hell, I knew what was going to happen, you probably did, and virtually every American that pays attention did. How is it that our legislators didn't? And why are you not holding them accountable, rather than a man who was vocally opposing these actions?

[blm]

117. That someone WAS right reIraq vote doesn't mean they ARE right now reIraq war

and what needs to be done.

[Tellurian]

97. Thanks for the clarification, ripple..

I hope you don't mind if I repost your information elsewhere.

[ripple]

107. No problem, please do.

:hi:

[karynnj]

116. Neither had a chance of passing

The Levin amendment was written in response to the the Kerry/Feingold amendment to give Democrats an alternative.

Obama is my choice if Kerry and Gore don't run, but I think you are missing the points she is making. I read her post, not as excusing the IWR, but assessing Obama on the difficult choices he had to make himself. I agree that Obama did not pass every test that could be employed, but he has a good record.

Sill, her points are valid. Obama did speak against going to war in 2002 and in 2003, so did John Kerry. The IWR was an atrocious bill- that put the Democrats in an awful place. That is the fault of the Democrats in the leadership and the ones who were sponsors. The Senate was in Democratic hands and they should have created a better bill - preferably the Biden/Lugar bill. This would not have stopped the war - Bush didn't hold to the promises he gave on IWR and he wouldn't have held to Biden/Lugar if it were the passed bill.

The people it put in the biggest bind were people like Kerry, who understood the potential threat (he saw that BCCI funded the Pakistani bomb, where no one knew anything about the bomb until it was tested and he and the other SFRC people were extremely concerned with the unsecured nuclear devices in the neighboring former USSR) and who believed in war only as a last resort.

Bush agreed to "war as a last resort", but he was lying. Kerry was wrong to trust Bush's word, he has said the war is immoral and his vote was wrong. He profoundly regrets it. It didn't cause the war, but it puts his name on the resolution authorizing a war that he thought, even when Bush invaded, an Unjust war. But he did speak out before the war and would not have gone to war himself if he were President. What he has been doing since is trying to find the best way out.

Obama didn't have this tough choice in 2002- of a yes/no vote when he would prefer something different. His speech is to his credit. BLM's point is that the tough question he had in 2005 and 2006 were:

1) To support the legitimate oversight on the WMD intelligence - Part 2 was promised and Senator Roberts repeatedly lied about whether it was done, would be done or should be done. It was important that it should be done. (Interestingly, when Kerry wrote his letter - he got flack from the RW that it was the start of a Kerry effort to impeach Bush - I don't think it was, but it does tell you why it was important. As BLM says getting into common knowledge the fact that Bush et al lied to the co-equal branch of government is important to stop them from doing the same thing with Iran.

2) From his Senate speech on Kerry/Feingold, he either intentionally mischaracterized Kerry's proposal or he spoke and voted on an extemely important issue without carefully reading it or bothering to listen to Kerry. My quess is that that was a vote to preserve his viability with the powers that be in the Democratic party.
Frankly, I have more problem with his speech than the vote itself. He could have legitimately disagreed with Kerry's solution - the problem is that he used DLC talking points to discredit it.

3) He also voted to confirm Condi Rice for Secretary of State when it was clear she wasn't honest in her answers to his SFRC.

Every time period gives different tests, 2005 - 2006 had easier tests than some other years. The point is that no one will do 100% of what you think right - I would have preferred Kerry vote "no" on the IWR, but I completely believe his reasons were sincere because of his speaking out before the war. Here, I wish Obama had made the opposite choices - but overall he is easier to support than Edwards or Hillary.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

22. Least favorite is Hillary

and it is because of personal experience and the experience some of my friends had with her. Sorry, I don't abide rudeness and thinking that the people aren't important. Maybe she's changed since she was in Arkansas and was First Lady, but I doubt it.

[Dean Martin]

38. Any Clinton

I would not vote for Hillary and I did not vote for Bill. I consider the Clintons to be just as criminal as the Bushes.

[AJH032]

41. well then

you are lost.

[Dean Martin]

51. well then...

People that support the Reagans, Bushes and Clintons in this world are the ones that are lost.

[salin]

23. Biden - though he was my fav in 1988

'til he had that little plagerism problem. He really has gotten cautious ever since the Thomas SC hearings. He sometimes says the right things, but he doesn't always vote the way his words would indicate.

I am a little discomforted with the idea of dynasties - and thus have a little lack of enthusiasm for Clinton - but could get behind her easily were she to get the nod.

Who is Mike Gravel? I don't recall a dem senator from Alaska anytime in the last two decades. Is/was he a state senator? Or was he a senator before Frank Murkowski?

Oh - and I really hate perennial candidate - self-proclaimed "democrat" (but he isn't) Lyndon LaRouche.

[Blue_In_AK]

92. He was Alaska's senator from 1968 to 1980. n/t

[AJH032]

24. Edwards

too goofy and immature. Any of the others are fine by me.

[benny05]

43. Even though he has fought for unionization

and trying to help workers in your state find other means of work or retaining their health care rights, or campaigning for your governor (maybe you don't care for her)?

[AJH032]

65. ...

I actually don't live in MI any more, but that's not a factor in my opinion. I just don't care for Edwards, he's too goofy.

[benny05]

99. Oh, sorry, saw your avatar

Thought it looked like Michigan.

[AJH032]

102. it is Michigan

I was born and raised there. Why is that an issue?

[benny05]

103. My comment was based on Michigan

and the woes of workers who are losing jobs and how Edwards is still supporting unions, that's all.

[Clarkie1]

25. Hmmm.....I'd prefer a thread about the most favorite candidate and why. nt

[karynnj]

67. Can I second this - this is a call to bash someone

and it's not useful

[bermudat]

26. Toss up between Biden and Edwards

Biden is so enamored of the sound of his own voice, but never says anything that distinguishes him from a moderate repugnantcan. I thought Edwards did so poorly in his debate with Darth Cheney. Was expecting better, since he was a trial lawyer. Especially when Cheney said he had never met him before when he had. Cheney saying that cemented in peoples mind the charges that Edwards never spent much time in the Senate. When Edwards had his chance to speak truth to power... the sound of silence. I'm rooting for the Gore/Obama ticket.

[benny05]

44. You believe Cheney?

When Elizabeth approached him afterwards and said, John and I were sitting next to you and Lynne at the Breakfast in such and such time.

If you base your vote on that comment by Cheney, I will have skepticism reading your other posts to be against JRE as a nominee.

[Clark2008]

78. Please stop badgering people when they name Edwards.

This thread says to name your least favorite and why. It's not a thread for you to badger every single person who dislikes Edwards (and I'm glad there are several).

I didn't go after the couple of Clark dislikers above.

[benny05]

85. Your comment has no credibility here

Cheney flat out lied. Read Saving Graces by Elizabeth Edwards.

[Radical Activist]

27. Biden

I really can't take the guy seriously. Once in a while he says something really good, but then he goes back to being an asshat.

[ripple]

29. As much fought for him last time, I have to say Kerry

There's no chance in hell he'll garner more votes than he did in '04.

Second least favorite would be Hillary. Not because I dislike her, but because I don't believe any family should have control of the WH for 12-16 years. I also don't think she would win- unfortunately, she's truly hated by a lot of people, many dems included.

[EndElectoral]

30. Least Favorite? Easy...Hillary.

[donco]

31. Least favorite is Senator Clinton.

Why? Because I don’t think we could win with her.

Edwards as the Presidential candidate, and Obama as the Vice president, I think would be a rather formidable ticket.

[SaveElmer]

33. No contest...Kucinich...

No actual accomplishments in Congress...very poor mayor!!!

[Greeby]

37. It's hard to accomplish something

When you're for peace and so many others are for war

[SaveElmer]

39. Yeah that's it...

Or maybe it's that you are too busy getting on the news, criticizing other Democrats and running hopeless candidacies for President to actually accomplish anything...

[Greeby]

40. Dennis gets on the news?

Since when?

[DemBones DemBones]

46. Yes, Dennis gets on the news,

I saw him three times last week.

[NoPasaran]

81. DK's candidacy actually serves a useful purpose

He functions as a crackpot magnet and, if he repeats his 2004 performance, he'll ensure that the far left of the party ends up as the Self-Righteous Irrelevant Caucus that has minimal influence on the platform.

If I was Al From, I'd write him a check.

[Lord Byron]

36. I wonder if one of the big candidates has people astro-turfing here

It's not an impossibility.

[DemBones DemBones]

45. Probably, and it will get worse, if this goes like

2004. We'll have a large influx of new posters supporting various candidates and looking to knock down others.

[benny05]

42. Although I answered the q

There should have been a poll here.

[BlueIris]

48. Biden, all the way. Because he is a cheap hack.

And one who is too stupid to know that he is not, in fact, presidential material.

[election_2004]

49. Least favorite: Hillary; Favorite: probably Clark

Senator Clinton is my least favorite potential candidate because she has done NOTHING in terms of accomplishments to warrant being given preferential consideration for the presidency. Not. One. Thing.

At least Clark has been out there campaigning nonstop for progressive candidates and putting forth constructive ideas on how to handle foreign relations/policy from this point on.

[AJH032]

52. what have past presidential candidates/presidents accomplished?

prior to their election, that is. Did John Kerry have some great accomplishment prior to 2004 that warrants his primary victory?

[election_2004]

62. Well, for starters....

Kerry led investigations on the Contra and Oliver North.

Has Senator Clinton done anything of such significance, early in her Senate career?

[karynnj]

71. Not to mention BCCI

Think about this:

A corrupt Pakistani bank that facilitated international drug running and international terrorism had bought off well connected people in both parties. The CIA had used them to facilitate things like money to the mujahhadim.

Both parties and the CIA fought Kerry on this. These people with values that were 180 degrees from us were so entrenched that Kerry was called by people from Jimmy Carter to Jackie Kennedy asking him to stop his investigation. This was not a career enhancing move. It also wasn't high profile. It was 5 years of very detailed work.

OBL was found to have had millions of dollars there - Kerry disrupted his network. BLM has posted the 20 things that he said needed to be done - but which he couldn't do because they took his committee and supoena power away.

Number 1 dealt with the fact that BCCI financed the Pakistani bomb. Kerry felt more investigation of how they got around the non-proliferation treaty and their organization was needed. THe head of that organization? A. Q. Khan. Sound familiar. This may be the ultimate Kerry was right.

I suspect that the reason this was not pushed more was not that people would confuse it wit the BBC, but that these recommendations were made in the early 1990s - and not followed. Some could have been handled by the Justice department (who controlled Congress was not the issue.) Interestingly, another point was to get more information from fugitive Marc Rich.

I would say standing against a sitting President, the former Democratic President (upset because Altman and Lance were involved), the wife of the President Kerry admired (because Clifford was involved) and the entire Senate leadership to cut terrorist tentacles that reached into our government is something.

[Blue_In_AK]

96. Do you really not know?

Winter soldiers, Iran/Contra, BCCI, and generally being on the right side of just about everything (excluding the IWR) since the early '70s.

[VADem11]

50. Biden

He loves the sound of his own voice and is a corporate sell out.

[FrenchieCat]

53. Biden!

He depresses me....cause he truly thinks he's the best that we've got. :(

[KingofNewOrleans]

54. Mike Gravel makes me so mad

thinks we don't know his first name is really Maurice! And he does not speak of the pompitous of love either!

Apparently, he's locked up the endorsement of Granny D, so he can't be all bad.

[Eurobabe]

55. Least: Kerry, been there done that

Favs: Obama, Clark, Gore

[qwlauren35]

57. It's a tie.

Hilary Clinton and John Kerry.

Neither could win the election. Both could draw large numbers of voters during the primaries.

I want to win. I want a candidate that I feel tremendous confidence in, whom I believe can woo independents and swing a certain number of Republicans. I have no faith at all that either Kerry or Clinton can do these things.

I hope that neither runs.

[GreenArrow]

58. probably Biden

who gives the lie to the words "public servant." A more self-serving windbag could scarcely be found. A near perfect argument for term limits and publicly funded elections. Just a creep. Close behind are Edwards, who, to borrow the words of another poster upthread, is "disingenuous, egocentric, and narcissistic" not to mention oily and opportunistic, and Hillary, who has just always rubbed me the wrong way; she comes off as amoral, venal, shrill and power hungry to the extreme.

As for the Republicans, Jeb is the worst, and McCain a close second.

[skipos]

59. ABC for me - Anyone But Clinton. nt

[mod mom]

61. Easy-Hilliary...

I am against NAFTA and free trade and the disastrous effects it had on the middle class. I think her views (over -polled) and actions concerning the Iraq War indicate her wish-washiness. I believe the DLC is BAD for our country.

[Phredicles]

64. I've named my bottom two, but I'll offer a third: John Kerry needs to

realize that his ship has sailed, hit an iceberg, and come to rest on the ocean floor. I'm glad he made it to a lifeboat, but if we let him be captain again, we truly are all wet, y'know?

[HamdenRice]

66. Hillary "Isabel Peron" Clinton

There are many substantive reasons I dislike Hillary, including her poll tested and essentially content-empty position on the war.

But to be honest, they very idea of the wife of a former president making a career in politics in just creepy. I used to think that only in countries like Argentina of the Peron era did someone get to be considered for political office and even the presidency mainly because she was the spouse of a former president.

No more nepotism and "legacy" candidates like Bush I and II, and Hillary.

But of course having said that, I must contradict myself by saying the son of a late Senator is a different story altogether.

On edit: Had the wrong Peron wife in the subject line!

[fuzzyball]

69. Obama due to 3 reasons...

1. Inadequate experience in geo-politics to lead the country,
2. Hussein as middle name & 100% muslim father, don't see how country is
ready to vote him in,
3. Voting record in Illinois legislature will be exposed as far left
of center. And center is where the most votes are in a bell curve.

[Hardrada]

73. Prowar AIPAC front Clinton

and Mr Bankruptcy Bill Biden.

[CalebHayes]

75. Dodd - because ... why

[Clark2008]

76. Edwards

His ability to speak to whatever is political expedient for him leaves me cold. He seemed also not to care much for his consituency when he was a senator from North Carolina.
And, I don't think he has the experience - or the ability to lead without a poll - to handle the clean-up the next president will need as it relates to both foreign and domestic policies.

[TayTay]

79. 3 Least favorites for now

Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John Edwards.

I don't trust them. They don't seem to be consistent or strong enough as progressive Democrats to have earned my trust yet.

[SharonRB]

80. Least favorite: Sharpton

Does that really need any explanation?

Favorite: Gore, Gore, Gore and Gore

[AtomicKitten]

82. Edwards, Kerry, Clinton, and Biden

Having voted 'yes' on the IWR, they have demonstrated they lack the sound judgment required to lead this country.

[trillian]

83. Toss up between Hillary and Edwards

Hillary because I really don't want to relive all the Monica crap all over again....and you know the Rethugs won't let us forget. Besides which, she voted for the IWR.....as did Edwards (who also sponsored it)

Edwards, because he's empty suit. The only "experience" he has is one partial term in the Senate. I say partial, because he spent the last half of his term running for Prez. I also hate that he would not step down when he ran for Prez.......even tho' he knew he wasn't going to try to retain his seat (his numbers were in the toilet). If he had stepped down, Eskine Bowles could have been appointed in his seat and would have had a running start in the election. Instead, he stubbornly hung on as a lame duck and SC went Repub. It showed me that JE was ALL about himself....damn the State....damn the Party....damn the country.

[ellisonz]

84. Dodd. He's a blowhard. At least Biden has a monotone voice.

Gore/Obama 08 - The Dream Team.

[Bullet1987]

86. ...

Biden
Dodd
Vilsack
Kerry

[Blue_In_AK]

91. My least favorite is Sen. Clinton...

She is too hawkish for me, and blows with the wind.

[catgirl]

95. Biden and Edwards

Both are too cocky. Gore is my favorite by far!

[cadmium]

98. Cant vote in this: Liebermann has not ruled out running

again as a Dem. He is on TV more than anyone else. Look out. Jomentum's coming.

[Bryn]

100. Whoever supported/voted for IWR

I'd set my eyes on those who voted AGAINST IWR because that would show me they'd make a better leader and a wise one, too and is not a warmonger unless it's to defend our own country HERE.

[ElizabethDC]

104. Obama

he could be a good candidate someday, but I think it's wayyyy to early for him to be getting into this. He needs to spend a few more years in the Senate. I really think that he's getting a little to big for his britches (this feeling was confirmed for me when I met him a few months back - he wasn't very polite and couldn't really be bothered to speak to certain people, while being excessively nice to others; it showed me that he needs to learn a little bit more about retail politics. He lost my vote).

[windbreeze]

105. HRC mostly, then Kerry, Edwards...Biden...

HRC, because of a lot of things, Kerry, hasn't got it...Edwards hasn't accomplished much...and Biden...well, we all know why for that one..
windbreeze

[The Traveler]

108. Biden

A capable man, but I just think he sold out.

[BorisTheBlade]

109. hmm

anyone without a spine to standup to corruption

[Joe Bacon]

111. Bidet.

I'm so glad I filed for bankruptcy before that prick's bill took effect!

[mrgorth]

112. Hillary

Because she can't win.

[LWolf]

113. I don't really do "favorites."

I can give you a list of those who don't interest me and those who do. :shrug:

Those who interest me, in no particular order: Kucinich, because he has the best stance on every issue out there, and because he is willing to take a stand, and take concrete action on them. Gore, because of his experience and willingness to work. Gravel, because I don't know anything about him, Dodd, because I'm not done learning about him. Sharpton, because he livens any conversation.

Don't interest me: The rest. Some because of any or all: their record, their lack of experience, their position on issues, their obnoxious operatives.

[hughee99]

114. Hillary is the type of candidate

that would cause me to at least give some thought to not voting. She has said and done many things I agree with, and she has said and done many things that I do not. Whatever she does, it seems first and foremost (to me, anyway) a political calculation. In my opinion, she approaches ever policy situation with the same approach, "How can I position myself on this issue to best promote ME?". With the other candidates, I don't really question their intentions (though I do disagree with some of their ideas), but with Hillary, I question her intentions.

[hyphenate]

118. Regarding presidential candidates

at this point in time, there are some candidates who I could not and would not want to be in the lead for the nominee, not because I don't like them, but because I think that they aren't suitable for the job right now, because of personality conflicts, inexperience, and a tone that I don't agree with. As such, these are my opinions, and I don't want to get into a fight about them, because everyone has their opinion, and whether I am right or wrong shouldn't deter anyone else from liking someone I don't at this time.

Hillary: It would really be great to have Hillary running the country, but it ain't gonna happen in 2008. The fact that Hillary is the wife of Bill Clinton, the GOPs worst nightmare, will keep the stark divide between the GOP and the Democrats, and fuel even more polemic attacks on the Democrats.

Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut: He's a Democrat that we haven't heard a lot from, and that means he follows the crowd, and is not a leader who has the courage of his convictions. This is something I feel strongly about in general--are you a man or a mouse? If some Dem thinks he can sit in the House or Senate and just take up space and time without speaking out over the atrocities of this administration for the past six years, he gets a NAY from me. There are several more of these potential candidates in this list as well.

Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina: I like John Edwards and would support his presidential campaign. He has spoken up and he shows a committment to certain issues which I admire.

Former Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska: Don't know him, but at this moment in time, I would put him into the same category as Dodd until I know more.

Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio: I was happy to see Dennis in the 2004 campaign, but he has been too quiet since then, and I don't think that bodes well. Perhaps someday he will speak up again, and if he does, good for him. Those with the back bone to stick it to this administration earn my respect far more than any other potential candidates.

Former Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa: Vilsack was a potential running mate for John Kerry in 2004, and he has an excellent record. I would like to see him more and see what he has to offer on his own before I could consider him more seriously.

Senator Joe Biden of Delaware (Unite Our States PAC): Ain't no way, no how that I would EVER vote for Biden. Mouse is the word in my opinion, and until recently, he was more cowardly than the lion. Add other charges since his last campaign for the presidency, and he is not acceptable.

Retired General Wesley Clark of Arkansas (WesPAC - Securing America)<6>: Let's just say Clark is not my first choice for the presidency and leave it at that. I would support him if he got the nomination (as I would for ANY one who got the nomination (including Biden, but let's not go there!), but he would not be my first choice.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York (HILLPAC)<7>: See above comments

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts (Keeping America's Promise)<8>: Kerry is still my first choice (after Gore, who is not running from what I hear), because he is consistently up front with this administration and had the courage of his own convictions to fall back on in 2004. The major change I would like to see from Kerry is less sanctimony, which cost him a lot in bad publcity by the asshole swift-boaters who should have been silenced LONG before it became a problem.

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois (HOPEFUND PAC)<9>: I like Obama, but I personally feel he is too inexperienced. Besides which, he's getting an awful lot of publicity right now, and a lot of it is pure hype with little substance.

Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico (Moving America Forward PAC)<10>: Richardson is okay. But from a personal point of view, he's a little, um, boring.

Reverend Al Sharpton of New York <11>: I couldn't take Sharpton seriously in 2004 and I can't now. If he has the money and the ability to run, good for him, but I dnn't think he's got the right stuff to actually be a president.

[AngryAmish]

119. LaRouche

[generaldemocrat]

120. This thread has a high potential for flammability

That's why I won't disclose my least favorite candidate......for now. :evilgrin:

[DaveinMD]

121. Kucinich

because he's wasting our time. Same with Gravel and Sharpton.