|
Well, the curse of FDRLincoln hits again. Since 1988, the candidate I decide to endorse in the primary always loses. I really liked Wes Clark this year, so of course as soon as I gave my formal endorsement last fall, he started dropping in the polls. :)
Anyhow, I've been trying to decide who to throw my support to. For those who might care about my thought process, here goes.
1) I am a moderate Democrat. I am socially liberal on most issues (gay rights), conservative on a few (gun control), and fiscally somewhat conservative (the huge deficit is really driving me nuts). I am not against capitalism and don't assume that all corporations are bad. At the same time, it is clear that government regulation of things like the environment and health care is necessary to ameliorate the failures of the free market in those departments. I had very mixed feelings about the Iraq war, but ultimately decided that it was morally questionable and strategically flawed, and that the Chimp Administration would botch the peace, which is exactly what has happened. I supported NAFTA in theory, but didn't like the treaty as written due to inadequate labor and environmental safeguards. I opposed MFN for China, and I believe we need to go slower with free trade.
In general, I am pragmatic and am suspicious of all ideology, left or right.
Looking at the candidates:
Dean: I appreciate his anger at Bush, but Dean has never really clicked with me. I've never quite understood why so many Dean supporters see him as such a man of the people...his family background is as blueblood as Kerry or Bush. Of course, being a blueblood does NOT mean that someone can't understand the problems of the underclass...look at FDR. Anyway, I think Dean's best service has been to remind the Democrats how to fight Bush. But I never really saw him as presidential or particularly electable.
Kerry: I originally supported Kerry until Clark got in. I was concerned that he wasn't fighting Bush hard enough. Well, he has been lately. I don't agree with all of Kerry's votes, but his voting record in general over the years is solid liberal, perhaps more liberal than i am in some respects. I've always seen him as someone with a measure of gravitas, and an aggressive Kerry should destroy Bush in a debate. Whearas some DUers think that Kerry's position on the war has been inconsistent and erratic, I give him some slack for this because in a real way it has mirrored mine: getting rid of Saddam was a good idea in theory, but it had to be done right, with lots of international support, with a ton of planning, with the right timing, and after AQ had been dealt with, not this neocon screw-the-world bullshit that we got stuck with.
Kucinich: This is the guy that I'd most like to sit down and have a conversation with. Unfortunately, he can't win, and too many of his policies are in the "sounds good on paper but impossible to put into effect given political reality" category. But on a personal level I really respect him.
Edwards: Like Dean, he's just never really clicked with me. I do find him more compelling than Dean, though, and do understand that other people see him as a great communicator.
Put it all together, and I'm going with Kerry. I think he has the best combination of gravitas, intellect, and political acumen. No disrespect is intended to anyone here who backs other candidates, and ALL of these guys would be better than Chimp.
I think Kerry will make an excellent president, and he'll make a fine candidate, too, IF he maintains his aggressive stance and doesn't back down in the face of Rovian attacks. I think Dean has done Kerry, the party, and the nation a great service by reminding people what it means to be a Democrat.
Flame if you wish, but I wanted to lay this out in case anyone else has had similar thoughts. I will support our nominee whoever it is.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(947 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
