Who's the LEAST evil of the Democratic candidates?

I'm sure not voting for Dubya...

Its a moot point now. Kerry has the nomination in the bag.

If Bush were running against an inert carbon rod, I'd vote for the rod.

It's a loaded question... Pfft!

Anyone, from aany party who actually tries to be elected, is more evil than evil itself, by definition. And this does not only apply to the US, but any country where they let people nominate themselves (or pay people to do so).

I wouldn't say they are all evil by definition, but they are certainly not saints.

Money changes everything. Historically, the poor honest candidate never has a chance against the big, well funded political machines. Even if this poor honest guy managed to get decent funding, he eventually sells his soul somewhere during the process.

I have voted in presidential elections since 1984, and with the exception of 1992, I have always voted for the lesser of two evils. This time around, I'll do the same.

Well Lieberman and possibly Edwards at least seemed to have a little sanity... course maybe there just wasn't enough info out there.

But why settle for a candidate that has to decide on issues, when you can get one that votes for them after they vote against them!? Everybody's a winner!

NOT Lieberman! I personally hate his "Hollywood, music and video games are evil" plank. Its the sort of stuff conservatives hate the most about liberals. I'm sure if he ever gets in the White House, way too much time would be wasted on committees looking into the entertainment industry, and stating the obivious when they are done.

BTW, has anyone noticed that Lieberman bears an uncanny resemblance to Ian McDiarmid from Star Wars?

On the other hand, Edwards seems much more stable. Maybe he might end up as Kerry's running mate.

I like McCain.

I'm not familiar with Joe's entertainment issues whatever they are, but I'm thinking more about more important issues. And the fact that (at least to my current knowledge) he actually can take a position on something.

The entertainment industry isn't an important issue, but the way Lieberman relates to it is telling. Right after the Columbine massacre, he blamed the media for turning a couple of high school dorks into mass murderers. In doing that, he completely applied a simplistic explanation for a complex issue. He never questioned why the parents didn't know about the weapons their sons were stockpiling in their own homes. He never questioned whether the parents ever approached the school or the principal over the bullying their kids received from their classmates. Even worse, he never considered the home life of these two idiots. Kids are a reflection of their parents. Could the parents be responsible for raising kids who solve problems with firearms? Instead, he blamed the media, because it was just SO convenient.

We don't need a President who uses simplistic reasoning to deal with complex issues. We have one now, and you see where that got us.

edit:

Yay, my 500th post!

I'm not an american - but does bush have a snowballs chance of being reelected?

-Adam

There's nothing more important than video games.



Truthfully? Yes. Unfortunately this particular community is not an accurate cross-section of the American public. There's a ginormous chunk of people out there who think Bush is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

*coughChristopherNomad*cough*

Ayem gunna shoot me sum ducks. Hee-yuk.
--George W. Bush

(Watch Christopher butt in and say, "HE NEVER SAID THAT YOU PILLOW EATING F*G!!"

He never said that. Mommy and daddy knew Dubya would blow his own head off if he got a gun.

That quote was actually from Cheney.

So we all think Kerry is better than Lieberman? (Not that there's probably a huge difference, but...)

Garod, you're title also happens to be an Ashcroft quote! ;P

I can't stand Lieberman. WAY too much god and religion talk from that guy. He's another one that would be fine with a theocracy. If you can't keep your religion to yourself you won't get my vote. There's just something about that guy... his voice, his weird mouth, his annoying religious spewage, that just makes me want to punch him in the face.

I rather like that Kerry considers himself a catholic but doesn't agree with all their positions blindly. At least that shows he thinks for himself. Personally I'd vote for a dried up lump of pudding over Bush.

HAHA!

(I think you meant that as a joke right?)

We now have two canidates that are essentially the same on every issue (depending on the day of the week for Kerry). Not really much more debate on issues is possible now. Dean would have made at least a more interesting choice. But Democrats (like Republicans) vote in the primaries for someone they think can win the general election rather than for their favorite candidate. We get mush vs. mush.

But consider the alternative. In Taiwan they just had an election, decided by a few thousand votes and still being disputed. At issue is whether Taiwan should re-unite with mainland China or not.

I'll settle for our mushy version of divided government any day.

Back in 2000, the Republicans could have nominated McCain, who was experienced, honest and credible. To this day, I believe McCain could have beat Gore hands down. However, they chose an alcoholic, lying, stupid, "connected" piss poor businessman. Go figure.

you mean there's a difference between Republicans and Democrats?

i just see Republicrats..

i say.. vote for someone who REALLY believes in what they're saying.. not just trying to win a job by slandering the opposition.

Word. There are three types of politicians:

Liberal republicrats
Conservative republicrats
Rednecks

Edit: Read the entire thread Gwyd....

I don't trust any of the presidential hopefuls.

I refuse to vote.

Hm. I wonder what specifically Garoad is referencing when he refers to Kerry's "wishy-washiness", which for some reason has become an undisputed fact.

Listen to the propaganda, people. The people originating this particular charge are Bush loyalists who wish to smear Kerry so that he would appear to be weak in the "war on terror," which obviously must be fought with unrelenting resolution (i.e., not backing off of stupid, poorly-thought out decisions, if the Iraq/Afghanistan debacles are any indication).

The charge is largely unfounded. Upon what is it based? Most often people cite Kerry's vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq and then voting against the measure to spend $87 billion on the initiative there -- but they do so without acknowledging that he voted against that measure because there was no provision in it to help mitigate its financial impact of our already wildly deficit-heavy budget. Is this inconsistent, or merely responsible?

Moreover, the charge of Kerry's inconsistencies is rather ironic coming from the Bush administration. Bush may have been rather single-minded about going to Iraq, but his reasons were continually shifting, as we all should remember from the lead-up. This administration has taken the political two-step to an entirely new level, shifting the political landscape every other week to suit the "base," making those who try to stand their ground look like the ones who are inconsistent.

As it is, I don't happen to think Kerry would be a great savior in the White House. As for Dean -- well, I was inspired by him at first, before realizing his whole rebellious image was just a marketing ploy covering up a very hum-drum Democrat underneath. Edwards, Kucinich, well, they might have brought some new ideas. Liebermann was just a Republican spy whose goal was to shift the center of political discourse even further to the right so as to facilitate Republican base-pandering. And how can we can accuse Kerry of being wishy-washy after Clark's fifteen minutes of fame, or of being part of the establishment after Gephardt's try? And then there's Moseley-Braun and good old Sharpton... well, it was nice while they lasted.

None of these candidates were ever really all that inspiring. But they came to the forefront because we now have a president in power whose goals seem to be veering us toward a dual tragedy by eroding our freedoms at home and by becoming a domineering menace to the rest of the world. Would Kerry beat back the deficit and remove our entanglements abroad which seem to be causing more terrorism than they're stopping? Would Kerry re-establish ties with our allies and pursue peace with our enemies? How can we know? But however he does, I am with many people when I think that he'll do better than Bush ever will want to do.

As for Bush's re-electibility... Well... I guess we'll have to see. The Bush camp apparently believes that it has this election in the bag, so it is pursuing an ultra-right set of policy changes and rejuvenations, to secure the base. The base thus won't be splintered by far-right candidates, and the moderate right will be disinclined to vote for Kerry. This is almost certainly their strategy -- they're counting on the thinking members of the Republican party to buy the propaganda the administration is putting out, both through campaign ads and special spots in friendly media like FOXNews, the New York Post, and the Washington Post. The moderates don't like his budget policy, his foreign policy, or just about any policy, but they buy his line on "terra," that is, that the terror problem is as bad as Bush claims it is and that only the currently-taken strategy can ultimately be effective against it (all of which is bunk, by the way).

Well then shut up. If you don't vote, you get who you get and arent allowed to complain. If you want to complain, take part in the process. If enough of the apathetic voted then change could and would occur.

Damn, I hate when people open their mouths on politics and then follow it up with "I dont vote".

To add to what Misnomer said:

Allegedly, about 657 votes in Florida got us into the mess we are in today. Every vote does count.

Al Sharpton is da man.

Discuss.