Non-AABBs Only!!

Re: Non-AABBs Only!!

"You forgot Joe Liberman, Bob Graham, and Al Sharpton on your poll!"

Hi kvtrue, I explained why earlier. I am keeping it to those who have a reasonable chance of actually getting the Democratic nomination.

Are you sure that you are voting for Bush, or considering voting for the Democratic nominee? If the latter, who interests you the most?

I'm undecided on who I'm voting for as President in '04.

Cool. I'd actually expect you to be in the "BAOB" category -- "Bush And Only Bush". Can you give me any indications of what you are thinking? Absolutely not on Dean, but maybe Edwards? That sort of thing?

Thanks!

testing 123

OK. I'm really interested in more specifics -- who of those four you like the most, who you like the least -- but if you'd prefer not to go into detail, that's fine, of course.

You to fast for me, "Please BUMP UP!"

OK, thanks for more specifics.

I hate to tell you though, as Piffka already did, that Kerry is not against homosexual marriages -- he's against PROHIBITING them. Kind of a big difference.

Still, thanks for sharing your reasoning, I appreciate it.

Sorry to intrude Soz, but LOL!

huh?

Explanation here

As a direct answer to the posed question: Kerry.

Yeh, Lieberman's laid back attitude and thoughtful statements have always appealed to me--the anti-dean as it were. But, alas Joe has little cash and even less flash so he is in it for ...the deal making?

The next set of primaries will probably solidify JFK's position as front runner.

I would note that although I would vote for Kerry over Bush, if one desired success for our president, a vote for Dean would indirectly help Bush immensely. But I surprise no one with that tidbit.

I personally like Bush. I think he is a nice guy and his values are simple and clear. It must be nice to be unencumbered by cosmopolitan subtleties. The people he has surrounded himself with are another story. There is much I might change but nice guy or No, Bush is the head honcho and is ultimately responsible.

Dean's candidacy, sans his "I have a Scream" speech, is still troubling. It seems to alternate from emotional outbursts where he "honestly voices his opinion" to dissembling explanations designed to inform us of what was actually meant by said outbursts. He seems mean-spirited and petty. Just one person's subjective judgment but given only this it does not point towards a person with international leadership abilities.

Just an irrelevant aside: Bush and his administration are credited with destroying the Atlantic alliance but America's unilateralism has always existed. In case anyone is interested below is a link to an article (9 pages) in the Wilson Quarterly by Jed Rubenfeld entitled "The Two World Orders". It offers an elegant explantion towards the two different types of constitutionalism envisioned by America and Europe. The theory explains a lot and, like any good theory, may be used to help predict further actions by both.

http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=56056

JM

P.S. Anybody given any thought to a 2008 presidential bid by Senator Clinton?

Thanks so much for your thoughtful and thorough post, JamesMorrison. Any thoughts on Edwards and Clark?

I almost had my mind made up, then I heard today that judge Roy Moore, of ten commandments monument fame, may run as a third party candidate.

I'm not ABB but very conundrumized by Bush's speed spending, with that said all the Dem candidates have their own spend frenzy plans, the least one an increase of 169billion and they go up from there so Budget issues don't really give me a reason to vote Dem.

I do want someone who will keep pressure on rogue nations etc., at least a few more years til the somewhat domino effect that is occuring makes some of these thuggy factions think twice. As if some of them care, they love to die.

As much as it makes me cringe I would prolly go with Clark. I think he would be the only one that wouldn't do anything drastic domestically, at least no more so than Bush . Furthermore Clark has spouted off on Defense so I feel he would back up his words on that. He views hmself as a military animal first so I think he'd do anything to prove he's trying to maintain some pressure abroad.

I really don't have anything all that positive to say about any of them, including Bush, they're all politicians.

Well, Edwards will make an excellent career politician. People who hear him speak like him immensely but America, unlike a number of other nations in the world is not as susceptible to popularism as many think. After all the people in Iowa and New Hampshire have seen past Dean's perceived popularism internet or no.

We may look forward to more experiences involving Edwards but only after he gains more of it himself.

Clark, as has been mentioned, seems out of his element. His only political experience is more parochial involving advancement in the military. Clark seems in need of two things. The first is to be schooled in the ways and means of politics. Secondly he is in need of better handlers. In addition, his late entry, as a counter balance to help the Democratic Party from self destruction, gives the perception that his epiphany, making clear his Democratic leanings, is more self serving than an actual political ideological burning bush in origin. His intelligence and commitment to our country are undeniable and perhaps could be tapped for a cabinet position given such an outcome. He seems a slow study, however. Kind of reminds me of Al Haig without the political savvy. No, not this time but there is potential there.

I absolutely love Al Sharpton, but more as an entertainer not the leader of the free world. Yet he has forced the Dems to soul search their party philosophy of late, as has Dean. But as to entrusting the Presidency to them-- I don't think so, Tim. To paraphrase Dogbert (Speaking of Charlton Heston): "I wouldn't trust them with string!"

JM

Well, string can be used for all kinds of nefarious purposes, ya know. Thanks for the elaboration, JM.

Thanks, BrandX!! Interesting. What would you think of Clark as VP? Would you vote for Edwards/ Clark, or Kerry/ Clark, or just Clark in the prez spot?

(Lieberman's out!)

And its about time!

He's the one that only wanted to spend 169billion.

He was also the republican candidate for the Democratic nomination. No personality, either.