karen7274

Anyone? What do you think?

Karen

alli balli

Right now I, personally, am favoring Howard Dean. I like John Kerry, too, but I don't think he's willing to stand up when it comes to the gay-marriage issue, which I feel is important. I think Dean should be stricter when it comes to gun-control but I think I agree with him on most things.

Unfortunately, I don't know that Dean could get elected against Bush. Right now our country as a whole seems to be suffering from mass hysteria. Even though the economy sucks, people are losing jobs, debt is growing, soldiers are dying, and rights are being taken away, there are still people supporting the as$hole. Someone who is more moderate would probably do better in the next election. And honestly, I don't care who it is as long as Bush is OUT of there.

SuperDeluxe

I hope everyone understands that they shouldnt vote for who they want, but the one that has the best shot of beating bush.

I know thats wrong, Wesley Clark right now has the best shot to take bush out.

karen7274

I agree. I want whatever democratic candidate that has the best chance of beating Bush to win the nomination.
Karen

sum1

Well, I hate Bush's attitude to personal freedom (abortion and other stuff) and he's not doing too well rebuilding Iraq, but I think the whole future will be determined by the war on terrorism and I think he's better at fighting that than a democrat president is likely to be. In other words, while I've got mixed feelings about it, I want Bush for a second term.

So... Dean, because he's the one most likely to lose if he ran against Bush.

The democratic candidates I respect most, though, are Clarke and Lieberman.

Just as long as nobody ever elects a certain republican by the name of Santorum as president!

Heh, I just know my preference for Bush is gonna make me mighty unpopular here! [img]smilies/lol.gif[/img]

elisheva

I kinda like Lieberman so far...I dont know about all the different ones though.

ceilirose

I like Dean so far although he has a long hard road to go to be competitive with Bush. Kerry is my Senator but I'm really lukewarm about him although he does do a good job in that position. Clark has a resume to die for but he seems to waffle on his positions..that may be due to inexperience in the political process. He would command respect in the international world because of his background and experience. I'd just like to see a moderate in there who can give Bush a good fight.

I don't think terrorism is going to be the sole or main factor in this election. I'm not sure Bush has done that great a job on the war despite the Administration's press releases. Hussein and bin Laden are still out there. The U.S. economy is a mess, people who do have jobs are working harder than ever and their benefits are being eroded (primarily health care) while our civil liberties are being challenged. Ack..it's a mess.

Anybody but Bush...that's all I hope for.

Bella Lumina

I think I'll vote for John Kerry. He has political experience, he is a liberal, and he fought in the Vietnam War. I think he's a good candidate.

I like Howard Dean, but I think he may be, in fact, too liberal to be elected. Wesley Clark doesn't sound like a bad candidate in theory, but I don't think he's ever held any sort of elected office, not even in college.

AlexEvans

The current group of contenders for the nomination is bad enough I'm switching to the Republicans.

I suppose Lieberman is the best of the lot. He's the only moderate in the running. I don't like some of his views on government involvement in Hollywood, but that seems a minor issue now.

Gephardt has done some good work insisting on trade benefitting American workers, but his performance in the last mid-term elections put me off.

Dean is a horror. His accusations go beyond reasonable criticism to absurdities. He has no moral compass, and can't distinguish between democratic allies of the United States and terrorist groups.

birdie

Actually, when you look at their stances on "the issues," Kerry is more liberal than Dean.

I like Kerry but he may have the same problem Gore had with his negative charisma. He also needs to come out swinging if he wants to be viable for the primaries -- what is waiting for?

I also like Dean and like his fire - I think he has the passion to beat Bush but Kerry has the record.

I'd be happy with a Dean/Kerry ticket.

Gephardt's my third choice -- he's pretty ok. Clark has the buzz right now but he doesn't have much in the way of political experience. Holding a political office and leading troops aren't that similar.

Lieberman is obviously confused on his political orientation and I'm waiting for him to out himself as a Republican.

Am I the only one amused by conservatives who pick the most conservative democrat (whom I have yet to hear a kind word about in my liberal/left circles) as the "sure thing"?

[ 10-24-2003: Message edited birdie ]

Fehr Princess

I don't understand what you mean here... are you talking about Joe Lieberman, or Wesley Clarke? Because the finer details of individual American politicians is not my speciality, but from what I know, Clarke is seen as the "sure thing", whereas Lieberman is seen as being a little too much of an old lefty to get the points... although you state the opposite as your opinion about him (?).

In any case, I think that things such as the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, etc., have attracted a lot of negative opinions because (1) people like to see these things carried out by left-of-centre governments (take Clinton in Kosovo, for instance... without a UN resolution telling him to do it [img]smilies/lol.gif[/img] ); and (2) because lots of people just plain dislike George Dubya.

I just hope that whoever gets in is a moderate, reasonable person, who will take a strong attitude toward the dictators and despots of this world, while minimising any intrusions into people's civil rights to a bare minimum... and to be honest, though George Bush has been quite open to trampling pwople's civil rights, I don't, in all honesty, believe he has taken a very firm line with the dictators & despots of rogue nations, with the Israeli-Islamic conflict, or with those who incite and train terrorists... I really think that the current US administration's priorities are in need of discussion and rearrangement, because being conservative, though it gives the image of being tough on terrorism, isn't enough - you also need to be tough on terrorism, rather than just looking it.

Saf [img]smilies/silver_hand.gif[/img]

Fehr Princess

OK, just in case I get hounded for being too anti-Bush, he has done some things well - his speech immediately after 9-11, for instance, was extremely good.

My issue with his administration is that he hasn't followed through with what he said - otherwise the USA would have immediately gone after the Saudis... it's king of like seeing a carton of milk tip over and trying to soak up the milk from the floor, rather than grabbing the carton of milk and stopping the milk from flowing onto the floor first... That is my point.

I don't see myself in such a narrow binary as either conservative/liberal, republican/democrat (or Liberal/Labor, in my country) so much as a liberal hawk, and though I don't live in the US, that's the kind of person I really hope gets in [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Saf [img]smilies/silver_hand.gif[/img]

Indri

I thought all candidate president American need to consolidate their domestic issue than "world" issue maybe economic to be main factor [img]smilies/look.gif[/img] well who know

Fehr Princess

In theory, maybe... But in a world post- 9-11? ... I don't think so - and I don't believe that it should be, either.

Saf [img]smilies/silver_hand.gif[/img]

sum1

World terrorism is the main issue now. What happens with that will affect everything else.