For what it’s worth, I’m making my endorsement for president, and there’s not much change from the last time around. Though his chances of being nominated are miniscule, I’m once again on board with Dennis Kucinich.
I’ve never voted in the primary for the same person I voted for in the general election. A brief history:
In 1976, when I was nine, I walked precincts in Carmel for Mo Udall in the primary. Mom voted for Carter in the general.
In 1980, I had a Teddy Kennedy bumpersticker on my Schwinn. Mom voted for John Anderson in the general.
In 1984, I was too young to vote by a couple of months. Walked precincts for Jesse Jackson in the primary; Mom voted for Mondale in the general.
In 1988, the first election I was old enough to vote in, I voted for Jesse in the primary and Dukakis in the general.
In 1992, I voted for Jerry Brown in the primary and Bill Clinton in the general. This remains the one presidential election in which I voted for the winning candidate. (Deo volente, we’ll make it two next year!)
In 1996, I voted for Clinton in the primary but Ralph Nader in the general.
In 2000, I voted for Bill Bradley in the primary, Nader (again) in the general.
In 2004, I voted for Kucinich in the primary, Kerry in the general.
I like Barack Obama; who couldn’t? My heart is with Hillary for the general election, but if it turns into a Obama-Clinton war, I can sit on the sidelines with my loveable lefty, the wunderkind of Cleveland, the most consistently progressive member of Congress.
And once the dust has settled, I’ll back the party nominee.
My social conservative friends, meanwhile, are unhappy. They loathe McCain, they loathe Giuliani, and Romney’s late-in-life switch to a pro-family stance seems to be very tenuous. (See the hot water he’s in with the hard right now.) They like them some Sam Brownback, but he’s got no more chance than does Dennis. I know a few dear wingnut friends of mine who are backing the modern Cato the Elder, Tom Tancredo, but his candidacy is Sharptonesque at best.
I’ve got a good feeling about 2008, but it’s a long, long way away.
Kucinich should be very appealing to me — progressive about almost everything, never at any time supported the invasion of Iraq, vegan, and so on. But I just can’t get over the fact that he’s only recently left behind a very deeply anti-abortion position. Obviously, though, that’s nowhere near being a deal breaker for you, Hugo!
I wanted to vote for Carol Mosley Braun in the last primary. She isn’t vegan (at least, as far as I know) but she’s just as progressive as Kucinich, has always taken a strong pro-choice stance, and is an African-American woman from Chicago (she even got her bachelor’s degree from the same school I was attending at the time). She also held quite a few impressive `firsts’: first African-American woman in the US Senate, first African-American Democrat in the Senate, first female Senator from Illinois. Wouldn’t it be great if she could add first African-American President and first female President to that list? Sadly, just a few days before the Illinois primary, she dropped out of the race. I can’t remember whether I ended up going with Kucinich or Dean, but neither of them were exactly what I wanted in a candidate.
I voted for Kucinich in the primary last time, and I probably will again. Any thoughts on Bill Richardson, Hugo?
Hugo said :“My social conservative friends, meanwhile, are unhappy. They loathe McCain…” Really? Says you… ;)
FYI FWIW your Mom and I have the same record except for one election, the Mondale vote. And I’ve got you beat - I’ve never voted for a winning candidate in the general election, ever!
As for Hillary, IMO she’s unelectable (even if I did have the inclination to vote for her, which of course I don’t) but Obama, now there’s a winner! The Democrats would be completely insane to nominate Hillary instead of Obama, or anyone else for that matter. But then, the Democrats do have a track record of such things…
Chiming in for the libertarians here…Ron Paul. Not perfect, but probably one of the strongest potential candidates we hedgehogs have ever had. Which ain’t saying much, granted, and he probably has a chance every bit as slim as Kucinich, but as long as he’s in the race he’s my boy.
Well, Mr. Bad, hard-core social conservatives don’t trust McCain on abortion and gay rights, and they remember his slurs about BJU in the 2000 election. James Dobson, who still seems to have some clout with the far right, calls McCain “absolutely unacceptable.”
Kucinich’s wrestling over abortion matches my own. He and I have been on a similar journey, and I know full well that what some perceive as flip-flopping can actually be the consequence of an agonizing period of prayer and reflection.
I think Bill Richardson would be a terrific vice-president. In fact, I think he’s the odds-on favorite to be either Hillary or Barack’s #2 man.
I’d say that, since the Republican field is a tad smaller than the Democrat one, Sam Brownback has more of a chance than some might expect. Those conservative on the “life issues” (abortion, embryo-destructive research) will be looking for someone other than Giuliani or McCain. Santorum isn’t running and therefore Brownback is most likely the candidate to fit that bill. I’m not wild about his sentiments against gay marriage, but support some of his other efforts.
Brownback winning the nomination would be a dream come true for the left; it would be a “McGovern moment” for the GOP. He ain’t picking up any of the centrist voters who deserted the GOP in November ‘06, and he could hand the White House to us easily. I fear McCain, and I fear Romney.
Mr. Bad wrote:
As for Hillary, IMO she’s unelectable (even if I did have the inclination to vote for her, which of course I don’t) but Obama, now there’s a winner!
They’re both all fluff and no substance. Obama??? You must be kidding.
I fear McCain, and I fear Romney.
Frankly, I think McCain’s attempts to pander to the further right elements in the Republican party have hurt his image among independents. Between his appearances at certain southern colleges and the perceived appeasement of the administration, he’s sacrificing his maverick image for what he hopes will be support from the base.
Polls show that support for McCain in New Hampshire among independents is tanking. He also loses in hypothetical match-ups against Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. So don’t despair too much.
I heart Obama, but honestly, this is the first year where I’ve liked a lot of candidates in the Democratic field.
Why Brown in ‘92? I thought his outsider shtick was a bit … incredible … given his status as a member of California’s pre-eminent political dynasty.
[Full disclosure: I was a Larry Agran man in 1992]
Hugo said: “Well, Mr. Bad, hard-core social conservatives don’t trust McCain”
I thought about this thread last night and realized that I’m definitely no social conservative - I’m fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Abortion? I have no problem with it (in fact, I advocate for choice for men as well so I’m more progressive than a lot of folks here). Gay marriage? Why not - hets don’t seem to do a very good job of it, so perhaps our homosexual brothers and sisters might do better (and that might be what fundies are afraid of). So-called “war on drugs?” End it. Now. Put the money into treatment programs. Etc. Thus, I can see why my voting record matches your Mom’s so closely.
I’m completely in the Libertarian camp these days, so I’m with The Chief - Ron Paul. And yes, there are some conservative Libertarians, but a lot of us are socially liberal. I think that both parties portray as a fringe wackos because they’re scared shitless of the fact that if the general public had a good sense of what Libertarians stand for we’d make huge inroads into the support base of the Republicats and Demublicans.
Tom said: “They’re both all fluff and no substance. Obama??? You must be kidding.” Heck no Tom. I said Obama’s a winner - I didn’t say he had any qualifications for the office. If you think qualifications matter then you must have been asleep for the last 6 years. Being a winner in elections requires making the pitch and completing the sale, and a guy like Obama has lefties and centrists creaming in their jeans. Not only does he not have the ocean liner full of baggage that Hillary has (she’s as crooked as a dog’s busted rear leg), he’s even more PC than she is, and political correctness is very much what elections are all about. The majority of the people don’t vote based on qualifications, ability, etc., they vote on image.
If pretty boys like Obama were electable, why didn’t his white counterpart, John Edwards, do better in ‘04? The only reason anyone likes Obama now is that too few people know about the paltry political record that he has. Once they do, and they figure out he’s a few shades to the left of Karl Marx, he’ll be just as unelectable as any more qualified candidate. I mean, c’mon. The majority of the American people favor some abortion rights, but they do not favor a woman’s “right” to kill a baby survives an abortion and is born alive. And they favor some gun control, but they don’t favor a total handgun ban like Chicago’s, coupled with a policy of prosecuting anyone who uses an otherwise illegal handgun in lawful self defense. Even most Illinois Democrats have more sense than that, and to win the Presidency, he’d have to carry a lot of states well to the right of Illinois.
Obama’s popular now in part because he’s unknown as anything but a pretty boy to all but a few political junkies like me. That will change by November ‘08, assuming he’s still in the race by then.
Ah, Kucinich. I loved Kucinich first time around. I am probably voting for him in the primary, due to my selfish love of America… thought it would be nice if he adopted an ideal stance on Iraq, too… for example, if he were to advocate handing the mess to the UN instead of just getting the hell out, that would be fantastic.
I voted for Brown in 1992 because I admired him as governor; I’ve been a fan of his since I was seven.
I respect the intellectual consistency of my libertarian friends, and can only hope that more fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republicans go Libertarian and rob the GOP of a valuable set of votes!
My partner and I heard Dennis Kucinich speak in Santa Cruz, California while campaigning the last election. He had a totally sympathetic, supportive audience. He seemed very inept at responding to questions and connecting with the audience. IF he can’t do well with a “hippie, leftist” type supportive audience, how could he possibly do well under the pressures of an election with other audiences.
We went interested in him and left disheartened. I heard him speak several years earlier while not campaigning and he seemed a good speaker and well informed.
I couldn’t take him seriously until or unless I heard him speak clearly and well before an audience again.
That’s interesting, Geo; I’ve heard him speak and thought he was self-deprecatingly funny, articulate, and passionate. He connected well; perhaps in Santa Cruz he had an off night. Happens to the best of us!
“Choice” for men is about as socially progressive as the Great Compromise.
Antigone said: ““Choice” for men is about as socially progressive as the Great Compromise.”
Actually, I think that the Great Compromise (aka The Connecticut Compromise) was quite good, socially progressive at the time it was adopted, and probably saved the states. Indeed, in a similar fashion, if we had at least some representation of men’s interests post-conception (vs. the current system of male slavery via the unilateral decisions of women) we might be able to slow or even halt the exponential worsening of relationships between men and women. What we’re seeing now is ever-increasing suspicion, animosity and outright hostility between men and women, in no small part due to the reduction of men’s status in the family to mere wage slave and beast of burden.
In lieu of choice for men, then watch what happens when the male BC pill becomes widely available. You’ll see.
Tom said: “They’re both all fluff and no substance. Obama??? You must be kidding.” Heck no Tom. I said Obama’s a winner - I didn’t say he had any qualifications for the office. If you think qualifications matter then you must have been asleep for the last 6 years. Being a winner in elections requires making the pitch and completing the sale, and a guy like Obama has lefties and centrists creaming in their jeans. Not only does he not have the ocean liner full of baggage that Hillary has (she’s as crooked as a dog’s busted rear leg), he’s even more PC than she is, and political correctness is very much what elections are all about.
Mr Bad, I wish this was your blog and not Hugo’s. I suspect this entry will be banned by Hugo but I want to say that there are many, many posters who totally agree and endorse your views Mr Bad.
Let’s stay off the choice for men issue, please, and stay narrowly on the issue of candidates/
I’m left, Mr. Bad and Obama doesn’t have me creaming anywhere, but especially in my jeans. You’re right though, he could get the nod and qualifications have zilch-ola to do with it. I’d sooner vote for Ron Paul than Obama, HRC or Gore, whose carbon-tax proposal sounds like Social Security “reform” with a different name.
Ok Hugo, I hear re. CFM. However, it was indeed you who brought up choice for women when you said this: “Kucinich’s wrestling over abortion matches my own. He and I have been on a similar journey, and I know full well that what some perceive as flip-flopping can actually be the consequence of an agonizing period of prayer and reflection.” I was only adding to the discussion from a decidedly MRA perspective and celebrating diversity. ;)
Hugo, what exactly do you mean by “pro-family”? Do you really think it’s appropriate for you to use that term?
In referring to Romney, I’m using the language that those who oppose same-sex marriage use for themselves. It’s a courtesy call to allow others to use their own euphemisms, however inappropriate they may seem.
Why would it be inappropriate to use the term pro-family?
Dave, because it implies that people who support same-sex marriage are anti-family, which is not true, and implying that is therefore uncivil. In my view such people are pro-heterosexual-patriarchy and anti-any-any-other-kind-of-family, which is a far cry from being truly pro-family. I don’t find your call very courteous to the pro-same-sex-marriage side, Hugo.
I also think it’s a bad term because it’s not at all clear what it means. “Pro-family” is vague enough to encapsulate all kinds of right-wing things– it could refer to gay marriage or parental notification or any number of issues. So it’s just confusing.