Hmm. Still not excited by any one candidate. (rambling)

Out of the nine candidates, I have three favorites. I'm not particularly worked up about any one yet:

Dean: Centrist who came from the outside, and so he had to take a gamble. Made a very smart/lucky gamble, and now he is running with it. If it hadn't been for the Iraq position, he'd be (fair or not) in the dustbin. He looks fat--the guy has no neck. Still, he's not bad-looking. Definitely the most popular among Democrat activists, because they think Kucinich is too ugly to win. Supporters of other candidates are annoyed by his popularity. He contributes to the idea Kucinich doesn't really exist by seldom mentioning him in discussions on his opponents' positions. "Bush-lite", like "WMD", has truly lost all meaning and just gets haphazardly thrown around. Same with "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party", which is more painful to hear for this Minnesotan. He certainly knows how to excite 30% (and likely more) of the Democratic base, the big danger will come if he tries to switch gears for the rest and falls on his face--he definitely has the capacity for doing so, if press appearances are any indication. Because he speaks for those Democrats that had no voice before, he will get outrageous amounts of slack from them. Conversely, other factions will use anything to bury him. He's playing it very smart, but isn't totally safe--he can and will be tripped up in the future, perhaps fatally. At least he's interesting to listen to.

Kerry: Brahmin and most liberal of the electable, who in recent times dropped the ball on several votes, most notably on Iraq. He's correcting, but he's earned the eternal hate of some activists who think he's forever tarnished--he gets criticized even for criticizing Bush here (which is surreal). As far as appearance, what else can be said that hasn't already? Well, at least he's in shape. He'd be on the top of the heap if he hadn't messed up, but he wouldn't rank much higher in my estimation if he had voted correctly on Iraq. He's playing the game of trying to carefully and discreetly discredit Dean and at the same time win back educated activist support--a political 7-10 split, to say the least. He's on the very edge of being exciting, but sometimes he can be very disappointing. He's smart enough not to can statements, but he does it anyway to play it safe. Looking at Dean, that may not be a bad idea, but it isn't exciting. He may get through on top, but the Dean-Kerry wars will probably cause more activists to abandon Kerry than regular Dems to abandon Dean.

Kucinich: Solid liberal credentials, the only guy who could really woo the Greens. The spectre of quirkiness and not being particularly attractive have sunk this guy--that and some misconceptions about his work in "Cleveland? Yeh, Cleveland! He bankrupted it!". His past stance on abortion is another convenient excuse to dismiss him, as is his appearance--"Yeah I know-it shouldn't matter, but hey, them dumb folks are shallow" gets said a lot. He will attract the hopefuls and get frequent pats on the head from the rest (probably not Dean) until he runs out of money. He is the only one who may be called "different" in this race. If we were going for who would do the best (or most interesting) work in office for progressive interests, Kucinich wins hands down. Still, he doesn't excite me more than the other two. He's the only candidate who makes any sense on gay marriage, and especially the war on terror, but he's missing something. Whether original politics causes obscurity or if it's the other way around, he just doesn't have "it", as Kucinich supporters have been told many times--sorry for another one.

All right, makes a little more sense once in words. It all can change in a speech or two, however. That's why this is exciting.

NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's done.

One vote does not make an entire political careeer.

this is gonna sound odd, but I still think Edwards (although I don't think he's qualified) could be a sleeper.

It's a looooong primary season and once the south picks up steam, Edwards could rise FAST.

If he's your favorite, it's probably because of his potential, not necessarily what he's done in the primary up to this point.

He is a great candidate, smart, handsome, great ideas, appealing to the middle class, wonderful family - and optimism.

I've read, the candidate that Rove/Bush fear most.

Al Gore is about to show the nation--and the rest of the field--just how much he can put them in the shade at will in his speech to moveon.org on Thursday. He doesn't HAVE to "act interested"; moments like that will do it for him, and for any potential supporters of his--and there are still a bunch out there--who are not sure about the success potential of any of the current Democratic crop.

Teddy Rossevelt always regretted ruling out a third term right after he won his 1904 landslide, especially given the way that Taft subsequently dissapointed him. I'll be that, 100 years later, deep down Al Gore doesn't want to be remembered as someone who "didn't rise to meet history" when history was ready for him--and when his country needed him most.

Wishful thinking? Maybe so. We DO have several good candidates, all of whom would have a realistic shot against Dub next year. But I guess it still burns in me: why settle for good, or indeed, even very good, when one can have the best? :eyes:

Please pardon me if I'm sounding too much like that shrill "Al Gore Support Center" idiot whose been banned from here--and rightfully so--before. Unlike him, I'm NO fanatic; just a fan of a good man.

B-)

.

Hope you have the opportunity to go meet and hear all three of them.

Peace

Now if Gore were back in!!!

I am a realist about that though.