Democratic Presidential Candidate Discussion (aka "No Bush in '04!")

[adambyte]

I'm surprised nobody has started a thread like this already. At elast as far as I know.

With Bush doing a horrible job at being president and all, we might as well get started with a discussion of replacing him, eh? So, I would like to know what your thoughts are on the Democratic side of things. There are quite a few candidates.

http://www.democrats.org/whitehouse/index.html

Here's my take on them (yes, I know, some of the arguments are a little superficial, but even good looks have to be taken in to account in the age of television)...

1. Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun - as ready as I am for a black woman to be president, try telling that to anybody else. Considered a "novelty" candidate, sadly. Next!

2. Reverend Al Sharpton - same here. There's nothing I'd love to see more than a "brotha" (insert dorky white laughing here) in office, but... yeah, alas, he is a "novelty," too. Next!

3. Congressman Dennis Kucinich - a nice guy with good values, alas, he is lacking charisma, something that every good president should have. Next!

4. Senator Joe Lieberman - at first I was like, "hey, Cool! I'll vote Jewish!" However, after looking at Joe's record, one realizes that he is really a republican who has managed to sneak in to the democratic party. Plus, he STILL thinks the war was justified. Psh! NEXT!

5. Senator John Kerry - Lacking charisma, AND voted FOR WAR. Now he's doing back-peddling. Plus, if you want to get superficial, he's just ugly. lol. NEXT!

6. Senator Bob Graham - He gets major points for voting against the war, as well as being in charge of investigating Bush's lying. however, he doesn't seem to have much in the personality department. Dang.

Hmm... We're getting down to the wire, here!

7. Senator John Edwards - Another moderate who was FOR war. Jesus! What, were all these guys under the "dumb" spell of George Bush? NEXT!

8. Congressman Dick Gephardt - A guy with charisma, decent looks, and for the most part, a true Democrat... except for, WHOOPS! Voted for war!

Some of these candidates have back-pedalled, saying they wouldn't have voted for war knowing that Bush was not giving us the truth. However, even if Bush WAS telling the truth, it was still a horrible case for WAR. WHO THE HELL IS CAN WE ELECT THAT STILL HAS BALLS?

Thusly, I give you...

9. Governor HOWARD DEAN, M.D.- Charismatic, decent in the looks department, and against war. This guy is the only democrat with the drive, resources, AND balls to stand up for what he believes in. He is known as a blunt "straight-talker." He was governor of his home state, Vermont (also home to Ben & Jerry, who do lots of charity on the side with their ice cream). First, he was a Doctor of medicine (so this man knows the health care system, and how it can be improved). Then, while governor of Vermont, Not only did the he pay off an inherited $70 million deficit, he worked with lawmakers to build "rainy day" reserves to help the state through any future economic downturn. Plus, he signed a bill giving gay people "civil unions" which gives benefits like hospital visitations, spousal health coverage, and all the sort of marraige benefits, without actually giving "marraige" (which he says is a religious sort of bond). Equal rights for gay couples, while still not upsetting people who hold the term "marraige" so dear, religiously.

Visit his bio page for a whole list of his achievements. He is more than qualified to take the office of President.

http://www.deanforamerica.com
and, to SEE him in action...
http://www.howarddean.tv

</soapbox>

Well? Comments? Please feel free to correct me if I made any errors. Though I still think Kerry is ugly.

[Arden]

I'll vote either for Dean or for Sakellarides of the MOX party... but probably Dean.

[marz]

I predict Dean will win over moderate Republicans in the general election, who disagree with Bush's more radical right-wing policies, thus winning the Presidency handily against Dumbya.

[mdnky]

Adam, when was there ever a vote for war? The was never an official declaration of war by congress, as it's not needed by the president to take military action when he deams it necessary. The only stipulation there is the president has to keep congress abreast of the situation, and they can (required to ) vote on funding for the conflict within a set time period. 30 or 60 days or so if I remember right. If Congress doesn't like it, they cut funding and the conflict is forced to end. The whole checks and balances idea.

As far as the democratic nominee, there are no good choices.

On another note, it seems your only reason stated for disliking Bush is because of the war, something that should have happened long ago under our last president (a Democrat). Instead, Clinton let Iraq get away with murder while he was in office. I hope you had other reasons than just a decision to remove Hussein from leadership as a sign of Bush being a poor leader, if so you may want to make them known.

As sad as it is to say, there is only one african american who has enough polotical clout to give a good run for the Presidency, and that's Colin Powell. It's the sad truth of the world today.

[Reality]

I'll be old enough to vote this year. I think myself Bush has done a fine job as President. Better then what Clinton has ever done IMO. So when I go to vote, I already know who is going getting it. Unless I really see someone better.

[Satcomer]

I still am amazed how new/young voters still don't get it. Yes Presidential elections count. The President does seem to set the mood of the Federal government. But, many, many voters can't even name the Vice President let alone their own two Senators and Congressional people. Don't even dare to ask them the name of their Mayor/County Executive. Don't forget about your congressman/woman State Representatives and Governor.

Yet you will vote for all these people. IMHO these representatives have more influence over your daily life than the President ever will.

[adambyte]

Originally posted by mdnky
Adam, when was there ever a vote for war? The was never an official declaration of war by congress, as it's not needed by the president to take military action when he deams it necessary. The only stipulation there is the president has to keep congress abreast of the situation, and they can (required to ) vote on funding for the conflict within a set time period. 30 or 60 days or so if I remember right. If Congress doesn't like it, they cut funding and the conflict is forced to end. The whole checks and balances idea.

Right... excuse my general use of the phrase "voting" for "war." I think i was tired and pissy at the time of writing. I should have just made the general statement of "supporting" a "military action." Though, when it comes right down to it, that's what Congress was doing. Giving financial approval to an act of war. When you send guns and people over there to do killing, and to take control, that's freakin' war, man, whether you "declare" it, put it in quotation marks, or whatever.

Originally posted by mdnky
On another note, it seems your only reason stated for disliking Bush is because of the war, something that should have happened long ago under our last president (a Democrat). Instead, Clinton let Iraq get away with murder while he was in office. I hope you had other reasons than just a decision to remove Hussein from leadership as a sign of Bush being a poor leader, if so you may want to make them known.

Reasons for disliking Bush have been discussed plenty of times before in other threads. This thread is about democrats. But if you want to know, between making war on a nation when a threat is not imminent and you're already in a financial slump, attacking gay rights, having disregard for foreign relations and the U.N. (thus pissing off most of Europe, as well as half of this country), and being a just plain bad speaker, he's a bad president in my book. But as I said, this thread is about Democrats, not about why Bush sucks.

Originally posted by mdnky
As sad as it is to say, there is only one african american who has enough polotical clout to give a good run for the Presidency, and that's Colin Powell. It's the sad truth of the world today.

Well, I doubt there's "only one." And, I don't know much about Colin Powell, but what with his resigning after this term, it sounds like his advice is being ignored by the administartion. Poor guy.

[adambyte]

Originally posted by Satcomer
I still am amazed how new/young voters still don't get it. Yes Presidential elections count. The President does seem to set the mood of the Federal government. But, many, many voters can't even name the Vice President let alone their own two Senators and Congressional people. Don't even dare to ask them the name of their Mayor/County Executive. Don't forget about your congressman/woman State Representatives and Governor.

Yet you will vote for all these people. IMHO these representatives have more influence over your daily life than the President ever will.

In general, I agree with your statements. I'm currently 20, and a young voter. A few months ago, I voted for the officials of my city, based on the flyers at other information I got from them, and made informed and well thought out decisions. I try to keep up with people's backgrounds and positions, and think about the consequences of decisions those people make. But yes, many young... acutally, just many people in general only vote every four years... sad, but true.

And yes, the president of the U.S. very often DOES just set a "mood" or "tone" of government. But who says that the tone of government cannot be an important part of how a country is governed?