I voted undecided. Edwards looks good. So does Obama, but I don't really know enough about him yet. I like Kucinich, but a certain snowball in hell comes to mind. I don't like Clinton. She is too beholding to monied interests and has never stepped back from her support of Bush's failed oil war. Nevertheless, I would vote for her, or any Democrat, over any of the likely GOP choices.

Hillary Clinton Is Closer Than The Rest But I won't vote for her Too Cold and Vindictive.

Clinton elected to put party and politics above her responsibility as a Senator when she voted for the Iraq war. I didn't have the same information she had, but the information I did have (and which was available to any reader diligent and intellectually honest enough to consider) has proven to be consistently accurate. The question then was "what does Iraq have to do with 9-11" and is now, and if she couldn't ask the question, why should I support her today.

I'm fed up with triangulation and positioning myself, not according to the issue, but according to how the issue would affect my future.

That's why Obama will have my vote.

I put down Edwards in this little poll. He is really growing on me. Since I don't think there is a chance in hell that Gore will run again, Edwards is looking good. While he doesn't really have more political experience than Obama (other than running in a national campaign which is something), Edwards just comes across as more seasoned and reflective. Every time I hear him or his wife speak I am impressed. And I think his non-sexy work on poverty since 2004 is impressive.

Obama just feels very untested at this point. He has never even been in a contested election. His opponents have magically self-distructed. Well, the Repubs are most certainly not going to self-distruct in 2008. Personally I think Obama is the perfect vice presidential candidate. You get all the star power but can put someone on top of the ticket with more gravitas.

Other candidates I like are Richardson and Clark. Richardson is the most Clintonesque of the candidates in both the good and bad ways. Clark is very impressive but seems something of a loner and doesn't seem to have a real base anywhere. I see him as the perfect Secretary of State actually.

Clinton and Biden leave me cold. They are both much to senatorial to be good candidates. They both just strike me as being too calculating and positioned. I'm particularly opposed to Clinton just on principle. I don't want to see a heriditary aristocracy in this country and I think we can do better than giving over a quarter century of rule to just two families. I also automatically react against the mainstream media telling me she is inevitable. I was a big Kerry supporter in 2004 but the man really disappointed me with his anemic 2004 campaign and decisions not to defend against the swift boat nonsense. Maybe that was really bad advice. But it sure didn't play well out here in the heartland. It's like he felt he could cruise into the White House without fighting. But it doesn't work that way.

Kucinich? Sorry, but a Vegan lefty isn't going anywhere. He is about as serious of a candidate as Sharpton.

Oh by the way, don't you almost feel sorry for the Republicans? Their leading candidates seem to be John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Newt Ginrich.

He he...

I'll take our guys any day.

I voted for the candidate who intrigues me most - NM Governor Bill Richardson. I would say that about Obama as well, but I think he is probably too inexperienced at this point.

Maybe your poll should ask who we wouldn't vote for. As an Independent, the only ones on the list that I would never vote for are Kerry, Kucinisch and Clinton. None of them can be trusted, in my opinion. After the last two Presidents we've had, that is a significant character trait I'm looking for.

Ditto Andy's comments except that Clinton is the only one that I for sure wouldn't vote for. I agree with Kent on both Kerry and Kucinich.

Obama intrigues me. But I see him as far too inexperienced and that makes me nervous.

On the likely GOP candidates. I've said it before, elsewhere, and I'll say it again... McCain cannot win a general election. His time is past and many of my fellow Indies who supported him in 2000, as I did, will not support him now under any circumstances. Well... except maybe if Hillary wins the Dem nomination. And then I'd expect many Indies to vote 3rd party out of disgust with the choices.

It seems pretty clear to me that 2008 is the Dems race to lose. That's the only way another Republican can win, IMHO.

It looks like we're going for the young candidates, Obama and Edwards. I guess we're hoping for a new day and a fresh start?

Mitt Romney. :)

Just kidding, Ralph Nader :)

Just kidding. I don't know yet.

I like Mr Kucinich. I suspect that Kent's comment about a 'lefty vegan' not being able to win might be correct-- especially as I am only seeing Kucinich marginalized by the mainstream press. They don't seem to take him seriously. Nevertheless, I will start out doing the idealist thing, and support the candidate that I'd really want for my President. I don't trust Mrs. Clinton, and don't know enough about Mr. Obama. I have friend, here in Portland, who has begun working for one of the "Draft Al Gore" organizations. He says he has inside info that Al Gore is just waiting for the right moment to declare his intent to run. Anyone have the scoop, on that?

Why isn't Al Gore on the list?

Lets look at this from a different perspective, that of the average American who doesn’t read or post on political blogs and instead makes decisions based on how candidates are marketed to them.

If we analyze the field that way, then with his head of full, thick, wavy hair drawing comparisons to JFK, Edwards has positioned himself as the candidate to beat for the nomination. His youthful, athletic good looks and boyish charm make him a lock to win the majority of female voters (and a goodly number of males).

He displays a Southern “good-old-boy” affability that voters like while being reminiscent of another successful Democrat rascal, Bill Clinton, something which will harken voters back to a more tranquil time and will not be overlooked by the DNC powerbrokers who actually select the nominee.

Of his two main rivals, he is way prettier than Hillary with and far less grating style, and is much less threatening than Obama to those uncomfortable voting outside their own ethnicity (unacknowledged racism and all that).

It’s early in the game and lots can happen, but the smart money is on Edwards.

It was hard to chose between Obama and my man in 2004, Wes Clark. But I'm riding the charisma-train that is Obama, who seems to be tapping into some JFK 1960-era magic.

I was a Richardson supporter, until I found out the truth about him. Some excerpts from Greg Palast's latest book, Armed Madhouse:

Governor Richardson's dad was a Citibank executive assigned to Mexico City/ There he met Governor Bill's mom, and- milagro!- a Mexican-American was born. Richardson gets big mileage out of his mother's heritage, and that makes him, legitimately, a Mexican-American, a politically useful designation. But it's just as legitimate to say that Richardson is a Citibank-American.... In New Mexico the issue of uncounted votes [in the 2004 Presidential election] is more than skin deep. Lots of Mexican-American votes don't tally, but Citibank-American votes never get lost. Kissinger-American votes always count. The story of America's failed elections is not about under votes. Its about underclass. Disenfranchisement is class warfare by other means. It just happens that in New Mexico, the colors of the underclass are, for the most part, brown and red... Halting the 2004 [state] recount wasn't enough for Governor Bill, however. He demanded the legislature pass a "reform" law that would require anyone anting a recount of a suspicious vote to put up a bond of over one million dollars. As a result, "free and fair" elections are now effectively outlawed in New Mexico. You can have a choice of a "free" election or a "fair" election, but not both. Want fair? Then you have to pay a million to recheck the ballots. In other words, it's against the law to buy votes, but in New Mexico not against the law to buy the vote count....

So the heck with Bill richardson.

If it's McCain-Clinton in '08, I'm staying home....

Beyond their notable articulateness and general charisma, both Edwards and Obama have paper-thin records. And neither of them have any executive experience that I've heard about.

Clark, Clinton, Richardson and Dean (why isn't HE on this list?) can all claim to have run a state or to have extensive experience with how the federal government works.

I'm tired of amuteurs and self-proclaimed "outsiders." I want someone who can actually accomplish something once they get to D.C.

I like Obama and Edwards but Zak's point about their paper thin records is really accurate. They're great V.P. candidates.

I find it interesting that people are actually saying they wouldn't support Clinton if she were to become the nominee. I believe those same people are the people that were unmotivated to vote for Al Gore and thus we ended up with George W. Either that or they felt compelled to vote for Nader. Thanks guys I really appreciate that 6 years later.

If you think for 2 seconds any Democrat (Hillary included) wouldn't be better than another Republican to nominate judges (there is going to be at least another supreme court justice to name during the next Presidency), hold Presidential veto power and handle foreign affairs you're a moron.

I'm not on the Hillary boat but there is no way I wouldn't support her if she came out the winner. My money is on Al Gore coming out sometime soon and declaring himself eligible. If that's the case he's my man.

It's a tough sled, and liable to change. I'll go with Richardson for the simple reason that he has a resume with various jobs that can actually be of use in operating a presidency -- the problem electorally is that means he has a trail you can poke holes in and interpret, where it appears that the US wants to elect blank slates we can project our hopes into -- hence Obama. I thought Edwards was a bit of an empty suit in 2004, and I suppose his notes on poverty since shows that he's on the right path to something -- so I guess he's my second choice. From there I'm a bit stumped.

I'm tired of hearing that same old saw about how those who didn't vote for Gore in 2000 are somehow at fault for Bush being elected.

<h1>1. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Gore win the popular vote? Hello!!!</h1> <h1>2. If the Gore who showed up a couple years ago with fire in his belly had been one of the choices in 2000 then I might have voted for him. I know that I'd vote for him today based upon the last couple of years.</h1> <h1>3. Having heard this saw adnauseum over the last 6 years simply reinforces in my own mind the wisdom of never having joined the Democratic party when I left the GOP 15 years ago. The same lockstep mentality that GOP control of this country brought us over the last 5 years is obviously not restricted to just whack-job conservatives.</h1>

If you think for 2 seconds any Democrat (Hillary included) wouldn't be better than another Republican to nominate judges (there is going to be at least another supreme court justice to name during the next Presidency), hold Presidential veto power and handle foreign affairs you're a moron.

Well then color me a moron because I would take Lincoln Chafee over Hillary Clinton or Joe Lieberman any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

My dream ticket is Edwards and Obama, anyone know where I can get one of those bumper stickers?

I'm with Val on this one. Voted for Edwards though I find Obama to be one charasmatic and inspiring dude with a great political future ahead. I dig Edwards' economic populism and the fact that he's fully committed to one issue: poverty and economic inequality. It's not the sexiest issue in American politics, but the conviction, passion and the energy that Edwards puts behind it really impresses me. While most of the would-be presidential candidates have spent their time on the media circuit giving vague soundbytes, promoting their ghost-written books, or grandstanding on C-Span during a committee hearing, Edwards has gone out and helped found an institute for poverty studies. Impressive if you ask me.

Having said all of this, a Clinton/Obama ticket could probably win and would certainly make for a fascinating election cycle. But the problem is simple: Hillary Clinton is a hack and will do or say anything to get elected. Since being elected to the Senate she's done little other than gladhand and re-position herself, apologize for her past, and prove that with 25 million dollars she can win some Republican counties in New York state. To boot, by 08 we'll have already had 20 years of Bush or Clinton. Another eight, to me, sounds revolitng. What is this? A dynastic pissing match?

One last thing, and then I'll go. Richardson's resume really blows my mind. I mean, Congressman, Gov, Sec of Energy and Ambassador to the UN. Who can top that? It makes me tempted to support his candidacy. Strikes against him, however, include his DLC leanings, as well as the fact that he is too damn ugly. Someone who looks like Bill Richardson could never be president. No mother would let him kiss their baby.

The fact that Democrats are frothing at the mouth over a potential Obama candidacy shows just how little Dem's care about qualifications and experience. Does Obama's skin color and eloquent speech make up for his lack of executive experience? Do the aforementioned characteristics make up for his having been in the Senate a mere two years? Tame your hard-ons for two seconds and take a look at who Barack Obama is. He is a man who has an abortion voting record to the left of NARAL. Yes to the left of NARAL. Good luck with that one. Barack Obama's father is from Africa, so he is not descendant of African slaves, like most black Americans. For further information on this topic I suggest reading Stanley Crouch's article, "What Obama isn't: black like me" To be quite shallow and honest, take a closer look at Barack Obama's name. Would American voters really elect a man with the name Barack Hussein Obama? Can you imagine the political ads deriding his name as Hussein Osama, ad infinitum? Obviously a man's name has nothing to do with his qualifications to lead a country, but Obama not only has a terrible name for politics, but he lacks the experience as well.

Sorry about that ginormous link. The link will take you to the article if you're interested.

Kevin,

Gore did win the popular vote. He lost the electoral vote. Perhaps if Democrats had got out and voted for their candidate instead of being so ho-hum about it and either choosing to stay home or vote for Nader then the election in Florida wouldn't have been close enough for the Supreme Court to decide the election. If Gore had displayed the fire he has now when he was running for President he likely would have been beat out in the primary election for acting un-Presidential and squashed in the general election. He had to carry himself like the President should. If you have any questions about that please refer to Howard Dean's infamous "Yeeeeawww" speech. I think the same mentality does exist within the Democratic Party that does with the Republican Party over when you have to unite to accomplish a goal. The difference is that once Democrats get power they try and accomplish things for the good of the people instead of corporations or wealthy Americans like the GOP. You have a good point about Lincoln and Joe. Lincoln Chaffee and Joe Lieberman didn't grow a pair until they had both been beat. I would like to offer Lincoln congratulations on finally standing up to the GOP once he knew he didn't need their money for being reelected anymore because he'd been crushed in the general election and congrats to Joe Lieberman who finally realized he wasn't as pro-war as he thought when he was stomped out of the Democratic primary.

To win, the Left needs to vote as a coalition and support the Democratic nominee. To ensure we get the best nominee, we all need to get active right now and make sure that the media or the DLC or MoveOn.org or anyone else doesn't annoint the nominee before we get to vote.

Whatever really happened with the 2000 Florida votes, Bush officially won by less than 1,000 votes. Nader won over 97,000 votes. Yes, Nader voters DID cost Gore the election. And yes, if Dems "sit out" in 2008 or decide to vote third party because the Democratic nominee doesn't fulfill their idea of a perfect candidate, they might as well vote Republican because the result will be the same.

"The fact that Democrats are frothing at the mouth over a potential Obama candidacy shows just how little Dem's care about qualifications and experience."

What sort of "experience" does George W. Bush have? Every business that he has ever run, he has run into the ground. He could not find Canada on a map if you asked him to find it for you.

Frankly, any drug addicted jerk on the street would do better than our current President! Any... oh, I forgot... we already have a druggie in the White House.

David English,

The fact that someone brought up Obama's name is downright racism? For starters let me help you out. You must mean OSAMA, not Obama. A quick reading of your post before submitting would make you look a bit more credible. Secondly, how is it racism? Do me a favor and look up the word racism in the dictionary and figure out what it actually means before you go flinging that word around. I brought up the fact that people aren't very likely to vote for a candidate that has a name similiar with two of America's enemies. If you actually read my post you would realize I wasn't agreeing with that sentiment, but merely pointing it out.

Last anon,

I'm not here to defend George W. but I will respond to a couple of your untrue statements. 6 years of executive experience as the governor of Texas would qualify as more and better experience than Obama's 4 years in the Senate (by 08) in most people's opinion.

As far as George W. goes as a businessman, well he definitely has had his share of unsuccessful business ventures, but his detractors always fail to point out one of his major successes. Bush invested 605K into the Texas Rangers and when they sold the team his profit was somewhere between 10 to 14 million. Some might call that a wise business decision.

I'd have cast a vote for Gore if he was there. As it stands, Ilike Obama/Edwards, and I can live with Edwards/Obama. Obama's "lack of experience" doesn't bother me much; I'm more interested in what he does in his four years as a Senator than how long he's been at it. His actions over the next twelve months will be critical -- now that his party is in the majority, what bills will he introduce? What issues will he go to the mat for? How will he vote?

I doubt racism will hurt Obama. By and large, the people who would withhold their votes purely by race aren't likely to vote for the Democrat anyway. Maybe he loses a few votes, but not many. On the plus side of the ledger, imagine the turnout his candidacy would spark among (heavily Democratic) African-American voters who otherwise would stay home. An Obama candidacy could be a fantastic get-out-the-vote drive for every other Democratic candidate on every ballot in the country.

David English,

Of course it's in bad taste, however that's not the point! The point is that it will happen regardless of whether or not it's in bad taste. In regards to U.S. presidents who have had little experience would you care to name a few? I can.....however I doubt you can do the same.

The best ticket we could have would be Gore / Obama, and if Gore doesn't run then Obama / Bob Graham.

I'd be reasonably happy with Clinton, Kerry or Biden. The rest I don't see getting much traction with the voters.

John

Edwards, Bad ass lawyer then politician whose signature issue is poverty. This doesn't remind me of JFK, its RFK. Even better.

Where did all you "Edwards people" come from?

I can understand him getting this kind of support in a Democratic primary in South Carolina...but Oregon?

Well Edwards people, today is your day...have fun and good luck.

It is truly amazing to me the venom going back and forth on here, mostly from "independants" that are really just "conservatives" in sheeps clothing.

You can come out of the closet, it's ok. The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

I will wait and see who makes it through the next few months to half year. I am just glad to see so many candidates on the Dem side. "have fun and good luck." Winning is not about luck, it is about message, strategy and MONEY.

We might start another thread for the "independants"... errr, closeted "conservatives" about possible Rep contenders.

FRIENDS SENATOR MIKE GRAVEL IS ALSO RUNNIG FOR PRESIDENT. HE WAS THE FIRST TO ANNOUNCE.

Just wanted to mention to those who thought George Bush had experience in an executive office. Being Governor of Texas isn't exactly going to give you a lot of experience. The Texas government only meets once every other year. The legislature is also considered the most powerful branch...not the Governor.

I support AL GORE, who is the real president and was very disappointed not to see his name on this poll. No one is more deserving and no one has more integrity and experience than AL GORE.

And as gor him 'not runnin,' he hasn't come right out and said that. There is still a veery good chance that he will decide to run in 2008. The world needs a president like AL GORE. No one else comes close.

Virginia F., I'm disappointed with the response about Kuccinich -- he's the only candidate that I know of who's frankly a peace candidate -- if the media would take him seriously and he could get a voice, it would help. I can't believe the 'racism'(stereotypical thinking) a "vegan -- well, I don't remember what was said -- "lefty"? as if that's all he has going for him -- if we're to gradually change this nation away from the war industrial complex, with empire as our goal, we need someone who's thinking about something other than continuing the status quo, but under a new name.

I am looking past the primary to the general election, and I agree with Zak. J
“To win, the Left needs to vote as a coalition and support the Democratic nominee.”
We need a 'lefty vegan idealist ' in the race to represent our marginalized brothers and sisters who are left of mainstream. Dennis has proven that he will keep to his ideals and remain in the race till we have a Democratic nominee.
Simply -- Kucinich is the key to forming the coalition that will bring a Democratic to the White House in 2008.

I'm glad to see Dennis ahead of Hillary...I'd vote for either of my cats before I'd vote for her! Yeah, "Sylvester for President"- should make a great button! But I WOULD vote for Edwards...