My rundown on democratic presidential candidates

This is my breakdown of the democratic candidates in the 2008 election. ( In my next post I will break down the GOP candidates.)



Mike Gravel

Sometimes it's difficult to distinguish genius from insanity.......This is NOT one of them. "Hey , I'm pushing 80 and have zero net worth, put me in charge of the entire nation!" Short of a fraternity prank or something I can't see any reason to vote for this guy. I will say this for him, he's the best thing that's ever happened to the Kucinich campaign. Before Gravel came along Kucinich was (rather unfairly) portrayed as "the crazy one". Now he's not even the craziest guy on the stage! I first became aware of Gravel during the debate at Howard University. I was struck by his inability to answer a question, any question, without mentioning legalizing drugs. I won't go into his policy positions in detail here, (there not all as far left as one might assume) since his current poll numbers are currently running around 1% in a poll with a 3.5% margin of error. He held a "mass donation" day in November, much like the one in which Ron Paul raised somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 mil.......Gravel's take: 10 grand! Don't spend it all in one place.



Dennis Kucinich-

This guy had the nerve to actually read the Patriot Act before voting on it! Must be some kind of whacko. He also voted against the Iraq war in 2002 because he thought it was a huge mistake and there were no WMD's. I bet he feels a little silly right now...... Oh, yeah right. Damnit, why didn't more of us listen? I won't be voting for Kucinich because he has too many positions I disagree with or find nutty/unworkable but I don't think he gets a fair shake from the media. (more on that later) I like the fact that he's not pretending to be something he's not, which is more than I can say for a lot of other candidates. If you feel that liberal policies are in the best interest for the country come out and make that argument and let the electorate decide. If you feel that the government should create a "Department of Peace" or a "Department of Candy Canes and Bright Red Choo-Choo Trains", then be up-front about it. And if you happen to have seen a UFO......then for God's sake don't ever mention it while running for president! I understand that a lot of people have seen things they can't explained but this is a popularity contest. I don't like that but that's the way it is. Elections are no longer decided just by policy positions, but by smoothness, camera-friendliness and charisma. So when people here the word "UFO" from a guy who isn't a media-darling to begin with it almost doesn't matter what else you say because once the "kook" label is applied it doesn't come off. This is too bad because I'd rather have more candidates who have actual ideas, principles, and positions on policy matters (whether I agree with them or not) than the current crop who will say anything they think will be popular, whether they actually believe it or not.



Chris Dodd-

Chris Dodd is currently polling dead last if you don't count Gravel. (and who the hell does?) He's drawn some criticism for some things he's done as committee chairman, and for a long time I've looked at him as kind of a poor man's Joe Biden. He's also known for being kind of a playboy (at least in the past). Basically there was nothing about Dodd that really stood out from the others in a positive way......until last month when he put a hold on the domestic surveillance bill. It's nice to know there's at least one Democrat in the Senate who isn't betraying the constitution on this issue. I don't know why more haven't caught on to this. You won the majority because you said you would end the war, defend the constitution and basically stand up to Bush. The reason your approval ratings are so low is because you cave in to him every time, often (as with the last FISA bill) giving him more than he asked for. So along comes Dodd who refuses to allow a bill to proceed that lets the telecoms off the hook for helping the administration BREAK THE LAW. (note: ordering spying on Americans without a warrant is a federal crime punishable by up to 15 years in prison) So what is the response of the Democratic leadership's response? Honor the hold in keeping with Senate procedure? Grow a pair and stand up to the President? No, they're going to try to push it through next month. They refer to this as grandstanding by Dodd. If that's true I personally would like to see more of this kind of grandstanding. I've had it up to here with "symbolic" this or "non-binding" that. And they wonder why they're viewed as being spineless. If you can't stand up to a president with the lowest approval rating in American history, how can I trust you to stand up to the Bin Laden's of the world? Maybe it's just the Republican in me that expects actual action and, you know, results. Sorry, side rant there, but I gained a lot of respect for Dodd on this one to the point that it overshadows my view of him on any other issue. Hell, at this point it wouldn't change my opinion if there were a scandal involving Dodd and a dead hooker.



Joe Biden-

I've always liked Biden. He has the rare propensity to run his mouth and say things that are completely inappropriate, offensive, and oh yeah TRUE. You know other people are thinking them but don't have the balls to actually say them (kind of like McCain used to). My favorite Biden moment was at the Howard University debate when he talked about personal responsibility in response to a question about AIDS in the Black community. They kept cutting to a shot of Al Sharpton staring daggers at him the whole time. It was hilarious. If experience and leadership ability were the sole criteria, he'd win the election hands down. The way I see it the two most important issues in this campaign are: foreign policy/war in Iraq, and how the constitution pertains to executive power and the rights of citizens with regard to intelligence gathering. As a former constitutional law attorney who has chaired both the Foreign relations and Judiciary committees Biden is a strong choice on these issues. He has more foreign policy experience than anyone else currently running in either party. He currently has the best strategy on what to do about the future of Iraq (well, actually the only strategy. "pull the troops out" or "keep the troops there for decades" aren't really plans about the nation of Iraq, so the Biden plan while not perfect wins by default.) He has also spoken strongly of restoring the War Powers Act as laid out in the constitution. He also has a reputation as being strong on crime, which is traditionally an area where the GOP has had an edge over the Democrats. So while Biden has a slim chance of winning the nomination I think he'd make a good running-mate for one of the big three, none of whom have any strong qualifications in these areas.



Bill Richardson-

Probably the most moderate of the Democratic field. Richardson has great leadership credentials: one of the most popular governors in the history of New Mexico, former secretary of Energy, ambassador to UN among other posts, and 5-time nominee for the Nobel prize. The big drawback Richardson faces is that nothing about him sets him apart in the eyes of the party base. No big negatives (except perhaps being too far to the right of the base), but no big break-out issue that excites people. On most of the issues that play with the primary voters, Richardson's positions are the same as those of the front-runners making it hard to gain any traction. I'll be surprised if he isn't the vice presidential nominee. He doesn't have as much experience as Biden, but he's probably bigger asset demographically in terms of winning the general election. Overall I have nothing bad to say about Richardson, which is more than I can say for.........



John Edwards-

So far I've come off as being pretty positive about most of the candidates, (probably more so than I intended in some cases) well that streak ends here. I don't care how much money John Edwards spends on a hair cut or how much attention he puts into his appearance. I don't care that he's ridiculously wealthy and running on poverty related issues. I don't have a problem with the fact that he's a former trial lawyer........I have a problem with the fact that he's a GOD DAMN "SLIP AND FALL" MAN! Every time I see his face on TV I half expect him to look in the camera and say "Have you been injured in an accident? If so call me 1-800-BAD-BACK". If this guy had been around in the 1800's I could totally picture him going town to town selling snake oil to rubes. He reminds me of one of those guys who comes on late night TV and tries to sell useless remedies guaranteed to do nothing for any physical ailment. To put it another way, I could agree with every word he says on every issue and I still wouldn't vote for him because I have zero confidence that he actually believes any of what comes out of his mouth. The ultimate in sleazy, "I'll say anything" shamelessness came in the '04 campaign when he said "If you elect John Kerry and me, people like Christopher Reeve are gonna rise up and walk". Either this is an incredibly strong faith in stem-cells or a pathetic attempt to take advantage of desperate people for political gain. I'll leave it up to you to decide which is more likely.

As an aside, I think the best thing to happen for his campaign so far was when Ann Coulter called him a fag. This led to the hardball encounter where Elizabeth Edwards called in and destroyed her in a subsequent verbal melee. It was very amusing to watch Coulter stammer before accusing the left of trying to silence here. (last time I checked she was the one calling for people to be shot or locked up for having different political views than hers) If anyone should be trying to silence Ann Coulter it should be the right. She's an embarrassment to republicans, not democrats.

Getting back to John Edwards, if I agreed totally with all his policies I would vote for Dennis Kucinich. He has the same positions on the issues, has way more than the roughly 15 years of experience Edwards has, and more importantly I have no doubt Kucinich actually believes what he is saying and hasn't based his views on whatever will get him the nomination. (Other than maybe on abortion. Kucinich was pro-life up until either '02 or '03) To anyone who would respond: "But Steve, Kucinich can't win the general election. People only care about image. Kucinich comes off as a weirdo and looks like Spock's father. Edwards is smooth on camera and a very pretty man." my response is that Edwards brought very little to the ticket in '04 (losing his own state, I might add) and that that's exactly the kind of thinking ( so and so would be the most electable) that cost you the '04 and maybe the 2000 elections. (more on that topic in the upcoming Hillary section)

In summary, the only contest I would vote for Edwards in is if he ran against Mitt Romney for the title of "most disingenuous candidate".



Barak Obama-
Mark my words. Barring any huge scandals (I'm talking "dead hooker" magnitude) this guy WILL be president sooner or later. He just has "it". Reagan had "it", Clinton had "it", Bush couldn't have less of "it". He's smooth, camera-friendly, a good orator, and projects a very presidential image. In an age of image these qualities are hard to overemphasize. His appeal to casual (or non-) followers of politics and those disenchanted with the process may be what puts him over the top this year. I've talked to people who love him without even knowing (or even caring) about his policy stances. And the Oprah endorsement won't hurt with the apolitical crowd either, 'cause girlfriend, it's Oprah. I'm not a big fan of basing your vote on personality, but I recognize that many people do. I think another major advantage is also tied in with his biggest drawback: inexperience. The fact that he is a fresh voice stems in part from his lack of experience. His opponents have (for good reason) made this a major issue. I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of a president with very little national government and no foreign policy experience to speak of (no, I don't consider traveling the world while growing up to be foreign policy experience). If the past 7 years should have taught us anything it's that "on the job training" for the leader of our nation can be an unmitigated disaster. ( maybe I'm not being fair here. Bush could have had a lot more experience and still been the worst president since Warren G. Harding. And I don't think Obama could be anywhere near that bad.) I also worry when candidates think they will be able to "change the culture" in Washington. When I hear this I roll my eyes and think "yeah, tell me how that turns out". Obama does have a major foreign policy advantage in not having supported the Iraq war. It's tough to gain traction running against stuff you were in favor of. He can also defuse some of the foreign policy weakness by picking a running mate like Biden or Richardson and assuring voters that he will actually listen to dissenting viewpoints within the cabinet. In a way not having a long record can be an advantage, especially to a centrist candidate because having no record means having no record to run away from. A lot of other candidates are clearly presenting themselves as something they are not or are abandoning principles by changing positions in the interest of electability. Which brings us to......

Hillary Clinton-
Hillary is the only candidate who can rally the party like no one else......the Republican party that is. Right now Hillary and her advisers are doing everything in their power to piss away the nomination. If people (supporters and opponents alike) see you as a tough, smart, ambitious woman (which she is) and you run away from that by trying to appear "warm and motherly"and "electable" you give away a major advantage. I have no doubt she would be an effective leader if elected, but unless she adapts it may not come to that. And what's the deal with her inability to give a straight answer to any question whatsoever? It's also very hard to run as the "anti-war", "anti-Bush" candidate when you vote with Bush's least popular policies on a consistent basis and receive more contributions from the weapons industry than any candidate from either party. "I'll end the war, maybe." "I don't like the patriot act, but voted for it" Couple this kind of doublespeak with a view of executive power that is not that far from that of the current administration, and you can see why this campaign isn't exactly firing up those on the left. You know, just once I'd like to here something honest and real from her (or some of the others for that matter) like: "I voted for the war because it was politically popular at the time, but now it isn't so I'm going the other way." That would be a major shock to me. She's been straddling the fence on a lot of issues for so long it was only a matter of time before she fell off. That finally happened with the fiasco of her comments on the driver's licence for illegal immigrants thing. "I said I understand it, not that I support it." I understand that being a centrist and compromising worked for Bill, but you know: Willie Mays held his bat all wrong, Mohammad Ali's hands were way too low while fighting. My point is the great ones often have enough talent to get away with things that would get other people KO'ed in a heartbeat. So emulating Bill (one of the 2 best pure politicians to come along in the last 40 years) may not be the best strategy. Speaking of Bill, he is (or has the potential to be) the most powerful weapon any candidate currently has in their arsenal and he is being sorely misused at this point. His job should be to go around reminding people how great he was and acting like the elder statesman he is. It doesn't hurt that he's inherently likable. (admit it, you like him. even if you can't stand the guy you like him in spite of yourself.) He helps the campaign in this way without even having to mention Hillary. But if the plan, as it seems to be, is to use him in the attack dog role he becomes a liability. It's just not done by ex-presidents. You didn't see Bush 41 going on talk shows to question his son's opponents. I think the major problem for Hillary right now also stems from front-runner-itis. She's trying to run out the clock while her opponents are being aggressive. I'm sick of hearing that every one's attacking her because she's a woman, too. That's the danger you run when you do nothing else to set yourself apart. She has no policy stance that isn't being addressed (usually more forcefully) by another candidate. When I think of Hillary, "former first lady" is the only thing that jumps out at me. If she wins, it'll be because the primary voters feel that she can win the general election due to name recognition (which may be true, but I remain skeptical). Haven't you in the Democratic party learned your lesson on that one? Wasn't that the rationale behind nominating John Kerry and Al Gore? electability? And they both proceeded to run inept campaigns and lose elections they should have won in a walk because they failed to win support for a more liberal agenda in the name of "bipartisanship". It would be better to nominate the person that presents the clearest arguments in support of your party's core principles. The Republicans don't have this problem. If they did Bush would have never beaten McCain. McCain would have beat Gore with one hand tied behind his back, but his party orthodoxy was lacking, so they went with Bush who appealed more to the base. If Hillary gets the nod, my predictions are as follows: She beats Rudy or Romney, she loses to McCain or Huckabee.

Up next my take on the GOP candidates :