Want to get rid of Shrub?

[danaeris]

So I'm hearing about this thing, MoveOn.ORG that will be giving endorsement to the non-shrub presidential candidate who gets over 50% of the vote in their primary. They have registration to vote in their primary until midnight EST tonight, and then you can vote online until midnight EST Wednesday. (so that's 48 hours)

I look at it this way. If MoveOn's support will actually make any difference, then it is really important to make sure that the right candidate gets voted for (by registering and voting).
If their support won't make a difference, then you don't lose anything by participating.

So far I've read one very enthusiastic endorsement for Howard Dean (from cos in his journal). Anyone have anything they want to say for or against him, or about any of the other candidates?

Comments

[auros]

I voted for Dean. To quote a friend: He has a strategy for health care; he wants to balance the budget; he has plenty of success stories from being the governor of Vermont; he supports civil unions for homosexual couples; and he has the doctor thing going for him. And most importantly, he can win. He speaks with passion, he has a clear position, and can give answers where the other candidates have none. He will get the support of the anti-war contingent and most Greens, as well.

Had 10% of FL's Nader voters switched to Gore, we would have President Gore right now. FL looks like it is going to determine 2004 as well. The Democratic National Committee still thinks they can win by being Republican in all but name. I think they're wrong.

(I'm also starting to seriously consider going to FL to participate in get-out-the-vote and poor-voter-carpool efforts for the general election...)

[auros]

Oh, and my second and third choices are Edwards (who is slightly less liberal than Dean, and possibly more charismatic, but also slightly less experienced with executive branch issues), then Kerry (who would be able to pound Bush on the military service issue, and is the most outspoken of the "traditional" candidates).

kucinich

[paraquat.livejournal.com]

He's also running, but the difference (that I've heard anyway, from a local debate they had) between he and Dean is that Dean does NOT want to cut the defense budget! I'm going with kucinich.

[urbanbard.livejournal.com]

I'm a huge fan of Dean's. I'm actually getting signed up to work for him, and may fly out to New Hampshire for the primary.

I echo all of Auros's comments. Most importantly, Dean was the first and loudest candidate to stand up against Bush's war machine. He has been beating the drums, asking "hey, where are those WMD's we kept hearing about."

[kaidevis.livejournal.com]

A lot of people seem to be choosing between Dean and Kucinich. Given what I've seen over the past few months, I'd prefer Kucinich.

Bob Harris, one of the people who helps keep up modrnwrld_blog, has put together a webpage detailing some position and record differences between Kucinich and Dean. Some of the issues are quite revealing.

I also recommend doing some at least half-serious research (an hour or two with Google should do) into the details behind the summaries on the issues that are important to you before you make a decision.

[auros]

The problem with Kucinich is I think he really does have essentially no chance of winning the general election; he's too liberal for the majority of Americans, possibly including me. In terms of policy, I agree with him about as much as I agree with Dean, but my differences with Kucinich generally involve him being farther left than I am -- particularly on trade, an issue on which I agree with Paul Krugman. That doesn't bode well for him, as I'm already more liberal than Dean, and more liberal than about 90% of America.

I'd obviously vote for Kucinich in the general election if he got nominated, but I think a Kucinich vs Bush election would look an awful lot like Mondale vs Reagan.