I will definately vote for Dean in our state primary on March 9th. I think that one of the smartest things Dean did was to keep his name on the ballot because it keeps him alive and the debate wide open.
Once the convention starts, it will probably be Edwards or Kerry. Let the delegates decide. I'll vote for whomever they choose in the general.
Back to now. I don't like Edwards or Kerry and was never conflicted about who I'd support. Neither of them have ever had to balance a budget nor have they developed policies that were wise, executional and that accomplished what they set out to accomplish, like Dr. Dean has.
We make a mistake when we support Edwards based on the "niceness" quotient and the false perception that he never smeared Dean. Edwards is just more adept at attacking Dr. Dean than Mr. Kerry was. (Southerners are the BEST at this).
Kerry has far more experience than Edwards and is not the hawk that Edwards is, yet, they were both either "snowed" by Bush's WMD evidence or they chose to ignore the obvious and support Bush anyway. Neither one has the proven executive abilities of Dr. Dean nor his ability to correctly analyze a problem and to develop its solution.
Edwards is a member of the intelligence committee. He voted for the Iraq war and continues to defend that decision. Well, so much for intelligence...
The only hope we have of beating Bush is with Kerry because he was a vet and can take the wood to Bush's behind. But...we all anticipate that Bush will have the goods, (whatever they are/aren't - with Bush it won't matter) on Kerry.
Edwards doesn't have much experience and Bush will make him look truly green, thus scaring the electorate in these times of fear.
So..which do I prefer? Neither. If sincerity and wise policies determined the winner instead of electability - Dean would be our nominee.
Peter Beinart, editor of the New Republic was on C-Span yesterday morning giving his analysis of the current election. The New Republic endorsed Joe Lieberman.
The question was raised about Howard Dean's (yet to be made at that point) announcement that he is quitting the race. Mr. Beinart was asked
about the possibility of Dean starting a 527 to raise money for other candidates and to continue to keep alive, his ideals and message.
Mr. Beinart replied that he doesn't see why, now that Kerry and Edwards have co-opted Dean's message, anyone would want to contribute to Dean's 527. I had to laugh. Beinart seems to be arguing that winning the election is all that matters - once again we get the "electability" word. He is an example of people who just
don't get it. People who do are more concerned with the "sincerity" word (which I have yet to hear people call it, but hope they will
begin to do so soon)!
Some of us believe that sincerity behind the policies one espouses is what is needed to make one "electable". This would make for a
paradigm shift. Imagine, if the electorate made sincerity one of their primary concerns, how many politicians wouldn't even get a second glance. This would make the remaining candidates scrutable on mainly one issue - the wisdom of their policies.
Ah....I am pragmatic enough to believe this an impossibility (mainly because much of the general electorate assumes there is no such thing as a sincere candidate). But, never-the-less, striving for the ideal is a spiritual thing that keeps one energized.
Back to reality:
Since we're basing our vote on electability here - I'm praying that momentum continues for the democrats and Bush is defeated. I don't care who beats him. And that's the problem - not caring. But, if Bush wins, we might as well stay home and review what idiots we were in 2003 so, hopefully, we'll win in '08.