Undecided and not loving the choices on the menu!

Below, I've briefly assembled my thoughts on each of the Democratic candidates* for President.  Unfortunately, as you will see, I have ruled out every single one of them.  

Now I'm not going to stand here and say that all your candidates are teh suck, but honestly, I'm having a tough time seeing the upside in some of these guys and gals... and I have a hunch that I'm not alone in having a secret desire that there may just be room for some heretofore unannounced candidate to enter the field...

Summaries of the candidates, over the fold....

Dodd: The ideal back-bench Senator for the Democratic Party-- a reliable vote (except on the AUMF, where he was wrong), was seemingly content to let the 46 or so Democratic Senators with more charisma deal with the cameras, until he inexplicably announced an inevitably futile run for president.

INTANGIBLES: Hair uniformly silver.  The last president that had a good head of silver hair was Warren Harding, I think.

VERDICT: Ruled out.  I refuse to vote for the 47th-most charismatic Democratic Senator in the primary unless he voted right on the Iraq War.  

Biden: The candidate most likely to crack a joke... a joke offensive to blacks, women, gays, hispanics, or native Americans, that is.  Of course his wrong vote on the AUMF wasn't very funny either...

INTANGLIBLES: If he had his natural hairline, he would probably often be mistaken for Patrick Leahy.

VERDICT:  Ruled out.  I actually sort of like the guy, but Kos hates this guy with a passion, and he follows the candidates closer than I do.

Obama: He once said of DailyKos: "One good test as to whether folks are doing interesting work is, Can they surprise me?  And increasingly, when I read Daily Kos, it doesn’t surprise me. It’s all just exactly what I would expect."  Who does this guy think he is, hating on DailyKos?

Intangibles:  The first black candidate for President with a serious chance (and yet I think I just heard a collective yawn from about 40 million black people)...

VERDICT: Ruled out.  Anybody who has trouble kicking a three-cigarette-per-day smoking habit doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to become President.

Richardson: Frumpy ex-diplomat, governor of a small state, can't debate his way out of a wet paper bag, has so much terrific experience that he makes dumb gaffes every other day.

Intangibles: Hoarse voice, sounds like he could get laryngitis at any moment, which might actually help his campaign, now that I think about it.

VERDICT: Ruled out.  I supported him initially, which put the kiss of death on him for sure.

Gravel:  Retired from public life since when I was in the third grade-- apparently retreating to a hermit-like life in the pine barrens of Alaska where he dreamed up all kinds of kooky ideas.

Intangibles:  If JFK were alive today, he would be one month younger than Gravel.**  

VERDICT: Ruled out, though I think he's in this for the long haul.  In fact, by the time I get to vote in the Ohio primary, I probably will be presented with a ballot with two choices: the prohibitive leader, and Gravel.  So I guess I better be taking a closer look at this guy :-P

Kucinich:  Before Kucinich took over as mayor of Cleveland, you'd freeze to death up there before you'd find two Republicans to rub together and start a fire.  By the time he was done, he'd made Republican George Voinovich into a savior and a hero.  'Nuff said about DK's executive abilities.

Intangibles:  Not his fault, I know, but seriously, he would come up to about the 3rd button on Fred Thompson's jacket.

VERDICT:  Ruled out.  But since I like to be positive, and I don't want to offend any Kucinich fans out there, let me just say that I'd vote for him over James Traficant for president.

Edwards: Millionaire trial lawyer turned uber-populist-- who spent the past few years filling up the coffers consulting for a hedge fund.  He was wrong on the AUMF but he's sorry.

INTANGIBLES: Well groomed-- I don't worry about him showing up for the debates with Nixon's 5-o'clock shadow.

VERDICT: Ruled out.  I'm not much of a populist, and if I was, I'd probably be looking for someone who has a populist pedigree extending back to sometime before 2005.

Clinton:  The most hated candidate on DailyKos, bar none.  She should be coming out with a sternly worded letter any day now, expressing how very very very very not surprised she is with what she reads on DailyKos these days.  Wrong on the AUMF, not even officially sorry about it!

Intangibles:  The first serious female candidate for President.  That must explain the excitement amongst most women I know, who can't stand her and tell me she's the one candidate who they would not vote for under any circumstances.

VERDICT: Ruled out.  I don't believe half of what I read in  the candidate diaries, but I can't vote for even half a pootie-hating, lobbyist-loving triangulator.

Well, looking on the bright side, Katie Couric is going to interview all the candidates this week-- that ought to clarify things!

* I promised someone a few days ago that I wouldn't write anything about the primaries ever.  Fortunately, I didn't say that I wouldn't ever write anything about the candidates, so I didn't technically lie!

** Okay, this is technically not true, but I bet I made somebody look it up!

•  Tips & flames

  I may have missed some of your candidate's subtle qualities, and for that I am ever so sorry!

  by skymutt on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:09:00 PM PDT

  •  I recc'd because

    you do a good job on the news digest when you do it and because saying anything about any of the candidates here can require a strong stomach and, dare i say it, courage.Oh and you didn't use the f word. My significant other teaches middle school kids and hears it all too frequently...it's just tiresome.

    by peagreen on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:38:10 PM PDT

  •  I'm assuming this is satire

    and it's very well done, spoofing on the sort of people who eliminate this or that candidate for insipid and shallow reasons.  Those type of diaries, aimed at one or another candidate, are so frustrating. because ultimately what the diarist is demanding is unattainable perfection (everyone has SOME liability) and a savior to come and make everything perfect. Understandable after W. but not realistic.

    by anastasia p on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:52:11 PM PDT

    •  Yes

      This is not exactly a sincere diary.  Some of it contains some element of how I really feel about the candidates-- I am for instance a little unimpressed by the fact that of the 4 Senators who were in office in 2002, none of them voted against the AUMF.  But I don't plan on using that as a strict litmus test.  I think you have to make your best guess as to how a person will perform in the presidency, and not get caught up in the past votes and so forth.

      by skymutt on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:57:40 PM PDT

      •  Your not being sincere,

        damn, I was about to switch to Ron Paul.

        by palantir on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 09:20:01 PM PDT

        •  You're definitely not being sincere :-)

          by skymutt on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 09:56:28 PM PDT

      •  are their promises worth anything?

        Reading between the snark they all suck in one way or another in terms of past performance and campaigning ability. But what about what they are promising to do? At least Kucinich and Richardson are promising to get us out of Iraq with no residual bases or troops. One of those Republicans, what was his name, is saying that too. ;-) Maybe Mike Gravel is saying it but I can't figure out half of what he's talking about. So that's some kind of plus, unless they're just lying.

        Or on health care we have Edwards, Clinton and Obama promising some kind of fix-up to the current system that will appeal to us middle class folks by not taking away the current for-profit insurance companies that we love so much and forcing us to let the government pay our medical bills. Or something. Like maybe they assume most of us want to see our medical claims denied so our insurance industry-laden 401(k) stock prices will rise? Not a plus. But maybe they're lying too and as soon as one of them gets in it will be single payer for all.

        Kucinich is trying to get Cheney impeached but otherwise nobody is talking about punishing the crimes that have been committed by members of the current administration. Just guessing you'd have to say that it probably means the Bushies are going to get off scot-free. Not a plus.

        Everyone is promising to roll back the Bush tax cuts for top 1% as far as I can tell. Hopefully they're not lying and they intend to do something about the growing disparity in wealth between the top whatever (10%? 5%? 3%) and the rest of us. That would be a big plus. But it would take a huge change in taxation to get us back to the now fondly remembered days of Eisenhower, or even Kennedy.

        So far, based on promises, Kucinich, for instance, looks good. But are any of them sincere in their promises? If their past records are crap and their campaign promises aren't worth spit, then what are we supposed to use to make our decision? Who has an "honest face" or who "looks Presidential" or who is the same sex or race as us or who seems like "the kind of person you'd want to have a beer with"?

        by glaser on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:46:03 PM PDT

  •  rec'd and hugged...

    nice work.

    :-)

    by kredwyn on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 09:11:25 PM PDT

    •  Thanks kredwyn

      Glad you liked it :-)  I definitely needed that hug!

      by skymutt on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 09:57:57 PM PDT

•  Ugh

  Intangibles:  The first black candidate for President with a serious chance (and yet I think I just heard a collective yawn from about 40 million black people)...

  I considered giving a rec to your diary.  Then I read this sentence.

  Rec ruled out.

  by snout on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:14:11 PM PDT

  •  I will take that as a flame

    You don't sense a lack of excitement over Obama amongst many black people?  I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing, but that's my perception.

    by skymutt on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:18:10 PM PDT

    •  But you'll vote for Dem candidate on GE?

      Hope so.

      by timber on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:21:04 PM PDT

      •  Absolutely.

        Like I say, here in Ohio, we don't really get a say in the primary process usually anyway.  So, it matters little who I support in terms of a vote.

        by skymutt on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:23:07 PM PDT

    •  Not a flame.

      Just an "ugh".

      I won't pretend to speak for black people (as if they were monolithic and it would even be possible), but what I've been told from African American frinds is that there is a strong undercurrent of "they'll never let a black guy win" being played out within the community.

      I don't think that's yawn you are hearing.  That's hundreds of years of trauma.  And it ain't funny.  

       

      by snout on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 08:53:07 PM PDT

      •  There's a difference...

        ...between saying that blacks are monolithic down to the individual level and recognizing a strong historical bias amongst blacks as a population to vote for black candidates when available.

        The only other black candidate who had a credible chance was Jesse Jackson in 1988-- and he took down a whopping 92%! of all ballots cast by blacks in the primaries, while only getting 12% of white votes.  Now, we are almost a generation past 1988, and hopefully we are a bit less racially polarized as a country, but a lot of those voters are still voting.  Blacks lined up strongly behind Jackson in '88, and 92% is about as monolithic as it gets demographically speaking.

        Voting is about expressing self interest, and I think it's entirely normal and expected for blacks to see some self-interest in having a bias towards black candidates in 2008 America.  So when I see Obama trailing Hillary amongst blacks in some polls, I interpret that as some yawns for Obama.  

        by skymutt on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 09:42:58 PM PDT

      •  By the way...

        ...if what you say is true, if there really is a "they'll never let a black guy win" attitude out there, it certainly did not reflect itself in 1988, with Jackson getting 92% of the black vote.  So you'd be saying that this cynicism is a new phenomenon.

        Now I don't doubt that there's skepticism of the system, but I'd bet that very few people would not vote for Obama based on such an effect.  Maybe a person with that attitude wouldn't vote at all, but if they bothered to go to the polls, they'd still vote for Obama if they preferred him.

        by skymutt on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 09:50:58 PM PDT

•  Well

  I wish that Gore had run.

  by oceanstar17 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:16:03 PM PDT

•  I used tyo support Kucinich, until his wife said

  That Dennis would seriously consider an invite from Ron Paul's runningmate.

  It was on Huffpo last week, and I cant fing the link

  by Goodbye Kitty on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:19:25 PM PDT

  •  I heard that...

    DK and his big ego would kill to get anywhere on any ticket.  That's just who he is.  I think you should still support him if you like him otherwise.

    by skymutt on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:21:47 PM PDT

  •  ...

    

    by Trix on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:25:54 PM PDT

    •  Perfect n/t

      by brainwave on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:27:20 PM PDT

      •  Thanks... I made it a couple of days ago

        and here's the companion image...

        

        by Trix on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:29:07 PM PDT

        •  nice job! n/t

          by peagreen on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:51:03 PM PDT

  •  Not that AGAIN

    Here, listen to what he said it's about 34 into it and you can move the slider ahead once it has loaded.

    Question

    by snackdoodle on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:47:27 PM PDT

  •  Dennis himself said it

    It's not fair to blame Elizabeth for this flap. Thre's even audio of Dennis saying it posted online at the Cleveland Plainly Republican's website, cleveland,com. Maybe he was joking or making light of a questioner's comment but he did say it. I think he has backed away from it now and the Paul campaign has thoroughly rejected the idea.

    by anastasia p on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 08:00:31 PM PDT

•  Then Move

  Or run yourself.  

  I have a great candidate, and he is also my Senator.

  And you can give all the talking points media BS you want.

  I know Obama is up to the job because I have watched him.

  I watched him run for Senate, when no one knew who he was.

  I watched him destroy the Republican in debates.  Yeah, I know it was Keyes, but he was masterful.  He just blew away every Keyes argument with one line, and then said, look, here is what we need to do.  It was a landslide.

  And maybe you need to become more involved, rather then sitting there bitching, and this goes to all the Progressives that think Obama is to center.

  Obama does listen to us.  We talked to him about not cerifiying Bush before he left for Washington.

  He said, you want the first thing I do in the Senate to be contesting an election?   But guess what, he listened.  He gave a speech about the election problems and has been working on reforms to fix the problems.

  So if you are undecided, that is your problem.  Just vote for Kucinich and you can be one of the 3% that think they are making a difference.

  by sillyparty on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:21:16 PM PDT

  •  I could destroy Alan Keyes in a debate

    Just sayin'.

    :-)

    by Trix on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:26:49 PM PDT

  •  Actually, of the candidates...

    I have probably ruled out Obama the least.  

    I actually watched him destroy the very destroyable Alan Keyes in those debates.  But he has been somewhat of a disappointment in the campaign so far.  

    You're taking my thoughts a bit more seriously than they were meant BTW, but that's okay...

    by skymutt on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:27:37 PM PDT

    •  "...ruled out Obama the least."

      No more calls; we have a non-loser.

      I am equally non-plussed and non-motivated and I thought rubbing my nose in it might help.  <sigh>

      Thanks for the diary; I enjoyed your POV.

      by john07801 on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 11:44:31 PM PDT

  •  BTW...

    You never answered my question in a recent diary you wrote (and got savaged for).

    Is your username inspired by the Monty Python sketch?

    by Trix on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:27:50 PM PDT

  •  He was right that

    he was in no position to be the voice that contested the election and so he wasn't. That fell to Barbara Boxer in the Senate and, in the House, to my wonderful congresswoman, Stephanie Tubbs Jones who merely asked that the irregularities that plagued our state be investigated and to this day our newspaper, the Plainly Republican (Plain Dealer) will still use it againt her, dragging it out even in the midst of a generally favourable article, as they'll find some Republican flunkie to talk about what a fool she made of herself suggesting  that Ohio's 2004 election had any problems whatsoever.

    Blew away Keyes? LOL. I still have Keyes' emails from the campaign (I signed up for his newsletter for comedy value) and Keyes was blown away before the debates even started.

    by anastasia p on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 08:08:10 PM PDT

•  Did you forget the snark tag?

  I'm undecided too, but your reasons are a bit... offensive? Mostly offensively irrelevant, but in some cases just - offensive?

  Me, I'm looking for the new approach, and I don't really see that in anybody. Clinton - her entire campaign is based on being more of Clinton. No thanks. Obama? I really, really like Obama on a personal level. And he says he's the new kid. And he does have a proven track record as somebody trying to bridge divides and find new solutions. But he seems to believe in the 1990s Clinton play book of politics, no? Edwards - he's da man for me in term of policies. He's the candidate who get's it right on most of the issues I care about (one major exception being capital punishment). But I don't really see anything genuinely new to his brand of populism (prove me wrong, Edwards supporters!). And I... well, I happen to not like Edwards on the personal level. I'm one of the people that have this weird trust/cred issue with Edwards. I'm sorry, but there's something about him that comes across as vaguely fake. Richardson? Great resume, but his views of how politics works are even more stuck in the 1990s mold than Clinton's and Obama's. I'm not going to say anything about the rest except they're not going anywhere from where they are and they seem to be where they are for a reason.

  I was waiting for Gore. Now I'm just waiting for Godot.

  by brainwave on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:26:04 PM PDT

  •  Of course it's snarky

    I prefer irreverent to offensive though... and besides-- am I not allowed to have thoughts about the candidates that are superficial, that are not grounded in evidence?

    by skymutt on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:31:37 PM PDT

    •  D'oh - sure you are

      But things are such so much more comfortably rubricatable when people use that snark tag. (Btw. you're right about Gravel, but Kucinich too will definitely stick it out to the bitter end - you gotta give him that.)

      by brainwave on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:34:49 PM PDT

      •  Meh, I don't mind if people misunderstand

        If it needs a snark tag, it's probably missed the mark.

        by skymutt on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:40:31 PM PDT

•  I have to ask because

  I'm having serious difficulty chosing an answer for the poll...is it really true that Senator Hillary Clinton hates pooties?
  btw I heard a bit of a conversation on "On the Media" yesterday about how the choice of using "Hillary" and not her title was in fact unwise.

  by peagreen on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:31:19 PM PDT

  •  There was a diary here...

    ...that put some negative spin on Hillary giving away Socks the cat (to a staffer, I think)  It was very thin evidence that she hates pooties IMO.  But can we take a chance?

    by skymutt on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:33:40 PM PDT

    •  Gasp!!!!

      tell me it's not true!!!! I loved Socks. I have a postcard of him. My daughter loved him. I think you may be right..we can't!(geeeez who cares how thin the evidence is anyway)

      by peagreen on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:42:18 PM PDT

    •  Actually she didn't just "give Socks away."

      Socks was spending most of his time with a White House staffer to whom he became very attached and when the Clintons left the White House, they allowed that staffer to keep Socks. He went to a friendly home with a person who loved him. There is no evidence that any of the Cintons hate cat unlike the clear evidence that Mittens doesn't respect dogs.

      by anastasia p on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 08:12:47 PM PDT

      •  Bottom line:

        No sane person should take the story into account one way or another when picking a candidate.

        by skymutt on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 08:20:12 PM PDT

        •  who you callin' sane

          I read the news....i lost that a looooong time ago!

          by peagreen on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 08:23:31 PM PDT

          •  I still think I'm sane

            most insane people probably thing the same thing though :-p

            by skymutt on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 08:31:05 PM PDT

      •  well thank you for the info

        but I fairly recently had to let our pootie of the ripe old age of 20+ pass on...a commitment is a commitment. Socks was part of the advertising you know. I'm feeling a little conflicted now.

        by peagreen on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 08:22:13 PM PDT

•  Who among them would bring health care?

  I really think Hillary will be the one to pull it off--bring universal health insurance to everyone.

  Thus,  I really think she is the best among the field.

  Believe me,  I gave myself all the reasons to unlike her.  

  But among the candidates--I think she would be the most effective president.

  I surveyed the GOP field--why are they running.  They dont have that one big idea except be anti-Hillary.  But Hillary has that one big mission---I think that she would like that to be her legacy to bring universal health insurance.

  Just like the guy who brought health insurance to Canada and is now revered.  I think that she would want to do that.

  by timber on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 07:36:17 PM PDT

•  The 'black thing'

  You talk about a collective yawn among the black community that somehow negates the fact that the candidate is black.  But what is this yawn you're talking about?  There is excitement for Obama everywhere he's campaigned.  Did you think that every black person in the country would start dancing around with tamborines because the candidate is black?  Did you ever consider that maybe the same issues apply?  I'm guessing even a black person can see a new politician show up and say, 'Well, I don't know this guy yet.  Not sure if I want to support him.'  You think they shouldn't do that because the candidate is black?  His numbers go up once people get to know him in every type of community he's gone into.  You make a kind of creepy assumption about the black community there whether you intended it or not.  

  by Sun dog on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 08:37:40 PM PDT

  •  No, not really.

    First of all, you're taking the diary a bit more seriously than it was intended.  Of course, many people are enthusiastic about Obama.  Of course every single person should make their own decision when voting, and ideally, the race of the candidate would be totally irrelevant.  I'm just looking at the real world, where dare I say most white and black people have real world racial biases-- which I would expect to work in Obama's favor amongst a decent percentage of black people-- and yet polls I've seen show Hillary with greater support of blacks than Obama.  "Collective yawn" is hyperbole, but I think Obama is underperforming amongst black voters so far.  Maybe that's a sign of Obama's strong principles-- maybe he's not pandering on racial issues.  I'm not saying it's good or bad.

    As far as the creepiness factor goes, it's in the eye of the beholder I guess.  If you think expecting the black population to have some bias towards supporting a black candidate is racist, then so be it.  I know who I am, and can take the criticism.    

    by skymutt on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 09:08:17 PM PDT

•  Wow. Obama said that about Daily Kos?

  "...And increasingly, when I read Daily Kos, it doesn’t surprise me. It’s all just exactly what I would expect."

  WTF?!  Talk about a breathtaking oversimplification and dismissal!  EVERY time I read Daily Kos there's something surprising and unexpected.  That's one of the main charms of this site.  

  by KLinVA on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:13:59 PM PDT

  •  Yeah...he said that...

    by kredwyn on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:14:33 PM PDT

•  Jeeezus people, it's a funny diary

  no matter who you support.  Lighten up a little!

  "..most likely to crack a joke... a joke offensive to blacks, women, gays, hispanics, or native Americans, that is"

  "...The first serious female candidate for President.  That must explain the excitement amongst most women I know, who can't stand her and tell me she's the one candidate who they would not vote for under any circumstances."

  Great stuff!  Witty and well-written!

  by KLinVA on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 10:38:18 PM PDT