MoveOn, a progressive organization devoted to battling the evil currently personified by GW Bush, has decided to let all its members vote on what candidate MoveOn should support. Each Democratic candidate was asked for a statement and was sent a few questions to answer. I haven't read the statements but I looked at the questions. Lieberman obviously doesn't take MoveOn seriously, since he just basically send the url to his website and didn't answer the questions. But no one at MoveOn is any more interested in a Republicrat (or is that a Demoplican?) like Lieberman than he is in us.
The most instructive question is the one on Truth, in which the candidates are basically asked if they're willing to call Bush a liar. Most of the candidates tip toe around this one, saying, I want to know the truth, I'm determined to learn what the president knew and if any information is withheld, but three, Carol Mosely Braun, Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich, are pretty open about their mistrust of GWB. They are easily the most appealing candidates.
Truthfully, they all say sort of similar things - war is bad, environment is good, poor people shouldn't starve to death - all those things that differentiate the two parties, but some express those ideas more strongly than others. John Edwards says a number of good things, really, but there's something slippery about many of his answers. Gephardt says some good things but I have a generally unfavorable concept of him as a middle-of the road political insider. Kerry seems pretty good, and likes to throw in a lot of facts and talk about specific plans, which I like. Sharpton tosses off short, rather vague answers that suggest he was sitting in the bathtub while his secretary took down answers he came up with off the top of his head while thinking of something else.
So now the question is, who do I vote for? I like Braun, but I think she'd be as surprised as any of us if a black woman became the president of the US in this decade. My theory is she's running just so Sharpton isn't the only African-American representive. My favorite is certainly Kucinich. He's as liberal as they come, and while all the candidates more or less talk the talk, Kucinich walks the walk like crazy. Other candidates say, we shouldn't have had a war with Iraq, but Kucinich is the only one saying, I voted against the war. At the same time, Kucinich has long shot written all over him. The Daily Show had clips of some of the candidates asking about where the weapons of mass destruction are, and Jon Stewart said you could tell how viable a candidate was by how vociferous he was on the matter, with Kucinich's shouted outrage pegging his as the longshot. It's an interesting point, and really, the most liberal candidate never wins. Often the least liberal wins, which is why Lieberman worries me.
Dean is interesting though. He seems as liberal as Kucinich, but simply doesn't have the same proof as Kucinich that he will put his money where his mouth is. But he's very good at phrasing things in such a way as to make Bush sound dangerous - he likes referring to him as a radical, and I think that's the right approach. So I think he might be the liberal who has some chance of winning.
But I wish MoveOn's sites had little videoclips of the candidates, because I can't tell from their words who is charismatic and who will put people off. We need a Clinton, not a Gore, not in terms of policy but just in terms of likability. I'm leaning towards Dean, but don't know if Dean has charm. The picture of Edwards on MoveOn's sites is the best, with him looking rugged and handsome, and Kerry has a Herman Munster look that could be a problem, but who's going to be good in a debate?
At any rate, a rabid dog would make a better president than GW, and right now I think everyone acceptable except Lieberman and Sharpton (I'm not going to even bother explaining why Sharpton is a bad idea).
