Mind if I hold off supporting any candidate yet?

Dennis Kucinich just announced. Governor Vilsack has announced already. We hear all the hype about Hillary and Obama. We are almost sure that Wes Clark wishes to run. Al Gore may still get in the race. John Kerry definitely would like to redeem himself. And I'm sure there are others...

My plan is to hold off support for any candidate for a while. I want to see more. I want to see a candidate with a vision for our country. I am not interested in politicians that just "want to be President" for their egos. We need and deserve more.

...is someone who's competent, intelligent, experienced, and willing to enforce the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. All of it. From the right to trial by jury to the right to keep and bear arms. From freedom of religion to freedom of speech.

And I really don't need to say this, but - no torture enablers!!!

Frankly, I'm tired of campaigns. The BushCo is always in campaign mode. One reason (other than their utter imcompetence :) ) they never got anything meaningful done. They don't do anything, they just spin and control the media.

Evil, yes. Incompetent, no.

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/incompetent/view?searchterm=incompetent

They're damn good at the "look over there" game.

NGU.

But please understand that those of us who are already supporting candidates aren't doing so recklessly or without regard for what other potential contenders have to offer.

The bottoom line is that we already have a good idea of what the field will look like and of each of the potential contenders, there is enough information available to get an idea of where they stand on specific issues, as well as what their prioroties are for the nation.

I agree with you about the ambition vs. vision thing. Ambition will get people elected, but vision will ensure they accomplish something worthwhile once they get there.

I can only take so much campaigning and politics. Being Unaffiliated I won't be voting in the primaries, so I'll watch and wait...

I think Edwards will be my favorite, but I'm really waiting for Al.

to Edwards (should Gore not run).

Maybe several years ago the two were similar, but Gore is much more progressive now and much more progressive than Edwards, who, unlike Gore, hasn't really denounced his DLC roots.

I could see a move from Gore to Clark or Dean or Kucinich or even to Obama, but not to Edwards or Vilsack or Clinton.

I'm asking a serious question here, not a snide one.

:hi:

I'm not sure any of the other people you mentioned would have much chance against Hillary.

And I am also uncertain the only person who might contend, Obama, would lose in the General Election, and we cannot afford for that to happen again.

Edwards always struck me as a good communicator, and I also believe he was not happy with the way things went in '04, i.e. Kerry conceding so quickly.

I'm more concerned with winning in '08, and unfortunately guys like Kucinich or Clark might have some difficulty.

I should mention I would also like Dean, but he may decide to stay in his current position, and support the nominee, as opposed to entering the race.

..."just want to be President for their egos" - which I seriously doubt in several cases - I agree. It's not even 2007 yet, much less 2008.

We do need and deserve a good candidate.

NGU.

However, I have not heard a vision from these candidates yet...But they may come forward?

Actually that's OK with me - I'm desperately hoping Gore will run, but I have no other preferences myself yet. Who I support depends on Gore, and if he doesn't enter, anyone else will have to convince me they're the right person for the job.

Thats why I'm supporting him.
If Hilary is selected I will vote for her but I won't give her money

It promises to be a great field from what I can see already.

Not me, of course. I haven't decided on anyone yet, either--my big arguments are against people who have already ruled someone out, and usually for pop-political reasons rather than anything legite.

I want to see a lot of choices, and I want to see how they campaign, how they raise money, how they handle the pressure, and I want to see anyone still standing by the beginning of 08 in a debate, so I can see how they handle each other. I decide as much (maybe more) on whether a candidate looks like they can handle the job as on what they say they are going to do (assuming a minimum level of liberalness, of course).

Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Kucinich, Clark, Vilsack, Obama, Edwards... Damn, we've got some great possibilities lined up, and it should be fun getting to know each of them.

Now, back to the work of driving this new Congress we won. It looks good sitting in the driveway, but I can't wait to see how it handles.

Frankly, I'm just plain campaigned out at this point. This year's election hadn't even taken place and 2008 is off and running. UGH! Can't we get back to governing first?

We are in total, permanent campaign mode. We have to be fighting over Obama vs. Clinton, on whether Kucinich is a kook, whether Gore will upset the apple cart, whether Kerry is damaged goods, and a zillion other "important" 2008 campaign issues.

But don't believe me, I heard it all on CNN so this must be important.
:sarcasm:

I agree. I'd like to see Gore jump in, but I'm hoping that he takes all of 2007 to decide.

When 2008 hits, I may decide.

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

;)

I don't care if JFK himself rises from the grave and says he wants another go. I'm waiting until January '08 at the earliest to endorse a primary candidate.

A or B posts and polls. It is a little to early. I'll wait til Gore announces, if he doesn't , I'll begin to think about the rest. Besides I'm in Calif. we get little say in the primaries, the red states will decide for us. Thank god NJ has moved theirs up.