Where I Am So Far Re. the Dem Presidential Candidates

[ludwigb]

Hillary Clinton--In debates and television appearances she's come across very well. She seems competent, intelligent, compassionate--she reminds me of my Mom (in a good way). Chances are she would be just as good a president as her husband if not better.

Downsides: She's too divisive. I have not encountered a single convincing argument why Clinton would be more electable than Edwards or Obama. It's a good bet that for every non-voter she'll bring in due to her name-recognition, there will be another non-voter who votes just to vote against her. I'm skeptical that the first female president is going to be a Democrat--there's too much resentment against women in power and specifically against liberal women. Moreover, it looks like she is the favored candidate of Faux News, the MMM, and the DLC, which is worrying. Finally, the USA is not a monarchy--the media's obsession with relatives of ex-presidents is un-American.

Barack Obama--I've read his books and other essays he's written, and I like what I see. At first glance, he appears to be the man for intellectuals and observers who prefer intellectually honest, Dean-type politicians. And the media has very little dirt with which to smear him--this is extremely important. His family is an asset and surely he'll bring new voters to the polls. He is an inspiration to everybody, including Republicans. He's the only big-time candidate who opposed Iraq from the start--this may be a bigger asset than any other.

Downsides: The main objection so far is his failure to distinguish himself in the debates (at least compared to Edwards and Clinton). He often speaks in long, convoluted sentences. I worry that his intellect might become a liability (a silly worry, I know, but there it is). Finally I don't believe he's being sufficiently bold policy-wise, but then again I'm way to the left of the mainstream (at least the mainstream defined by the MMM). Compared to Clinton and Edwards, he's green.

John Edwards--He has a lot going for him. IMO he's won both debates, and this time around his message (the need to resuscitate America's moral authority and focus on inequality issues) is right on target and will resonate with the people. He speaks concretely and forcefully. He's handsome and Southern, and his wife and kids are huge assets. He has the potential to take some Southern states.

Downsides: Although I personally believe he's a good man, he's vulnerable when it comes to the public's perception that he's an opportunist. His vote for the war is a big liability/distraction, especially given the issues he's running on. And he was too easy on Cheney in the 2004 debate--he'll have to go after the GOP mercilessly to convince the American people a change is imperative.

....

So I'm undecided right now between Obama and Edwards. It will probably come down to policy specifics--we'll all have to dig deeper there. Policywise, I lean towards Kucinich (and this is coming from someone who favored Dean in 2004...I guess I've come a long way). Kucinich is the only one who is asking the right questions about Iraq/Iran and why we are there (oil, defense contracts, etc). And I believe his Department of Peace proposal is the single best idea being espoused by any presidential candidate. But Kucinich isn't electable--if we had Kucinich's views combined with Edwards or Obama's good looks and likable personality, then we'd have someone progressives could unite behind (why didn't you run, Russ?). However, progressives will have to swallow their pride and compromise on Edwards or Obama if they want the White House.

Richardson? Based on what I've seen in the debates and TV appearances he isn't ready for primetime. Too many platitudes. Nonetheless he's an asset to the party and I hope he's included in the next administration...if his skills improve, maybe VP. Dodd? Seems like a stand-up guy but not really a serious option, plus I can't forgive his support for Holy Joe. Biden? Sometimes he's fantastic but frequently he's an asshole--remember him being a war propagandist/yes-man back in 2003? Plus he's too cozy with Faux and Deleware special interests. Gravel? He was entertaining at first but he's getting increasingly annoying. He distracts from Kucinich's more vital message.

So there's where I stand. Mostly a Kucinich supporter policy-wise, but I'll end up working for Obama or Edwards because we must win in 2008. So which one should I back? Or am I misreading the field--should I reconsider one of the other candidates?

[veniceboy]

1. I thought Hillary won-

She was strong and forceful. A liberal Thatcher. I agree she has electability problems, but I think she would likely make the best president of the bunch. Edwards came across pretty well. Obama was a bit shakey for me.

[ludwigb]

2. Yeah, I can see that

Edwards and Clinton were the strongest last night. I think Hillary has come a long way since she first became a Senator in terms of political skills and speaking with authority.

Like I said she'd be a good president. But too many right-wingers are salivating for a Clinton nomination. Why play into their hands?

[veniceboy]

3. Generally I agree...

Just saying she would be a good president.

[ludwigb]

4. What I really want....

A candidate with Obama's integrity and background, Edwards' current message/talking points, and Clinton's savvy and authority.....

We can't have it all unfortunately. :)

[jaxx]

5. Try as I might, I can't get any sense of security from Edwards.

He's a nice guy, but.....

Maybe this will change, but so far it hasn't. I felt the same in 2004.

[Tejanocrat]

You can't go wrong with Obama or Edwards. I'm supporting Kucinich, but I have no illusion he'll win.

By the time my state gets around to holding its primary, we'll already have our nominee so I have the luxury of not compromising my candidate selection with concerns about electability.

Between Obama and Edwards, I think Edwards's approach is more similar to Kucinich's on support for the middle class, poverty, health care, fair trade, job and wage protection, but Obama's approach is more similar to Kucinich's on gun control and the death penalty.

You win either way with Obama or Edwards.

[Tejanocrat]

6. .

dupe deleted

[dave_p]

7. It's still policy time

"if we had Kucinich's views combined with Edwards or Obama's good looks and likable personality, then we'd have someone progressives could unite behind"

Are you voting for a leader for the America of the future, or for good looks? (btw I think DK's good-looking enough, probably better than whoever wins the GOP UglyFest).

Let's fight for policy, and principle. If others come on board, they're welcome too. But on policy DK's been way out in front of the pack for years. If he falls, your options are still open: but don't let him be cut out now when he's still ahead on the thinking.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Although I believe that Edwards has a good chance in the Dem primaries

of actually winning, I believe that in the GE, he will be DOA.

As an example.....although many are proud of Edwards denouncing "The War on Terror" as a bumper sticker slogan and "sticking" to this point, I believe that with some unforeseen thwarted "Plot", a little media engineering, and some GOP talking points, Edwards will only end up as being characterized as a weak link in more ways than one--and this could be a fatal blow.

I currently see the media actually favoring Edwards in very subtle ways that will become more pronounced as the campaign wears on. So in the end, I believe that Edwards will be the eventual Dem pick of the media.....as this will ensure a "tight" race in the General Election, in where, at the end of the day, John Edwards "left" positions that he has staked out to woo the Netroots will not wear well with the mass voters.....especially when the media is done twisting it all.

Add to that, Edwards' proposal to raise taxes, and the fact that many poor people simply just don't vote, Edwards as the nominee becomes a recipe for disaster. In addition, Edwards will be shackled by his "to and Fro" position on quite a few issues, and he will not be able to argue Iraq as well as some may think due to his co-sponsorship and pushing of the Blank check while sitting on the Intel Committee back in 2002....information that probably will be "saved" by the opposition until the General Election.

I am apprehensive about this....because Edwards has put himself via televised words in a position that will make it easy for the opposition to stir up enough fear in enough voters. This works, and if you don't think so, see "October surprise/Osama Bin Laden Tape/Kerry election 2004" and "Kerry Joke/circa 2006", and also see "Guliani/Paul/distortion on debate 9/11 answer-circa 07".

Many Dems are being lulled into a false sense of "we will win almost no matter what" and many are opting for an Edwards choice due to the fact that he is an attractive White Southern Male with a couple of tragedy in his life and some detailed policies proposed with the poor in mind. However, at the end of the day, I think many will be shocked that what their betting on as a "got to be a sure thing compared to the rest of the Dem field" are going to be in for a rude awakening.

We already well know Obama's biggest flaws; the fact that he is an African American and some say relatively inexperienced.

We already know Clinton's Biggest flaw; the fact that she is woman and that she is somewhat divisive in terms of GOP hate levels......

However, I believe that Edwards has more subtle negatives than the other two (and which won't be able to be diffused as racism or sexism) and will be used against him, as needed.....via selective "time released" material.

So although Edwards may appear to be a "conventional" ideal pick from afar, when examined closely, and considering his "weakness on National Security" (saying sorry at every event will not look good "Looped together"), Edwards will not seem so "attractive" in the general election.

[ludwigb]

9. Fair Points...

But I don't agree that the media is favoring Edwards. They aren't giving his policy points much coverage. Instead you get this nonsense about his haircuts. I don't see that kind of thing happening to Obama.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Well, Edwards' People Magazine Spread should let you know

that the media does NOT "hate" John Edwards. It will be out later this week.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/05/elizabeth_edwar.html

Not counting the one they did in March
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20016130,00.html


Those are being read by millions of folks, and both articles are 5 hanky stories, at least!

Time-warner owns People Magazine and CNN......and if you really check the coverage, CNN has not been "Mean" to John Edwards, nor have they ignored him. He is positioned exactly right; top tier, not outfront enough to be dissected to death. The haircut stuff is not being taken seriously by Democratic voters, and that's what counts. If you support him, be glad....cause with 7 months to go, you don't want your candidate up front taking all of the heat.

So no, I'm not so worried about John Edwards in the primaries.....it is General Election Edwards that worries me. Somehow those we believe to be most "electable" never seem to work out quite right.

[LBJDemocrat]

10. Good post.

You make solid points. I support Edwards, but I share your concerns.

Actually, last night, when he was implying that he'd raise taxes, I was saying to myself, "NO! Don't say that, you f***ing idiot. Can't you remember what happened to Walter Mondale? No one cares if you're honest because they'll assume you're dishonest anyway."

It really made me angry.

He's running right now without the general election in mind, and he does seem reckless.

[MasonJar]

11. I am very pleased with our candidates; each one is head and shoulders

above the freaks put up by the GOPers. I am a Gore woman all the way, but if he does not run (which I do not believe he will) I am leaning to Hillary. She is electable; we need a woman. That anti-electable bit is is pure anti-Clintonism of the Rightwing cabal, who will never vote dem anyway. However, if y'all choose any of our other fine candidates, I will work very hard to see he is elected. Now can we stop worrying about who and put pressure on the Congress to go to paper ballots. I left Speaker Pelosi a long message today about that. Tomorrow I will call Senator Reid.

[Colobo]

14. Don't we need a black man also?

[MGKrebs]

13. It's easy for somebody to SAY they are against the war,

but whenever Obama has had a chance to vote on it, he supports it. (I think that's right.) I don't blame him, it's just to point out that these things are a little more complicated than we might like them to be. I can easily see how someone can be philisophically opposed to a war (this war especially) and yet feel compelled to cast votes on specific measures that seem contradictory on the surface. In any case, I think placing more value on statements with little consequence than on votes with significant consequence exposes a predisposition to a certain outcome. Just do it!

[ludwigb]

15. Really?

He voted against the last 2 attempts to fund it, didn't he?

That said I don't like everything Obama says on International Affairs....frequently it seems like he's trying to please everyone at once. But Clinton is certainly not any better on this count and arguably Edwards isn't either.