Philocrites

Michael Miller:

February 21, 2004 07:18 PM | Permalink for this comment

I.

Don't.

Know.

For what it's worth, I'm working on a post now that talks around the issue some. I'm still a Kucinich supporter and he's just purring along!

Hey, at least he's still in the race, even if nobody cares but me. Sigh...I know, I know...

In any case, please drop in on my site sometime tomorrow. The post will definately be out there by Sunday evening if not before.

Regards, and I do value your input.

Tom Schade:

February 21, 2004 08:59 PM | Permalink for this comment

Chris,
have you decided what to do next now that Clark has withdrawn? This little Lieberman guy is going with Edwards for a while, but I think I am being nostalgic for the big dog from Arkansas.

Philocrites:

February 21, 2004 10:46 PM | Permalink for this comment

Tom, I'm rooting for Edwards, but my wife is leaning towards Kerry. (I don't think Edwards will defeat Kerry in the end, but I think he'd be a fine VP and as long as the race stays competitive, the media will give the Democrats better attention and the Rove machine will have to keep two candidates in mind. An early conclusion just doesn't seem all that helpful.)

But then I came across New Hampshire Unitarian Universalist Doug Muder's entry about Wesley Clark (which I had managed to miss back in January; Muder reported on forums with each candidate in his quest to find the right candidate), and nostalgia overtook me. How I wish Democrats had had time to take a second look at Clark and the themes of his campaign. I'm a Clark supporter for Edwards who will happily vote for Kerry against Bush.

Will Shetterly:

February 22, 2004 11:26 AM | Permalink for this comment

I'm supporting Kucinich until he drops out. Then I'll vote for the Democrat, whoever he is. Any of the current candidates seem acceptable to me.

You didn't ask, but I'll offer this anyway: I have no regrets for voting for Nader. The numbers prove that the problem was with the electoral college, not Nader, and I would have a lot more respect for Democrats if they supported changing the US to a truly democratic electoral system in which every vote counted. Seems to me that all UUs should support getting rid of the electoral college if we truly believe in democracy.

Okay, I'm off the soapbox!

Will

RevThom:

February 22, 2004 11:05 PM | Permalink for this comment

OK, so I'm no political scientist or Democratic party insider, but I find it absurd to talk about either Edwards or Clark (or any of the other contenders/also-rans) for VP.

There are of course lots of criteria to consider in selecting a running mate, but at the top of that list have to be not being on record with critical remarks about the candidate and not recently stating that you would make a better choice for President.

I've been racking my brain on this, and I can't think of a single candidate in recent years who selected a primary rival as running mate. Gore didn't choose Bill Bradley. Bush didn't choose McCain (or any of the other contenders). Dole had Jack Kemp.

There seems to be an odd science to choosing running mates and it probably has more to do with party loyalty and standing within the DNC, as well as comfort playing second to the nominee, than anything else. Thinking back on recent elections, I haven't seen it make that much of a difference. Cheney, Gore, and Quayle are not exactly a dynamic group.

None of the candidates will be selected as running mate. My money is on the field.

Philocrites:

February 23, 2004 11:37 AM | Permalink for this comment

The host of Daily Kos, the best progressive-liberal Democratic blog (or is it a community?), endorsed John Edwards today. The Deaniacs mull it over . . .