Blue Jersey's Fifth Presidential Strawpoll

Don't know yet (4.00 / 1)

I changed my mind the minute I hit the vote button. I do know I'd take any of the eight over anyone else the right has to offer. I'm praying the majority of the country feels the same way. I read this politician, Cardwell (running against Chambliss in Ga.) said something like: The difference between Republicans and Dems is that Republicans are "every man for himself", while Dems are more likely "Do unto others..." I'll take that value system anyday in the White House. Just hope there's a half a country left for the next President to salvage.

---

by: lil @ Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 14:57:39 PM UTC

If only Dennis was more... well just more, I guess (4.00 / 3)

Dennis Kucinich's politics are closest to my own, but I'm voting for John Edwards. His progressive credentials might not be as good (although they aren't bad), but it's no good winning the presidency if you can't get anything done once you're in. I have a strong feeling that John Edwards is politician enough to get things done. Dennis Kucinich, despite having been in politics for some time, doesn't seem to have the knack for political horsetrading or the determination not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough.

---

by: Charlie Armstrong @ Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 15:18:24 PM UTC

I voted for "other" (4.00 / 1)

I want a bumper sticker that says "Re-Elect Al Gore."

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 16:11:29 PM UTC

Re (4.00 / 1)

I like Hillary, but anyone who thinks she can win needs to vacation in Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Kentucky - anyplace off of the east or west coast.  The more she tries to avoid a position on Iraq, the less I like what I see.

Obama has always been fluff and circumstance.  The more he talks the more he sounds like Mitt Romney.

I've been a supporter of Edwards for a long time and while I don't like some of his positions, he's the only one I think will be able to actually win.  Of the top three, he's the only one who isn't flirting with being a neocon.

No one else has a shot.  Kucinich reminds me of the kid who got beat up every day in third grade.  Gravel quit being funny a couple of weeks ago.  Richardson is great, but he sounded like he had early-onset Alzheimer's in the debate.  Dodd is perfectly forgetable.  Biden at least shows some backbone on international affairs - perhaps enough to be a good VP.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 17:26:08 PM UTC

Neocon (0.00 / 0)

Edwards is "the only one who isn't flirting with being a neocon"??

He voted for the Iraq War and has said that "To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate ? ALL options must remain on the table."

Not only has he flirted with being a neocon, he's taken it out for dinner a few times, introduced it to his parents, and bought it a ring.

---

by: Somewhere In The Swamps @ Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 17:34:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re (0.00 / 0)

Funny - but you should double-check to see what "neocon" really means.  Also, check what "liberal" means, too.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 02:16:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Funny (0.00 / 0)

I'm fairly certain I know the meanings of both, thanks.  Talking about making preemptive strikes against Iran for ideological reasons sounds kind of neoconish to me.  That doesn't make him a neocon, but he's talking that talk (at least on that one point.)  I'm not sure why my understanding of liberalism is under question here.

---

by: Somewhere In The Swamps @ Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 21:50:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's Neocon? (0.00 / 0)

Since when has refusing to close any option that could prevent a fanatical dictatorship from getting a nuclear bomb being "neocon."

Yes, blowing up Iran shouldn't be an option right now but it has to be on the table.  The only time to take things off the table is when you have a set of accords agreed to by both sides.

I don't think Edwards would be precipitous in use of force, but that doesn't mean he should write it off before he gets in the White House.

Assuming he can.

---

by: huntsu @ Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 16:22:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

biden (0.00 / 0)

he is definitely the "best of the rest" IMHO.

activist for hire.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 21:24:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I prefer Dodd (0.00 / 0)

if we are talking outside of the "top 3."


Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

---

by: Hopeful @ Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 21:46:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ditto (0.00 / 0)

i like dodd too.  isn't it nice to have such a field?

activist for hire.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 23:59:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

not really (0.00 / 0)

It is frustrating as hell that the most qualified candidates don't have a chance in hell of winning the nomination, while the least qualified are the front-runners solely because of their ability to raise money.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 11:39:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Edwards has done an incredible job repositioning himself to the left in 2008 (4.00 / 1)

compared to where he stood in 2004.  He was the triangulating, somewhat moderate-to-progressive candidate back then, but along the way, his polls and advisers clearly told him he had to move to the left - and inspire the grassroots progressive primary base of the party - to win in 2008. 

I don't say any of this cynically - he's done a masterful job at repositioning himself.  It shows his skills as a candidate.

That said, he's not my candidate.  I'm close to supporting one, but not him.  I just can't cotton to the guy.  It's a gut feeling - what can I tell ya.  In primaries, where the difference among candidates are less than in general elections, so much is gut. 

This past weekend on Meet The Press, political consultants from both parties, none of whom had a candidate yet, called him the least authentic person in the race. 

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 15:42:50 PM UTC

uhhh... (0.00 / 0)

James Carville has no candidate? You kidding?

---

by: Juan Melli @ Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 15:46:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Juan, I totally stand corrected, LOL! (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 15:56:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's One Way To Look At It (4.00 / 2)

his polls and advisers clearly told him he had to move to the left

The other way to look at it is that he jettisoned a lot of the advisors -- the kind that tell you to triangulate -- and started saying what he wanted to say.

I think this Edwards is the real one, and the 2004 Edwards was the creation of pollsters and campaign advisors.

---

by: huntsu @ Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 16:24:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the wish is parent to the thought (0.00 / 0)

I think that both the 2003/4 and 2007/8 versions of John Edwards are the real John Edwards insofar as he is the only politician on this planet (with the possible exception of Mitt Romney - if Edwards and Romney are the Democratic and Republican nominees, I really hope that Mike Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel decide to run as independents) who can make Hillary Clinton look genuine and sincere.

Barack Obama might come across as too fluffy, but he is trying to walk a very narrow tightrope between the brilliant policy wonk that he is and the plain-spoken, pop-and-fresh optimist that the country wants him to be.  I believe (or at least want to believe) that he truly believes everything that he says in his heart and soul.

My only concern about Obama is that he is simply not experienced enough to be President.  He is the intellectual equal of Bill Clinton, but Clinton's inexperience caused him to take his administration and his party's majorities in the House and Senate over a cliff in his first two years and forced him to do some pretty awful things in his second two years just to get it all somewhat back on track during his second term, the Monica Lewinsky debacle notwithstanding.

Joe Biden and Bill Richardson (and Chris Dodd as well although I find him far less accomplished and interesting than Biden or Richardson) are the only Democratic Presidential candidates who possess the credentials, credibility, experience, and dare I use a word that I hate, gravitas, because it really has no meaning whatsoever, necessary to be President.

Because of all of the damage that Bush has done to our country and world, the next President is not only going to have to be a visionary, but he will also have to be an exceptional politician with the ability to implement his vision.

For this reason, I am beginning to hope that Al Gore enters the race, not because I believe that he is any different now than who he was in 2000, but because he is the only person who has the aforementioned qualities possessed by Joe Biden and Bill Richardson as well as the ability to crack Hillary's aura of inevitability, which is essential to me.

My dream is that Gore is inspired by Mike Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel's independent run for President and Vice-President and does the same, inviting Barack Obama to run with him.  After eight years of having a crippled democracy, imagine the testament to the strength of our country's democracy if the people of our country had the opportunity to choose between the following:

Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson
Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson
Mike Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel
Al Gore and Barack Obama
John McCain and Joe Lieberman
Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney

And imagine if each of these teams were able to not only get on the ballot in all 50 states, but also recruit both incumbent Congresspersons and Senators as well as challengers to run with them in every Congressional district and every state where there is a Senate seat up for grabs.

As I said, the wish is parent to the thought.  Huntsu can dream about John Edwards being genuine and sincere all he wants to, while I will continue to dream that the democratic process in our country is not dysfunctional.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 12:13:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Edwards (0.00 / 0)

He's the most electable progressive in the field.  Clinton would be a disaster for the party, whether she wins or loses.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 16:17:02 PM UTC

why (0.00 / 0)

why is he the most electable?

---

by: Juan Melli @ Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 16:25:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

why (0.00 / 0)

Let's just say being a white male from outside the northeast doesn't hurt.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 16:48:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

re: why (0.00 / 0)

That's what I thought you were suggesting.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 17:33:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like Edwards (0.00 / 0)

I feel he was right on the mark when he mentioned that a leader has to speak up and not wait to see how the vote pans out first.  It was exactly what bothered me so much about that vote on Troop funding. 

I am seeing how that works first hand in local government, and I gotta tell ya, if you wait to see how everyone else votes before you do - you are playing "follow the leader".  You don't gain respect of the folks you represent.  You are looked at as wishy washy, and capable of changing your mind on a dime - two seconds after you tell everyone what you think.

You are also depriving others of your opinion when it really matters - in the heat of the discussion - especially if others are "on the fence" and you are not showing the strength of your convictions.  You have to do your homework BEFORE the meeting.  You have to have your ducks in a row BEFORE the vote.  You have to take a stand.  Trust me - it is much easier to defend your decision later if you actually had a reason for the way you voted the first time.  And it is much easier to defend changing your mind, if the conditions that caused you to vote that way changed as well.

We don't want a "politician" that goes which way the wind blows.  We need an actual LEADER this time. 

Being the President of the United States means that sometimes - not always - but sometimes, when it is life or death - you have to make strong decisions under pressure.  We need someone who can do that. 

I think the charge that Edwards is not sincere is simply based on the fact that he was a lawyer.  But it is not a fair characterization. Being a lawyer is actuall to his benefit.  I work with lawyers all the time, and the best ones can think on their feet, under pressure, and with strong opposition in their face.  They have to stay cool and collected even when they want to lash out like W.  They remain civil and DIPLOMATIC and effective under the most withering scrutiny.  They accept criticism and bad news and all the things that the Frat Boy in the White House can't or wno't hear.  They don't throw tantrums, they do due diligence. They have to make their case.  And they know what "equal protection" really means. 

I think the fact that Edwards has been out front working on the poverty issue shows that he understands what is wrong here.  He will connect with the average American.  He has a heart, and he is talented as a lawyer. 

I will be getting together this weekend with some other Edwards supporters to see about getting him some more support.

Don't forget, anti-war Dennis Kucinich supporters threw their weight behind Edwards in Iowa in 2004 and he was also on the short list for Al Gore's running mate in 2000........

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 16:17:07 PM UTC

I have a confession about Edwards (0.00 / 0)

I spent two hours with him in 2000 and I was really jarred.  I wanted to love the guy so much.  So, so much.  I wanted to believe he was the next great progressive hope who could actually get elected.

It would still thrill me to love the guy.  But I had the opposite reaction.  I did find him inauthentic - this was well before others began saying so in more recent years.  True, that was seven years ago.  I can't get over it. 

Is this fair to him - I don't know.  Please don't jump down my throat, but a unique opportunity to spend time with someone, and then be so disappointed, even if it was a long time ago, is hard to get out of your mind, particularly in a primary that's so much about gut.

In private, he was all about the game of politics, not the substance, when we were there to talk substance certainly in large part.  Edwards is a great political thinker.  I'm romantic enough to want a great policy thinker, and I think others outdo him on that front.

Clearly if Edwards is the nominee I'd support him with great enthusiasm.

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 17:22:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Inauthentic Edwards (0.00 / 0)

Interesting you say that. I was talking to a guy in NYC. Let's just call him a big-money Democratic fundraiser, the kind who hangs out at the Clintons' house (but interestingly, she's not his candidate).

His description of Edwards was much the same as Steven's. He called him a typical litigator shark, a mere "type," and a person smoothly skilled at delivering what his antennae tell him people in the room want to hear.

Inauthentic was also the word he used.

I haven't decided on a candidate yet. It still feels early to me. The calendar tells me it's not, but I think everything is about to change.

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.  

---

by: Rosi Efthim @ Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 17:31:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I guess (0.00 / 0)

we will have to meet him and judge for ourselves.  At least now that NJ is a player in the Presidential Primary, more of us will get the chance.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 21:22:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think you should meet him again.... (0.00 / 0)

In seven years things have radically changed on all sides.  I think Edwards has learned that he can be President only be being Edwards, and not through polls or consultants.

He's the same man, but has learned to speak his own mind and ignore the money and polls.

It's why I back him.

---

by: huntsu @ Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 01:12:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Food for thought (0.00 / 0)

This month's Time magazine article by DLC strategist (?) Robert Shrum is peculiar.  I read it via the link on this blog page,  http://onourradar.bl... and would concur with Molly McCoy that D behind-the-sceners are good at manipulating.

I voted in this poll for Obama because I think he's the most SUSTAINABLE in office.  My gut tells me the Edwards we see now is the "real" one, broken from the handlers and the strategists.  But I worry the Rove attack machine can hamstring an Edwards presidency like it did Jimmy Carter's.  If Edwards' eyes are opened now, is he too idealistic to fend off Rove?

Obama already has made subliminal impressions on people as a uniter, which could be more difficult for the GOP to knock off the pedestal.  Of course, Clinton is prepared for fighting with the big boys, but I worry about her corporatocracy as well as her lack of genuineness.

---

by: Jim33 @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 13:55:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kucinich (0.00 / 0)

Kucinich's support for John Edwards in Iowa in 2004 had nothing to do with Edwards being progressive or not and more to do with Kucinich's hostility towards Howard Dean.

I have told my story about meeting and confronting Dennis Kucinich prior to and after our flight from Des Moines to Minneapolis the morning after the Iowa caucuses on numerous occasions.  I still stand by it.

I also stand by my opinion of Edwards.  Inauthentic is probably the best word to describe him and his $400 haircuts.  Maybe if he shaved his head, sold his $26 million home, and donated both his hair and the $26 million to people who make wigs for cancer patients and Katrina relief respectively, I would begin to reconsider my position on him.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 12:30:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bloomberg's Billions (0.00 / 0)

Maybe if he sold his Manhattan townhouse, liquidated his assets, and donated those billions to people who are homeless, he could be president.

---

by: Jeff Gardner @ Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 18:34:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

difference between Edwards and Bloomberg (0.00 / 0)

Edwards has one unremarkable term as a U.S. Senator under his belt.

Bloomberg has been a successful Mayor who has shown a willingness to fight the tough fights, including but not limited to banning smoking indoors.  Nobody in NJ would have ever had the guts to take on this issue if NYC hadn't led the way on it.

If Bloomberg is willing to invest a billion of his own dollars to provide people with an alternative vision to that of the Democrats and Republicans, I think that he deserves some credit for it.

Edwards saying that he personally opposes same-sex marriage, but will not allow his personal feelings to get in the way of progress is not the kind of leadership on this or any other issue that this country needs.

I think that there is a better chance that DOMA could be repealed at some point during an 8-year Bloomberg admministration than during the same period of time of an Edwards administration.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 11:17:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If Bloomberg puts his money where his mouth is ... (0.00 / 0)

People should give him serious consideration. I met him last summer in Chicago as he threw a big shindig to try and get the 2008 Dem Convention for New York City.

I found him quite engaging on a personal level, and learned that his mother graduated from Dickinson HS in Jersey City,where my dad had graduated. I love the Hudson County connection!!

As far as Edwards, I still have painful memories of the 2004 campaign and especially the debate with Cheney where, at best, he came out in a draw with smiley Dr. Death.

I'd vote for his wife, Elizabeth, who seems both more intelligent and real.

Babs Casbar Siperstein

"Discrimination caused by ignorance and fear is a tax on human progress" - Barbra Casbar Siperstein

---

by: Babs NJSD @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 14:37:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

MoJo on Obama (0.00 / 0)

Here's a link to an interesting article in Mother Jones:

http://www.motherjon...

---

by: billbrown201 @ Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 21:18:12 PM UTC

MoJo on Obama (0.00 / 0)

Title of article:

"Obama and Romney: Twins Separated at Birth?"

---

by: billbrown201 @ Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 21:10:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I voted for Richardson, but (4.00 / 1)

I still believe that Al Gore will jump in and take it all! He actually won the election in 2004 if memory serves me correct, it just that the votes weren't all counted.

He has the instant name recognition, should inspire ALL Democrats, Independents, and reality based Republicans who realized what a disaster Dubya really has wrought in America and the world!

A key indicator would be... if he has lost some weight. I have the impression that there are a lot of Hillary supporters who are not solidly in her camp. At lot in the Edwards camp might jump to Gore, as well. If Gore is serious he could be quietly building an organization and be ready to announce around Labor Day.

we'll see.... maybe Gore/Richardson?

Babs Casbar

"Discrimination caused by ignorance and fear is a tax on human progress" - Barbra Casbar Siperstein

---

by: Babs NJSD @ Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 20:04:33 PM UTC

Agree (0.00 / 0)

I think you mean he won the 2000 election, and I agree with your point. 

Still, the election was close electorally even had Florida rightly cast for Gore, and IMHO it was because he lost the right wing of the Democrats because of Clinton's indescretions and he lost the lefters because of his conservative DLC loyalties.  I think now, in 2007, he has shed both albatrosses.

If Gore would give it another go and listen more to his comedy writer daughter and ignore the Robert Shrums, I think he'd win handily and could even put the now dangerous DLC in check.

---

by: Jim33 @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 14:32:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Except I do not like Richardson at all (0.00 / 0)

Richardson is a phony, IMHO.  He has overlooked too much in his state for the sake of politics.  He capitalizes on his half Hispanic blood, yet he doesn't have the same experience to really feel the Hispanic pain.

Dodd has it on the ball and seems genuine.  He'd be a good  teammate to anyone, I think, if the top 3 or 4 don't pick among themselves for the No. 2.

Everyone in the Dem field is just so much more intelligent and prepared to lead the country than the GOP lineup of puppets, it seems silly to have this conversation, in a way.

---

by: Jim33 @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 14:38:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Although I like Edwards (0.00 / 0)

Richardson is gaining a lot of support and respect from folks I know.  I don't think one of the qualifications needs to be feeling "the Hispanic pain".  If they need real "street cred" in that way, none of them would win.  One person I do know who has worked for Richardson, actually is supporting his run.

Last time the key word was "electable", now it is "authentic".  I don't think we can be good judges of either - especially since most of us here have probably only met these people a few times in inauthentic settings for only a short time. 

My friend Peter Karp wrote a song called "You Don't Know Me".  It is about how the public imagines they know a public figure and is often completely wrong.  Judge these candidates by WHAT THEY DO.  Results matter.  First impressions can be as silly as deciding who you'd rather have a beer with.  Look at Bush - manly men thought they'd like to have a beer with.........a guy who drinks Buckler. 

Folks thought Howard Dean was "unelectable" only because the DLC hamstrung his campaign at every turn.  He then got elected to the DNC.  Go figure.  I'd like to elevate this debate much more than whether someone was unfortunate enough to feel our pain.  I'd also like to elevate it more than whether "those folks over there" would vote for him or her.  Unless we polled them, we shouldn't go speaking for them. 

Most Republicans I meet say Hillary will win because they think we love Hillary as much as they hate her.  Most Dems I know are still on the fence about everyone, or they each like a different candidate.  We need to support all the candidates right now and give clear and fair objective views of their records and accomplishments.  I want to see their resumes side by side. I won't be going on first impressions only.  Edwards actions on behalf of ending poverty are what is influencing my decision.  You don't have to feel someone's pain to free them of it. 

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 18:45:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Edwards, Biden (0.00 / 0)

I'm extremely surprised that Biden, who I consider to be the winner of the first two Democratic debates and is from neighboring Delaware, only garners one vote from Blue Jersey readers. 

Of course, he's my number 2, behind the candidate whose global warming policy was called "the most comprehensive" to date and whose universal health care plan has been called by Paul Krugman the best of any candidate in the field. I'm talking about the guy who will turn red states blue for us: Johnny Edwards.

---

by: Martin @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 01:33:25 AM UTC

Biden (MBNA-DE) (0.00 / 0)

Which Biden do you like? The one who pushed through the bankruptcy bill or the one who until he decided to run for president internalized every right wing frame known to man? I think he did the best in the most recent debate, but I have little faith in his judgment.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 01:50:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bankruptcy bill is a deal-breaker for me, too. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: JRB @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 02:40:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Did you support Bob Menendez in 2006? (3.00 / 1)

He voted for the bankruptcy bill as well.

Biden definitely disappointed me on this issue, but he and Bill Richardson (and Chris Dodd as well, although I find him less interesting than either Biden or Richardson) are the only grownups in a field of children and fringe candidates (Gravel and Kucinich).

As brilliant as Bill Clinton was, he was still too inexperienced to be President and the damage that he did to the country and the Democratic Party during his first term was a direct result of that inexperience.

Bush has possibly wrecked our country and our world irreparably, because he was and is simply not qualified to hold any executive position of any kind.

I don't think that our country and our world can afford to have the next President of the United States be anything but completely qualified for the near-impossible task at hand.

Neither Clinton, Edwards, nor Obama meet this criteria, but I would probably be more willing to take a chance on Obama than the other two, because he is such an exceptional individual and they are clearly more driven by ambition and hubris than a desire to serve the public good.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 11:34:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Or the one who can't keep his foot out of his mouth... (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 19:50:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

well (0.00 / 0)

as good singers on American Idol learn every year, being the 2nd choice of every single voter would still leave you with no votes.


Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

---

by: Hopeful @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 18:37:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I voted for Obama. (0.00 / 0)

As I have in every poll since Wes Clark was removed. Yet I'm nowhere near a 100% supporter of his. I would just vote for him if I had to make the decision today.

---

by: JRB @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 02:42:25 AM UTC

Apart of a documentary soon coming out. (0.00 / 0)

People criticize Kucinich as a pacifist but they rarely like to mention he voted to authorize the war in Afghanistan, because that would dispute their critique.

---

by: NJ316 @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 17:07:47 PM UTC

straw man (4.00 / 1)

I don't criticize Kucinich because he's a pacifist or not a pacifist. He has some really good ideas and he manages to make them sound crazy. I think he would simply be an ineffective president.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 18:08:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A thought on Edwards (0.00 / 0)

This is not meant in a mean or cynical way but...

How is his campaign strategy in 2008 not the same as McCain's?  Think about it:  A previous run for President as a common-sense centrist, whom the media enjoyed, came close but could not ultimately win the nomination.  While they were popular they lacked support within the base of the party.  Since last running, they have re-positioned themselves abandoning much of their formerly centrist images in exchange for embracing issues that their respective bases view as extremely important.

I know I'm simplifying, but am I the only one who notices a parallel?

---

by: BlueJG @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 20:52:56 PM UTC

the difference (4.00 / 1)

McCain is still trying to be everything to everyone - fundamentalist butt-kisser and moderate, straight-talking maverick. Unlike Edwards, when he changes his position, he doesn't admit a mistake. He just panders.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 20:59:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

re: the difference (0.00 / 0)

But couldn't one say that the way Edwards practically trips over himself proclaiming he made a mistake is also pandering?

I admire that he's try to be out front on everything, but, to repeat a word used earlier, it just appears inauthentic, especially when one compares him to four years ago.  To some degree, I think one can measure leadership based on standing by their principles when they're not popular. 

All I'm saying is that I haven't seen him take 1 unpopular stand in this campaign season (aside from Gay Marriage, but that's a separate discussion).

I haven't completely ruled him out as my candidate (I still consider myself undecided) but at this point he's my fourth choice.

---

by: BlueJG @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 21:11:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

re: the difference (0.00 / 0)

That's for you to decide. It doesn't sound like pandering to me, but if that's what it sounds like to you, I'm not trying to talk you out of that view.

When he was asked about how he would pay for his universal health care plan, he said he would raise taxes. Raising taxes is an unpopular truth. Find me another candidate who will freely admit that.

For the record, I haven't made up my mind either. This month I voted for a different person than I voted for last month.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 21:21:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

re: the difference (0.00 / 0)

Fair point on the taxes.  I had forgotten about that moment.  Didn't mean to come off as combative, just trying to figure things out.

Maybe it's sour grapes.  As a Kerry guy in 04, we could have used this John Edwards on the ticket. 

---

by: BlueJG @ Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 21:51:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re (0.00 / 0)

We had him - and Kerry's advisors (now working mostly for Hillary Clinton, I believe) shut him up.  Refresh your memory with his Two Americas speech.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 03:10:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re (0.00 / 0)

The difference is that, as the VP running-mate, Edwards had to change his message to fit the one his boss wanted to run.  Prior to being named as VP candidate, Edwards was pretty much in 2004 what he is today.

Source:

Health Care for Every Child.

Edwards proposes that for the first time in history, America should require health insurance for every child. His plan provides tax credits to help families with rising premiums so everyone will have access to affordable health care. To bring down healthcare costs, he will take on insurance companies, drug companies, and HMO?s.

College for Everyone.

As the first in his family to go to college, Edwards wants to make sure every young person has the same opportunity. Edwards will say to America?s young people: we will pay for your first year of college tuition at a public university or community college, if you will do your part in school and work at least 10 hours a week.

A New Deal for Teachers.

Because a great education starts with a great teacher, Edwards will  increase teacher pay, especially in the areas that need good teachers most, and he will offer scholarships for young people who commit to tough teaching assignments.

An Agenda for Rural America.

  While many in Washington just fly over rural America to get from one coast to the other, Edwards comes from rural America, and he offers real help for rural America?investing capital, introducing technology, and protecting the environment.

Fueling America?s Future.

Edwards will set up new factories to convert agricultural waste, like corn stalks and wood chips, into energy products. These factories will create manufacturing jobs and reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

Doesn't look like he's changed much to me.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 03:08:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Like Bill (0.00 / 0)

Iraq is the overwhelming issue of the day.

1. the military solution isn't working
2. the political solution isn't working
3. the diplomatic solution is our only recourse

only one candidate -- Bill Richardson -- has the credentials and experience to execute this solution.

can the others marshall experts to do it for them? sure. wanna bet our futures on it?

as for all our other very compelling progressive issues, I will take my chances with any single member of the field, none of whom is as bad as what we have now. I want choice, an energy policy, rational taxation, better education policy and a solution to our healthcare crisis (and whatever I've failed to mention), but...

I want out of Iraq now, in a way that ensures the most stable and sustainable safe outcome.

---

by: LLiibbyy @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 16:09:38 PM UTC

Bill's the bill (0.00 / 0)

I too am impressed by Richardson's depth of knowledge and wealth of experience and his likeliness to extract this country from active involvement in Iraq.

Richardson also does not seem to inspire the venom that Baraka and Sen. Clinton do. But I am certain that the red-thuglicans will launch a lying and hate-filled campaign against any Democratic candidate.

Forget any rational discussion of policy, especially if Democrats select a woman, a non-white or hispanic for president.

---

by: sosonj @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 22:37:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My choice isn't on your ballot (4.00 / 1)

I still want my bumper sticker:  Re-elect Al Gore. 

And I could happily go for a Gore-Richardson ticket.

We have got to get this crew of neocons and their cronies O-U-T!!!  That means we have to pick a winning Democratic ticket and work like hell to elect them--even if we don't agree with their positions on every single issue.  That also goes for Senate and Congressional candidates, all over the country.  We can't afford a circular firing squad.

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 23:48:44 PM UTC

Only 80 votes? (0.00 / 0)

After the poll's been up for 5 days?  I thought a lot more people were involved in the Blue Jersey insurgency (at least that's what Dick Cheney told me).

---

by: lonemorriscodem @ Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 01:31:27 AM UTC