Who SHOULD BE the Democratic Presidential Candidate?

Submitted by Roger Lamb on Sat, 2007/12/15 - 7:19pm.

Believe it or not, the Iowa caucus occurs on January 3rd, 2008. From the date of writing (15 December, 2007 in Oz, 14 December, 2007 in the U.S.), that's a lousy 20 days from now. And counting (down).

Around these parts, everybody's been pretty quiet. I've little doubt that is at least partly owing to the seemingly dismal performance of the so-called Democratic Congress. It is true we have control of the House. But, there's little strength in the claim that we have control of the Senate - given the requirement of 60 votes to get past the perpetually looming threat of filibuster. Added to this is the perception in some local quarters that the Democrats are, collectively speaking, in the thrall of corporate America to an extent approximating that of the Republicans, or else are just wimps. So, it's kinda gloomy around here. And understandably so.

Still, there is a Presidential election coming up in less than a year, and the primary/caucus season is starting in 20 days.

You guys will have had a look at the candidates by now, and will have formed, or half-formed, or re-formed, some views about them. Right??

Where are you in this process? To whom are you inclined? And HOW COME?

What are your misgivings about your preferred candidate?

How rusted on are you?

I know Christmas and then New Year are coming up very soon. On top of that, we live in Australia where the holiday season is just pretty amazing.

Still, I thought - given the pressing proximity of the Big Democratic Contest - some thoughts and even! feelings might be starting to bubble close to your surface - and, thus, could be shared.

So ... I invite you to contribute on the subject-topic (above). I've certainly got some half-baked views of my own, but why doesn't someone else kick things off in the comments-space below. Otherwise, I will - and you'll regret that!

Roger

printer friendly version

Submitted by expat_marla on Sun, 2007/12/16 - 11:19am.

at this stage of the game I leaning Obama. The candidates, on the issues, are often quite similar. As a woman I would love to have a female president. But that's not a good enough reason for me to vote for Hilary. And her vote (without fully reading the brief) to take us into Iraq is a huge black mark against her in my book. One which will require her receiving the democratic nomination in order for me to vote for her in the general election. Obama is fresh, exciting, and i truly believe a unifier. At this stage, I would be proud to cast a vote for Obama as President.
cheers,
Marla

Obama or Edwards

Submitted by Polemonium_vi on Sun, 2007/12/16 - 7:02pm.

IMHO: I think the pendulum is swinging, and many feel that a Democratic win next year is virtually a given. Add to that the fact that no one in the race this year is engaging let alone activating the base, and it is no wonder that not too many people seem very interested. I have to admit I feel more like I'm watching the careful political show, rather than being asked to participate in it. Finally, the dreadful lack of leadership from the current congress, the inability to stand for what is right etc. has left little to be inspired about.

Those are some of the reasons I'm not too fussed about who gets the nomination.

Bush, Clinton, Bush, then Clinton again.... surely we kicked out the monarchy a couple hundred years ago in the hope of doing better than having two families instead of one running the joint. I also don't see Clinton doing anything about the growing class divide, or returning many of those post Depression policies that seem to be coming unravelled.

Obama and Edwards are both articulate, intelligent, and would no doubt improve policy coming out of DC. They too though would do little more than bump the pendulum a tiny bit along it's slow travels away from the far right.

Kucinich would get my vote, but it seems unlikely that he will still be in the race come February as he has a tougher fight for re-election in Ohio this year.

On the bright side I very much believe that the Democrats will win who ever wins the nomination, and either Edwards or Obama would certainly mark a step in the right direction.

Edwards

Submitted by Roger Lamb on Wed, 2008/01/02 - 11:49am.

I hope Edwards does well in Iowa - and prefer that, in the end, he be the selected Democratic candidate.

I didn't start off that way, preferring - in the beginning - Obama. That Obama spoke out early and strongly against going into Iraq showed judgment that most others lacked. 'Experience' (Clinton's claimed strength) is of limited utility if you don't learn from it. Clinton's recent vote declaring that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was a terrorist organisation seemed to me a way of - once again - giving Bush a blank cheque for military action, this time against Iran. Fortunately, since then, the CIA's National Intelligence Estimate briefing seemed - at least temporarily - to put the possibility of such action on hold.

I was unenthralled (to say the least) with Edwards at the beginning, partly because he actually co-sponsored the original 'Iraq-invasion' resolution in the Senate with the bill's chief sponsor, Joe Lieberman. His rhetoric at that time was appalling and - I would have thought - approaching the unforgivable.

Since then he has apologized repeatedly for that vote. Unlike Clinton.

What moves me to support him is his analysis of what's wrong with the American political system - briefly, that American democratic processes are subverted by the electoral/lobbying system, and thus by corporate money and corporate influence. American democracy has become American corporatocracy. The corporations are running the show. This is true for both the Republican and the Democratic show. In the Bush administration, it is clear that energy money, oil money in particular, moves political mountains, changes thinking, and has changed national feeling. And that unless this subversion of basic democratic process and democratic accountability is recognized and ultimately reversed, the place is a goner. Edwards seems to me - apart from Kucinich - to be the only candidate addressing such fundamental matters.

So, Edwards.