Which American Democratic President Would You Reccommend?

Great Debates
1

It’s time I got serious about candidate shopping. I’m registered as a Democrat and sooner or later I’ll be casting my vote for one in my state’s primary. I’m afraid that voting for Bush is not an option because I do not vote for major party candidates for President and even if I did, I am far from a Bush supporter, so I’d prefer to leave his merits or lack thereof out of this and focus on reasons to vote for on of the Democrats. I know there are innumerable reasons to vote against any of them, but I dislike negative campaigning, although I do appreciate balance.

So, tell me what you think of them, who you’d recommend and why, and who you would not recommend and why, although, as I said, please hold the victriol. I would like to see cites. While I have one I’m leaning toward, I feel I don’t have enough facts about him or the rest of them, so I’d like to gather more while keeping an open mind.

I’m looking forward to reading your responses.
CJ

2

If you want Bush to get another term easily, vote for Dean.

Otherwise, your best choices are probably Kerry, Clark or Lieberman.

3

I’m confused. You are going to vote for a candidate in the primaries but not in the general election?

If that’s the case, don’t vote for Dean in the primaries or you’ll be killing the Democrats twice. Once by nominating him, and twice by not being one of the 30% that are going to vote for him.

Anyway, the guy that I would vote for in the primaries, were I able to vote in a primary, would be Kerrey. Other than his weaseling on his war statements, he’s someone I could vote for.

4

I would vote for any candidate that hasn’t been convicted of rape, murder, kiddie porn, or selling crack to minors over President Bush*.

By the time the primaries get to my state, the frontrunner(s) will have been decided. I’ve sent money to Dean and Clark, but if I lived in NH or IA, I’d go with Clark. Why? He’s an outsider, extremely intelligent, willing to admit to his mistakes, understands the concept of war, understands the concept of not paying the Visa bill with the Mastercard, is not beholden to any special interests, and I feel in my heart that he is motivated by his love of country. I admire Dean too, I just feel General Clark is the better choice.

I cannot wait to see any of them debate President Bush*. But I have this sick feeling that the Chickenhawk-In-Chief will somehow weasle out of any debate that he’s not privy to the questions to be asked far in advance. Bets?

5

Since the only indication you’ve given of your politics is that you don’t like Bush and you don’t like negative campaigns, you probably should look at Edwards. He’s a pretty moderate Democrat trying to keep his message positive. I personally think he’s too inexperienced for the job, but then you don’t intend to vote for the guy in the general election anyway.

On the other hand, I might infer that you vote Green (registered Dem, but don’t vote for major party condidates) in which case Kucinich is your guy. He doesn’t stand a snow-ball’s chance in hell of getting the nomination, much less winning, but if you vote for 3rd party candidates all the time, you should be used to that.

6

There really isn’t that much diffrence between them but Dean would probably be the most aggressively anti-Bush and he’s the one that the Pubbies most fear.

Kerry has the military cred and the the long-term political experience but he voted for the war in Iraq.

Clark has even more military cred plus he has brains (well, they’re all smarter than Bush but Clark is way, way WAY smarter than Bush) but it’s hard to tell how liberal he is and the conservatives have proven themselves to be complete hypocrites onthe warhero thing. Military experience only counts if your a Republican and draft-dodging is only bad if you’re a dem. The fact that Kerry and Clark are both combat veterans who would be running against a draft-dodger and a wartime deserter should mean something to conservative voters but it doesn’t. The military thing is just a weaopn to club liberals with, they don’t acually believe it when it comes to a clear choice.

It’s hard to tell who would have the best chance in a general election. Kerry probably looks the best on paper but he hasn’t generated much excitement. Dean, at least, looks like he would bloody Bush in the debates and call him on his war crimes.

7

You could do worse than to read the suggestions here by the Bush supporters, some of whom may even be well-meaning in their suggestions to you, and then decide the opposite. But only you know what’s important to you in a President, both in policies and in leadership ability. List those attributes, then check their bios and campaign literature, and a variety of news sources, and see who matches best.

8

Ah yes, calling Bush “on his war crimes.” Yes, that’s the way to win the general election. :dubious:

Seriously, which candidate to vote for depends on which primary you’re voting in and who the viable candidates are when and where that vote occurs. The legitimate candidates in Monday’s Iowa caucuses are not the same candidates who will be viable a week later in New Hampshire. Ditto for South Carolina shortly after that.

Assuming that you don’t want to piss your vote away on Dean–and it looks like increasing numbers of people are figuring out that Dean’s a sure-fire loser in the general election–I would look to Clark, Edwards, and Kerry. All three are centrists whose politics will appeal to swing voters. I tend to think that Clark in particular will trump Bush’s perceived advantage on national security, which of course will be the number one issue for voters this fall.

9

minty, it’s a little odd to see you join the “Dean can’t win” contingent. Mind sharing with us what leads you to that conclusion?

10

Dude, I’ve ALWAYS been on the Dean-can’t-win ticket. Sure-fire, guaranteed dead man if he wins the nomination. If the search engine worked, I’d conjure up the old threads.

11

OP checking in here, with a radical thought. You see, I’d like to vote for the candidate whose views most closely match mine, regardless of his chances of winning. What I’d like to know is what the candidates stated views are and how their actions match those views.

As for the whole not-voting-for-a-major-party business, let me explain. Given the candidates available to vote for for president during my voting lifetime, I haven’t seen any I particularly cared for, although Bob Dole looked better in hindsight. I have more beefs with the Republican Party, obviously, but I also lived in a state dominated by a Democratic Party machine. As a result, I consider both parties pretty much hopelessly corrupt. I also have Libertarian tendencies, an anarchist streak, and a determination to get my money’s worth out of the fees I had to pay and the bureaucratic hassle I had to endure to become a U.S. citizen. My first choice is always to vote for a candidate whose views match mine and who will be concerned about the common man, rather than large corporations or the wealthy. I don’t see either major party doing more than paying lip service to that, therefore, I usually vote Libertarian, and I’ve only voted for an incumbent once, and that was because his opponent was worse.

I’m also not above calling candidates at home, asking why I should vote for them, and using their answers as one of the things I take into consideration when I cast my vote. If I vote for someone who’s doomed this fall, that’s par for the course. On the other hand, I would like to be an informed voter and make my choice based on facts, not political ads.

Don’t tell me who to vote for; tell me why I should vote for him.

CJ

12

Do any of you know of any good non biased web sites detailing each candidates stance of some of the important issues? Thanks in advance, Paco

13

Paco, this might be a good place to start.

14

:shrug: Conventional wisdom in Jan 92 was that Clinton couldn’t win. Opinions are cheap.

15

Me too. Not living in a village, the chances of any election I vote in being decided by one vote are so slim that ALL my votes are “wasted.” I just vote to express my opinion.

Which Democrat? Well, compared to most countries, the range of opinion of electable politicians in the US is not great. For example, Mr. Dean was in favor of the first Gulf War. I view this as a strength of the American system. The fact that the Democratic candidates say they are far different from Bush is, well, their chosen profession requires saying that.

Foreign policy is mostly determined by historical forces (economic, political, social, ideological), and the personalities of the leaders do not have much to do with it. So logically the OPer should focus on domestic policy.

Now Dennis Kucinich is another story. I think he really would stand astride history. Thank God he won’t get the chance. As a Republican, I have to say all the rest are fine with me. Sharpton might get impeached for corruption, but I’d trust him with his finger on the button.

16

I put a very high price on my perception of a candidate’s personal honesty and integrity, and on those Kucinich and Lieberman both win a lot of points. Clark and Dean, IMO, are anything-to-get-elected types.

17

Furt is right on the money. As is Minty Green.

Putting on my ‘political operative’ hat and trying to objectively rate these guys in terms of danger to Bush, I’d order them:

  • Kerrey
  • Clark
  • Dean
  • Edwards
  • Lieberman
  • The rest don’t matter

Clark is a wild card here, because he’s a political novice, and hasn’t been run through the meat grinder of a major political campaign. There could be any number of skeletons in his closet we don’t know about yet, and if I were a democrat I’d be terrified about the fact that Clark’s superiors do not like him one bit. I think there’s a lot of red meat for Karl Rove in Clark’s behaviour in Europe. He’s also been wildly inconsistent in his views on the war, despite his claim that he’s always been opposed to it.

If Rove manages to trot out someone like Schwartzkopf, who the America people love, who says that Clark cannot be trusted as president, Clark is in big, big trouble. And if Clark went after Stormin’ Norman, he might find someone like Hugh Shelton going after him too. That bit about wanting to attack the Russians and having a British general tell him that he’s not going to start WWIII for him could be a big deal in a general election campaign.

On the other hand, Clark was supreme NATO commander in Europe, and that is a damned impressive credential. But he’s a risk.

Dean is a mess. He’s a hotheaad with a big mouth. He’s already provided Rove with hours of material for attack ads, and the campaign has barely started. He’s just too unpolished and too arrogant to keep his mouth shut, and that’s a deadly combination. Plus, his vehement opposition to the war, which plays well with hardcore Democrats, is going to go over like a lead balloon in middle America.

Kerrey is a pro. He’s got gravitas. He’s got a great military record. He’s been under the microscope for years, so there’s probably little dirt left to dig out over him. He’s carefully straddled the fence on the war. He should be the candidate to beat by a mile. His big problem is simply that he’s run a pretty inept campaign so far, and he has an off-putting demeanor. But don’t count him out.

Of the three front runners, only Kerrey can go toe-to-toe with Bush, in my opinion. Unlike some of you, I’d LOVE to see a Bush-Dean debate, because I think Bush will chew him up. Clark, on the other hand, would give Bush a tough time if he’s prepared well. Kerrey would give him the toughest time of all.

Lieberman shouuld be a contender, but he’s not. His big problem is simply that he comes across as a lightweight. Call it the Dukakis disease. Just looking at him, it’s hard to picture him as president. That’s an important thing to the electorate, even if it shouldn’t be.

Edwards is a long shot, but I really like the way he’s run his campaign so far. He’s stayed away from the dirt, he’s stayed positive, and he’s stayed honest. He refused to shy away from his position on the war even when it was costing him, and he refused to attack Clinton when that was also costing him (back when the party was trying to run from the ‘Clinton legacy’). That tells me he’s got integrity. He’s a little too inexperienced to win this time around, but I think he’s position himself very well for a shot at the VP spot, or perhaps for another run in 2008. I think he’s got a bright future.

18

That’s nice. But just so you know, I called Clinton as the nominee and winner of the general election in November '91. So color me unimpressed with your who-knows-what-the-future-may-bring argument. Dean = Dead man.

19

A slight hijack, but after reading minty’s last post, I was reminded of it. I distinctly remember Rush Limbaugh also picking Clinton as the likely Democratic nominee in November '91 (though not, of course, as the next president-elect) because of his “moderate views.” Heh heh.

20

Dean, Dukakis Democrat Deathwish.

I think you’re right, but that doesn’t mean Dean won’t get the nomination. I would not discount his charisma, which goes a long way in any election. And that’s one of Kerry’s biggest drawbacks. The guy is (as per Bill Maher) the talking tree from the Wizard of Oz. I think that more than any other election, Americans vote for the man as much as his specific policies when it comes to the president. (Or the woman, when that time comes.)

Clark is indeed the wildcard. If he gets Clinton to endorse him and campaign for him, he could give Bush a serious run for his money. But he needs to not make the war the linchpin of his campaign. That’s a losing straegy (unless things in Iraq take a serious turn for the worse). Bush will want that to be the #1 agenda item, so he’ll have to work especially hard to turn the focus in another direction.