Alex Blaze

Open Thread

Filed By Alex Blaze | March 29, 2007 10:48 AM | comments

Filed in: Living

OK, as a continuation of yesterday's question, if you knew for certain that the Democratic nominee would be president, who would you support during the primary?

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

I've already made my choice - I'm supporting Bill Richardson. Last election I supported Kucinich, but I just don't think he can win. He was just better than Kerry!

Bill Richardson. He has more experience in congress than Edwards, Clinton or Obama but he wasn't a part of the congress that rubber-stamped every stupid idea Bush has had the last 7 years.
He has experience as an executive and a legislator. His economic policies are strong and support growth while the others are socialists when it comes to economic issues. He knows how to put a plan into action and make it work because he's done it as Governor.

He's not just experienced he's very well spoken and an intellectual. He speaks plainly so he's easy to understand but very articulately so he's not easily misunderstood. He speaks spanish and french. He has a master's degree and has taught at Harvard and other colleges.

Most of all he's a diplomat. He's been nominated for 4 nobel peace prizes for negotiating the release of prisoners in N Korea, Iraq and Cuba. The N Koreans went to him to ask for advice when they started the nuclear talks because they trusted him and valued his opinion. It will take a very strong diplomat to repair the damage that Bush has done to US foreign relations.

Bill Richardson is the only democrat that can win the general election. People think Obama is too inexperienced which he is and I agree. People don't trust or like Clinton and neither do I. Edwards isn't any more experienced than either of them and just doesn't seem to have much more to him than a big smile and a bunch of populist rhetoric.

All these candidates are far enough to the left that Guliani will take all the moderates and win the election.

Bill Richardson is a true Bill Clinton moderate that addresses issues with a rational approach and gets things done. He's a relative unknown allowing him to introduce himself to the country on his own terms since everyone has made up their mind about the other three canddiates.

I know he's the most electable democrat because he's the only democrat I would support in the general election. I blame congress just as much as Bush for the last 6 years and I will not vote for a senator. It's Richardson, Guliani or 3rd party for me.

Marla R. Stevens | March 30, 2007 12:11 PM

The premise is that the Dem nominee would win. The choice is thus an easy one for anyone who supports equal access to civil marriage for he's the only one who shares that with us: Kucinich.

Fallback is Richardson or maybe Edwards, although neither are up to snuff.

Obama is not our friend and Clinton is only her own friend, so they're out -- probably even in the general election, too.

I'm going to say Richardson as well. He has in fact walked the walk there in New Mexico. Plus all his experience w/ Darfur, etc., are def plusses in the current world scene.

I don't think that it's fair to say that Hillary "DLC Centrist, Pro-Flag-Burning-Amendment, Pro-Business, Waffles on Torture, We Might Need to Invade Iran, There was an Iraq-9/11 Connection and I'm saying this in 2007, Invading Iraq was the Right Thing to Do, I was Fooled by Bush on Iraq" Clinton is too liberal for America. I think, as they say, people underestimate her at their own peril. And besides, she's way better than what we have now.

Edwards apologized for his Iraq war vote, but that doesn't mean that he didn't exercise bad judgment at the time. Somehow France and Germany and a lot of the US and most of the rest of the world weren't fooled by the intelligence. Do we really want him there in front of the big red nuke button? Once again, I acknowledge that he's way better than who we have now.

Obama, well, let's wait for him to take some specific positions. At least he saw through the Bush Administrations Iraq War BS. Then again, he wasn't in a position to vote on it at the time. And I like his style at this point. I dunno, I'm holding off on judgment here.

I think it's important to realize that all four of the top Democratic nominees at this point are 100% electable against any of the top four for the GOP. Seriously, the nation is favorably biased towards an unnamed Dem candidate, and our field is each, individually, way better than their field. We have the issues and the talent on our side generally right now.

Kos sums up my thoughts on Kucinich. Plus, he thinks Fox News is a legit news source. Considering that interview a while ago before he announced his candidacy this time where his wife raised her eyebrow at him when he said that he was thinking about running (don't have source for that one, sorry) made it seem like he wasn't all that serious about this prez run.

Oh, Google turned up another article I read a while back, this one by the NY Times. He isn't that interested in party building from the looks of it.