Ranking the candidates from “most liberal” to “most conservative”:
Kucinich
Sharpton
Mosely-Braun
Kerry
Gephardt
Edwards
Dean (based on past record, would be higher than Kerry if I used his campaign alone)
Graham
Lieberman
Thank you --I am learning a lot here. I don’t necessarily agree with what everyone’s said, but getting a lot of honest opinions on the hopefuls is helpful.
Dean really isn’t as liberal as some would mark him. He supports interverntion in Liberia, supported intervention in the Balkans, and supported intervention in Afghanistan. Furthermore, he’s against gun control, and, IIRC, pro death penalty.
It should also be noted that Kucinich is pro-life.
This is looking like a very interesting campaign, if only because there’s no front runner. I’m not thrilled with any of the candidates; I like Lieberman the best but I don’t think he has much of a chance in the primary. That leaves:
Edwards, an insipid, feckless representative of the most odious (if richest) Democratic bloc: trial lawyers;
Gephart, in his last dying gasp for the presidency; a fairly genuine person (despite his pro-life to pro-choice flip-flop), but not terribly effective as minority leader and too dependent on declining unions.
Dean, whose ideas strike me as pretty half-baked, and who exhibits a nasty temper to boot. I’m not convinced that being governor of a small state prepares a person for much of anything; Carter was a disaster and Clinton survived only by jettisoning almost everything he ran for.
Graham, a sour nutjob with little to offer other than his state of residency.
Kerry, a Dukakis protege (now there’s some political genes for ya!) with a terrific life story who won’t let anyone forget it, ever. Every blessed issue turns into a discussion of his bronze star - it’s stomach-churning, and ill befitting a man who obviously did serve his country exceedingly well. At least he’s got a terrific source of cash: wifey-poo.
Kucinich is another lunatic, rabidly and not very thoughtfully antiwar - and a very recent flip-flop on abortion (like Gephart, he seems to have noticed that an anti-abortion position is anathema in the national party).
Sharpton: a witty demagogue who has never (and, I suspect, will never) apologize for Tawana Brawley.
Mosely-Braun: from a particularly corrupt Democratic machine in Illinois, where her pre-senate post was something called “Recorder of Deeds.” Mmm-hm. Ran inept re-election campaign.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Daoloth *
Furthermore, he’s against gun control, and, IIRC, pro death penalty.
[QUOTE]
According to statements formerly on his web site, Dean is not against gun control - he’s in favor of further restricting private sales under the ‘gun show loophole’ rhetoric, and is in favor of passing a new federal ‘assault weapon ban’. While he’s opposed to gun rights than any of the other Democratic candidates, he’s marginally less supportive of gun rights than George Bush, much less ‘against gun control’. It’s rather strange that he used to have a direct statement on the matter on his site but has now removed it.
I also find it interesting that anyone could manage to call him against gun control when he is in favor of both keeping every gun control law presently on the books and adding yet more gun control laws.
Slight hijack:
What’s the deal with Wesley Clark?
I’ve heard the name, but I’m unclear as to who he is, what he stands for, and whether he’s running…Is he someone I should even be paying attention to?
He’s a retired 4 star General who commanded NATO’s forces in Kosovo. There is speculation that he may run for Pres as a Dem in '04, or possibly VP. There seems to be a small but growing grassroots movement supporting him.
Wing revolts at the elections usually result in losses for the party because the swing voters are easily turned off. They don’t like a candidate who is too liberal or too conservative. This is why recent presidential candidates have tended to be centrists. Clinton, Gore, Bush II, etc.
Although, in the posts following yours people have pointed out that Dean isn’t as liberal as he has been painted. If this is true, then I could be incorrect.
I actually could see just the fact that he is against the war propelling him to success in the moveon.org poll. Many liberals are so infuriated with the war they have stopped paying attention to anything else. IMHO, this makes it seem more likely that Dean’s anti-war position was crafted to fill a market void. Especially since he has been in favor of other military interventions in the past.
It coult be a successful strategy for Dean. Let everyone call him (falsely) an ultraliberal now based solely on the Vermont civil unions and his war stance. Then once he wins the primary he can move more towards the center to appeal to the swing voters. Seems like a good strategy to me. This thread is the first time i have seen Dean referred to as anything but an extreme liberal.
What I know is that Dennis Kucinich will slaughter everyone with his swordsmanship.
Furthermore, he’s probably the only candidate who is hip on the magical stardust issue.
Ah yes, candidate Bush, the compassionate conservative who was a uniter not a divider. What happened to that guy?
Dean has consistently been opposed to unilateral war in Iraq for as long as the issue has been on the table, long before Kerry, Gephardt, and the other candidates voted on whether to authorize the president to use force against Iraq. A position can hardly be “crafted to fill a market void” before the void even exists.
You’re right, it’s not bad at all. He’ll need to stress those centrist credentials well before the primaries to win over centrist and pragmatic primary voters, but capturing the left and the center is exactly what you have to do to win the general election.
Incidentally, for those who have argued that Kerry’s vote authorizing military action is inconsistent with his current criticism of the administration’s boondoggle in Iraq, I would point you to something Kerry said a couple months before the war even started:
Sounds like a pretty reasonable position to me, and one that should appeal greatly–especially as the boondoggle continues–to the majority of the public who supported the war but are rightfully distressed about the post-war.
minty: Not sure I agree about Kerry. I find his position somewhat disingenuous. If he knew before the war the Administration would screw up the post-war plan, and if this was such an important aspect of the war, then he should not have voted “yes” on the authorization in the first place. Voting for a declaration of war means you think the President should have the right to send troops whenever he deems necessary - the next day if he wants. If Kerry believed that the Administration’s diplomatic efforts re the war were insufficient, AND that the Administration would insufficiently invest in Iraq after the war, he should not have given the President the power to wage war in the first place.
Are any of you actually from Cleveland? Well I am. I am a strong supporter of Mr. Kucinich. He has time and time again pulled through for the people of Cleveland. When he was elected to Mayor in the 70’s at the age of 31, he refused to sell the Cleveland Municipal Power Plant. The area banks were in cahoots to force the city to sell off the plant. Kucinich campaigned on this issue and the peope elected him because they didn’t want to sell off the plant. The banks forced the city into bankruptcy instead of rolling over debt. Kucinich was politically destroyed by this.
In the long term, Kucinich was proven right. He saved the people of Cleveland tens of millions of dollars in energy costs. When Kucinich ran for Congress in the 90’s, he used a light bulb on all his campaign materials. You can read a more detailed explanation from Mr. Kucinich at: http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_publicpower.htm
On free trade issues…have any of you ever driven through cities like Youngstown, Cleveland, or Flint, Michigan? They are shadows of their former selves with abandoned industrial sites and shuttered buildings. 
Why is this? The good-paying manufacturing jobs have been sent to other countries. Tariffs and trade restrictions can be used to protect human rights in the workplace. How can a country like China that has child labor and forced labor camps be given Most Favored Nation trading status? :mad:
For those of you who aren’t from the industrial meccas of the Midwest, I encourage you to watch the movie Roger And Me. These corporations don’t care who they hurt as long as they can make more profit. As long as free trade is the name of the game, there will be an un-ending race to the bottom of worker protections. Free trade is fair only when both countries have laws the protect the rights of their citizens.
Mr. Kucinch has been a voice for the blue-collar American. He marched with steelworkers through the streets of Cleveland when Corporate executives tried to give themselves million dollar bonuses while simoultaneously running their steel company into the ground. The Steelworkers won their battle and a new company now runs the steel mills. With the relief provided by the new steel tariffs, the mills are making a profit and the workers are getting good wages.
There are many other issues Mr. Kucinich has stood his ground on. Kucinich feels so strong about the issues that it shows in his fire and brimstone speechs. He was a main opponent of the push for war in Iraq. Much of the criticisum of Kucinich is unwarranted.
I support him because he speaks from the heart. Granted there are many things I disagree with him on. His stardust speech was moronic. His plan for a Department of Peace is downright Orwellian. :smack:
I believe the late Paul Wellstone of Minnasota would have been a better candidate on the progressive platform.
Anyway, if any of you are deeply interested in the internal debates in the Democratic Party, you should visit http://dailykos.com The debate is lively and covers the whole Democratic spectrum.
I think the most electable democratic ticket would be Kerry or Dean as the Presidential candidate with General Wesley Clark as the VP. How would Dick n’ Bush beat that?
In 2000, Bush and Gore made me want to Ralph 
…if you get my drift. As time progresses, my ABB syndrome gets worse…
ANYBODY BUT BUSH!
timothyperch demonstrates a problem for the Democratic candidates.
The “anyone but Bush” crowd tends to gravitate to the more eccentric ends of the Democratic spectrum. Thus those who are either outright dispicable (like Sharpton), qualified for office based only on affirmative action grounds (like Mosely-Braun), or outright fruitcakes like Kucinich stay in the race longer than should be reasonable.
Regards,
Shodan
“John Kerry: Standard New England liberal. Ironically, he’s promised not to use his best asset (his wife’s money).”
Federal election laws prohibit Kerry from using his wife’s money.
I still believe he’ll get the nomination.
Additionally, the Washington Post has been running a series of detailed profiles on each of the candidates (I believe Gephardt’s ran most recently). You can visit the Post website and read through each of the profiles in the archives.
For some reason this lifelong Chicagoan found this description amusing. 
CMB was elected to the Senate largely due to multiple candidates causing a split in the Dem primary vote, and Al the Pal needlessly taking one for Clarence Thomas. She did nothing memorable while in the Senate, other than to get into a dustup with Strom Thurmond. Seemed extremely adept at surrounding herself with incompetence.
Could say much more, but would be best if everyone just stopped talking and/or thinking of her in connection with any elected office now or in the future. Nothing other than a distraction.
Personally, I look forward to at least a couple dropping out, so things can be more focussed. Hope the stronger candidates have the guts to take on Bush. Would love to see Kerry ask Bush in a debate where exactly he was those months that he failed to show up for his Nat’l Guard duty…