Democratic Presidential Debate

[EneME]

Just wondering if anyone saw it and what they thought of the arguments and the candidates. I know this is a left-ist forum, but I think some valid points were brought up (especially about the failure of the Bush admin.) and we saw where each candidate stands on issues.

[BuyOurEverything]

Lieberman is a fool. I fail to see how he is a democrat. The only intelligent thing he said was the part about immigrants and that's only because his family were immigrants.

[SonofRage]

Kucinich is the only one of them that I can honestly support.

[truthaddict11]

none deserve any respect or votes

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I agree with Comrade SonofRage that Kucinich is the best of the Democratic candidates. The Rev. Al Sharpton also interests me, with talk of making amendments to the Constitution for health care, voting rights, and equality for women. By the way, Sharpton is a minister but he is hardly in favor of any kind of theocracy. He gets on TV as a civil rights advocate, but I do not think he is getting any serious attention as a presidential candidate. It does not seem that Sharpton or Kucinich will get through the primaries, though. We will probably end up seeing Kerry, Gephardt, or Dean as the Dem nominee. Those three do not impress me at all...

[YKTMX]

I honestly know very little about this but off the little I've heard, Kerry seems like my favourite son-of-a-***** of the lot. Incidentally, I think the Dems could make Monica Lewinsky their candidate in '04 and still whip Bush's ass.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

YouKnowTheyMurderedX,
I am not impressed with John Kerry. He has a great image... he might be the second coming of John Kennedy. He has what can be described as a presidential appearance. But by his performance in the Senate... ick. He voted for the Patriot Act and gave Bush a blank check to invade Iraq. Now in the primary season, Kerry is trying to be some kind of populist, but so is John Edwards. Edwards, with his demeanor and conservative politics, is more like the second coming of Bill Clinton. If Edwards is trying to be a populist, it just goes to show how all of the Dems try to play as populists to pander to the liberal base of their constituency. Rest assured come the general election, Kerry and Edwards will run to the right to pick up corporate dollars and try to pick up centrist voters.

[PFP Revolutionary]

I'll do a write-in vote for Mickey Mouse (there are a few hundred or thousand every election) just to make Dubya look like an ass. Though I don't think I'll have to try to hard to do that. PEACE :ph34r:

[Nobody]

I fail to see how we can support any of them. Vote SWP, although that would be a wasted vote.

I personally prefer goofy over mickey.

[truthaddict11]

does it matter who the "democrats" nominate? seriously when have "democrats" or anyone for that matter really made a big difference than thier so called counterparts? bourgousie "democracy" is nothing that the working class should be believe or have faith in, I dont think that they can be a "replacement" for Bush or any politician so supporting the "democrats" or any other "leftist" political party to put in a "lesser evil" politician in office seem useless. Proletariat Revolution is the only way for the working class to go.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 07:15 PM
does it matter who the "democrats" nominate? seriously when have "democrats" or anyone for that matter really made a big difference than thier so called counterparts? bourgousie "democracy" is nothing that the working class should be believe or have faith in, I dont think that they can be a "replacement" for Bush or any politician so supporting the "democrats" or any other "leftist" political party to put in a "lesser evil" politician in office seem useless. Proletariat Revolution is the only way for the working class to go.
We're only having a discussion. Besides, if Al Gore had won the election then their might not have been a war in Afghanistahn or Iraq and think what a diffirence that makes. Like it or not, elections do matter.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 02:26 PM

We're only having a discussion. Besides, if Al Gore had won the election then their might not have been a war in Afghanistahn or Iraq and think what a diffirence that makes. Like it or not, elections do matter.
i dont think Gore would have not have occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, remember he is a supporter of the "war on terrorism" I remember many of the canidates calling for increasment of troops to Iraq. sound like a "difference" yet?

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I am fairly certain that Gore would have done the same thing Bush did in Afghanistan, but I do not think he was interested in full scale war in Iraq. During the Clinton administration, there was one substantial military strike (1996?) as well as the ongoing weekly bombing on top of the sanctions regime. There was never the insistence on "regime change", though...

[truthaddict11]

wasnt there one in 1998 Operation Desert Fox or something in Iraq? We did bomb Afghanistan because we thought we found Osama's camp but it turned out to be civilians. opps.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

So-called "Desert Fox"... yes, that is the one I was talking about. Was that 1998? I guess that sounds right... I had initially thought it was earlier... I think there were some cruise missiles fired at Afghanistan during Clinton's term. I know the aspirin factory in Sudan was bombed in retaliation for one of Al-Qaeda's bombings, and I vaguely recall cruise missiles falling on Afghanistan under the same premise... need to double check my facts on Clinton's bombing campaigns, though...

[SonofRage]

I think ignoring electoral politics is foolish and counterproductive. Yes, often we are presented with the choice of the lesser of two evils and it is frustrating. What we must consider is that, in our struggle against capitalism, we want to do all we can for us to be in a better condition to suceed. By allowing a fascist like Bush to stay in power we are giving ourselves a stronger enemy.

Imagine if someone like Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader ever got elected President. While they are progressives and not socialists, think of how much closer we would be to achieving our goals with the reforms they would bring. I believe that too many are so focused on the idea of revolution that they are becoming their own worst enemy. We must pick our battles, every win brings us closer where we want to be.

[Urban Rubble]

Marxist In Nebraska, that's weird that you mention the Asprin factory we bombed because I was just reading something Chomsky wrote talking about that. From the way he put it, it was more than a asprin factory. He was making it sound like a major pharmecutical plant. He was estimating something like 1 or 2 hundered thousand actually stemmed from that.

Anyway, I think this election, it's more about getting Bush OUT of office rather than getting someone in. Personally, I am going to vote for the Democrat cantidate, with the sole purpose of getting that piece of shit out of the White House.

[EneME]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 08:20 AM
I think ignoring electoral politics is foolish and counterproductive. Yes, often we are presented with the choice of the lesser of two evils and it is frustrating. What we must consider is that, in our struggle against capitalism, we want to do all we can for us to be in a better condition to suceed. By allowing a fascist like Bush to stay in power we are giving ourselves a stronger enemy.

Imagine if someone like Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader ever got elected President. While they are progressives and not socialists, think of how much closer we would be to achieving our goals with the reforms they would bring. I believe that too many are so focused on the idea of revolution that they are becoming their own worst enemy. We must pick our battles, every win brings us closer where we want to be.
Totally agree with you. Sure, I'd love it if the revolution began and we were able to install a new form of gov't. The reality is that its pretty far fetched....in the meantime I think electing a President that ISN"T conservative does make some difference. For example when Reagan came into office....this was the worst time for the poor/homeless in USA and the atrocities being supported in other countries were increasing b/c of Reagan's decisions...
Personally i really enjoy Kucinich's stance on issues more than Kerry...Kerry supports trade unlike Kucinich who's actually said the problems with WTO involvement and NAFTA. No one's really ever said it before...

Anyway, I think this election, it's more about getting Bush OUT of office rather than getting someone in. Personally, I am going to vote for the Democrat cantidate, with the sole purpose of getting that piece of shit out of the White House.
Yeah I agree....I always rather vote Green, but its a wasted vote. I didn't vote for Gore and I'm still feeling guilty to this day lol....I'm having the same conflict with the California elections...I support Camejo (Green) but I'll be damned if Ahhnold wins...

[truthaddict11]

most of the "democrat" canidates are slimly little shits just as thier counterparts are, dont think that if Gore had been elected things wouldnt be different than they now, he probally would have occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no hope in relying on reforms or bourgeoisie elections to fix problems for the elections.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 04:01 AM
Yeah I agree....I always rather vote Green, but its a wasted vote. I didn't vote for Gore and I'm still feeling guilty to this day lol....I'm having the same conflict with the California elections...I support Camejo (Green) but I'll be damned if Ahhnold wins...
Unless you live in Florida, you have nothing to feel guilty about. Besides, it's the system that's fucked. What we really need is Instant Runoff Voting (http://www.chrisgates.net/irv/)

[CompadreGuerrillera]

Kucinich seems like the best one. But i doubt it if he wins primary. Dean will most likely win primary, and maybe Dean will be president. I dunno. I dont like him that much, but his healthcare for every American plan seems like a good idea. Too bad no socialists or commies are running for prez :P

[truthaddict11]

remember when Clinton wanted a universal health care plan? and he never gave us one expect the same from Dean, plus I dont think he is very likable especially when he wants to send troops off to "fight terror".

[CompadreGuerrillera]

at least he was agaisnt the war :rolleyes:

[EneME]

TruthAddict...just out of curiosity...what will YOU be doing this upcoming election? Will you vote? and what do you want to happen exactly? I know what you're against and whats wrong with Rep's and Demo's...but I just dont get where exactly all of ur arguments are leading to..

[Sabocat]

Kerry is a senator in my state. I have watched this guy turn from being moderately left to a republican in democrat clothing over the course of the last 10 years or so. A good indication of where his head is at, might best be defined by who he is married to. He is married to Heinz. ...the Heinz of the ketchup etc. fame. My guess is that Kerry will work very hard to make sure that people like his wife and her family never have to worry about higher taxes, increased minimum wages, pensions or the like.

His (as well as Ted Kennedy) views on the Iraq war was to get in, win it and get out quickly. He voted for the war, he has supported most if not all the legislation regarding it. He is famous lately for saying one thing and doing another. I put him marginally better than crackpot Liebermann.

Kucinich is the only candidate that truly wants national health, the Peace Initiative, etc. Naturally, he has no chance of winning because he has already sufficiently demonstrated that he will not roll over to the corporate strong arm by his defense of privatization move in his state on the electric utility companies. As we all know, without the corporate blessing (in the form of dollars) his chances are slim to nil. Kucinich has been struggling lately to raise enough grass roots money to keep his campaign on track. I'm sure, soon we'll see Sharpton and Kucinich eliminated from the debates entirely.

Ahhh......such is Amerikan electoral politics.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 03:17 AM
TruthAddict...just out of curiosity...what will YOU be doing this upcoming election? Will you vote? and what do you want to happen exactly? I know what you're against and whats wrong with Rep's and Demo's...but I just dont get where exactly all of ur arguments are leading to..
i will be staying at home or working but definitly not voting

[EneME]

Ahhh......such is Amerikan electoral politics.
lol yeah....i totally agree with the fact that there is no way Sharpton and Kucinich will go on...
unfortunatly

i will be staying at home or working but definitly not voting
Wow..try not to hurt yaself there....so basically u'll just *****? lol JK! :P

[(*]

I'm tired of the democrats whining about bush. They did nothing to bring attention to his deceit because they feared for their image, and now, after the fact, they start complaining.

Give me a break...

Ps...This is off Kucinich's website

"I am the only candidate who will take this country away from fear and war and tax giveaways, and use America's peace dividend for guaranteed health care for all, ending health care for profit. I am the only candidate who will stop the privatization of social security and bring the retirement age back to 65. As President, I will cancel NAFTA and the WTO, restore our manufacturing jobs, save our family farms, create full employment programs. I will repeal the Patriot Act to regain for all Americans the sacred right of privacy in our homes, our libraries, our schools. "

[CompadreGuerrillera]

guys, there is a differnece between rather having a democrat than a Fascist PIG, is different from BEING ONE!


These fuckers can all suck my cock, but id rather have a democrat as an opressor rather than Bush, and if Bush wins cause u sat on ur ass? what will you do? ull have no reason to *****, cause U DIDNT EVEN TRY.

Cmon ppl, if Bush is elected, ill be really pissed, and i bet so will all of you, unless you WANT Bush

[Morpheus]

If a democrat is elected he'll do mostly the same things Bush would do in the same situation. Look at Clinton. They're all scum. If voting could change the system it'd be illegal.

[Hatchet]

Hey,
I dunno much about this, but from what i've heard Dean is the way to go. Even if he isn't the furthest left of the candidates, he's charismatic and that's exactly what the left needs.

Hatchet

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 04:37 AM
Hey,
I dunno much about this, but from what i've heard Dean is the way to go. Even if he isn't the furthest left of the candidates, he's charismatic and that's exactly what the left needs.

Hatchet
Dean is a slimy little shit who wants to send more troops out to "fight terror". The "left" does not need "charisma" or an "image"
you might as well go around saying "Buy My Snake Oil" for the "left"


guys, there is a differnece between rather having a democrat than a Fascist PIG, is different from BEING ONE!


These fuckers can all suck my cock, but id rather have a democrat as an opressor rather than Bush, and if Bush wins cause u sat on ur ass? what will you do? ull have no reason to *****, cause U DIDNT EVEN TRY.

Cmon ppl, if Bush is elected, ill be really pissed, and i bet so will all of you, unless you WANT Bush

I'll bet you that Bush will probally get re-elected anyways, and dont think that a democrat wont be any different from a republican. they have ranged from "Charismatic" like Kennedy ( an imperialist shit) to racist "Dixiecrats" like George Wallace. We dont need a "lesser evil" leader for the working class or rely on "reforms" to change capitalism. I dont think I am "*****ing" for not voting I think I am being perfectly right that bourgeoisie "democracy" is nothing that the working class can trust or rely on.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 12:18 AM
at least he was agaisnt the war :rolleyes:
he wasnt against the war he is for the "war on terror" and said he will send off troops over the world to "fight terror"

[Marxist in Nebraska]

It becomes clearer to me every day that Dean is not the "too-liberal-to-win" candidate that some in the mainstream, including many of the Democratic Party bosses, seem to think he is. I wonder if he is liberal at all. I know he is afraid of being called liberal. I know he received a straight-A report card from the nutty far-right NRA. His health care plan is a bureaucratic nightmare that will go through private health insurance companies, making them a hefty profit in the process. His on-again, off-again anti-war rhetoric seems to be nothing more than political opportunism. He picks on Bush when the war is unpopular, and is silent when it is not clear if it will benefit him.

As far as Dean's charisma goes, I am not terribly impressed with that, either. Personally, I find Kucinich to be the most passionate in appearance. Sharpton is a wonderful speaker, with a great sense of righteous indignation. And John Kerry, though he is awful in substance, just looks and sounds like he should be president.

How about Wesley Clark, retired general of the U.S. army? He seems to be considering a run for president himself, though he has not yet commited. Michael Moore is actually impressed with him, and that is a rather strong compliment as Moore finds little difference between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Moore is convinced Clark is far more progressive than Dean or the other leading candidates (he will not yet endorse Clark, as he is very impressed with Kucinich).

Clark could work out to be an excellent candidate politically. Bush relies on having the image of the great protector, that frightened Americans can hide behind him and he will save them. The Republicans are strong today because they are perceived as being stronger on national security issues. The Republicans, however, in the Bush administration are just a bunch of chicken hawks (with the exception of Powell), and Clark is a real-life military man. The presidential debates could be, as Moore puts it, between a decorated retired general and a Texas Air National Guard deserter.

Clearly, Clark is no radical. But what do the comrades here think of him? Would he be favorable to Dean for his politics, and more electable than Kucinich? Could we have a Clark-Kucinich ticket (not that Clark would be that progressive, but is it remotely realistic)? The Democrats are in good shape against Bush and the Repubs so long as the big questions are about domestic and social issues. Having a liberal-ish military leader could at least close the gap on national securtiy concerns, could it not?

P.S.: I recall a handout I got from an anti-war protest early this year. The sheet had a blurb on Gen. Clark being a war criminal for actions in Yugoslavia. If anyone has more information on this, I would appreciate it greatly. Thanks.

[CompadreGuerrillera]

Originally posted by truthaddict11+Sep 16 2003, 12:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (truthaddict11 @ Sep 16 2003, 12:40 PM)
[email protected] 15 2003, 12:18 AM
at least he was agaisnt the war :rolleyes:
he wasnt against the war he is for the "war on terror" and said he will send off troops over the world to "fight terror" [/b]
there is no "war on terror" thats stupid, how can one go to war against a tactic employed by an army or paramilitary organization. It is bascially war with poor, fundamentalist(primarily) and other 3rd world countries, to use as a scapegoat for our problems, like Hitler with Jews, and rape thier resources. Thats basically what it is.

And Dean was against the Iraq War, many other candidates(mainly Liberman) supported it.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by CompadreGuerrillera+Sep 16 2003, 05:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CompadreGuerrillera @ Sep 16 2003, 05:46 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 12:40 PM

[email protected] 15 2003, 12:18 AM
at least he was agaisnt the war :rolleyes:
he wasnt against the war he is for the "war on terror" and said he will send off troops over the world to "fight terror"
there is no "war on terror" thats stupid, how can one go to war against a tactic employed by an army or paramilitary organization. It is bascially war with poor, fundamentalist(primarily) and other 3rd world countries, to use as a scapegoat for our problems, like Hitler with Jews, and rape thier resources. Thats basically what it is.

And Dean was against the Iraq War, many other candidates(mainly Liberman) supported it. [/b]
didnt me having "war on terror" say that plus Dean has admitted he will send troops to "defend" america, so it really wouldnt matter he would still support Imperialist efforts across the world

[CompadreGuerrillera]

well, anyone whos running for prez, will most likely say that. Of course, he will operate in the interests of the imperialists, its an imperiaslit country. but anything he could do couldnt possibly be worse than Bush. I mean Clinton was horrible, with Bosnia, and Somalia, and who knows what else, Bush is 10x worse, with his Iraq War, its cost him 87 bilion dollars, that couldve been spent making some cappie reforms(which i feel is better than war costs), thats just plain insane.

And to not vote democrat, is also insane, youd basically be saying u would rather have Bush, ya, if it was up to me, i would have a socialist prez, but that aint gonna happen anytime soon, so i think this apathy is rather chilidish and bullshitty(i dunno if thats a word, english isnt my native language)

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 10:05 PM
well, anyone whos running for prez, will most likely say that. Of course, he will operate in the interests of the imperialists, its an imperiaslit country. but anything he could do couldnt possibly be worse than Bush. I mean Clinton was horrible, with Bosnia, and Somalia, and who knows what else, Bush is 10x worse, with his Iraq War, its cost him 87 bilion dollars, that couldve been spent making some cappie reforms(which i feel is better than war costs), thats just plain insane.

And to not vote democrat, is also insane, youd basically be saying u would rather have Bush, ya, if it was up to me, i would have a socialist prez, but that aint gonna happen anytime soon, so i think this apathy is rather chilidish and bullshitty(i dunno if thats a word, english isnt my native language)
I dont think its "voter apathy" or "foolish and childish" by refusing to vote for imperialist or reformists. Voting for any imperialist is out of my book.
BTW Democrats have started many more imperialist wars then Republicans dont think that a Democrat wont also start more, about every single democrat voted FOR the Patriot Act FOR the war in Afghanistan and FOR war in Iraq. So tell me how they make any difference&#33;

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 06:14 AM
[...]Democrats have started many more imperialist wars then Republicans dont think that a Democrat wont also start more, about every single democrat voted FOR the Patriot Act FOR the war in Afghanistan and FOR war in Iraq. So tell me how they make any difference&#33;
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that you had to use the word "about" in the quotation above. Yes, the Democratic party is dominated by conservatives like Sen. Lieberman and disingenious "liberals" like Sen. Kerry and former Gov. Dean. On the other hand, you had Sen. Feingold, I believe, who did vote against the Patriot Act. You had Sen. Wellstone, who did ultimately vote for the Patriot Act unfortunately, who wanted to limit its duration. You have Rep. Kucinich who did oppose the Patriot Act and the war on Iraq, and tried to rally more support in those causes.

There are no consistently good Republicans. You have "mavericks" like Sen. McCain who have championed efforts at campaign finance reform. Hell, even Sen. Trent "we should have elected a segregationist president" Lott has been instrumental in opposing the FCC&#39;s attempt to allow the media corporations to monopolize further. But no Republican ever comes down on the right side of issues for the people even half the time.

There are a lot of worthless Democrats in the Congress... a LOT of them. But even the worst Dems are better than the best Repubs all too often. And then, you have the true progressives like Kucinich, et al. I am not a partisan Democrat, not by a long shot, but I evaluate Dems on an individual basis. Sometimes they are even worthy of my support.

So tell me truthaddict11, is there any difference between Dennis Kucinich and George W. Bush? Is there a reason you WANT the lesser of the two to win? Because by boycotting the election, reactionaries will fill every position and we will be worse off for it.

[praxis1966]

I&#39;ll do a write-in vote for Mickey Mouse (there are a few hundred or thousand every election) just to make Dubya look like an ass. Though I don&#39;t think I&#39;ll have to try to hard to do that.

Funny you should mention that. During the mid-term elections last year there was this real heavy right winger by the name of Charlie Crist running un-opposed for the Florida State Senate. There was a write-in spot on the ballot so I wrote in "nobody" and voted that way.

Marxist In Nebraska: As far as Wesley Clark is concerned, there are two things that really impress me about him. First, he was basically forced into retirement over differences with Bush about the situation in Iraq. Second, his appearance on Bill Maher&#39;s "Real Time" the a couple of weeks ago. He was the first potential candidate that came down on my side of the fence on every issue (aside from Sharpton), blasting Bush every chance he got. He&#39;s also the only Democratic politician I&#39;ve seen in a long time not shy away from being described as a "liberal."

[Marxist in Nebraska]

praxis1966,
You seem to be high on ret. Gen. Clark. You say he is the only candidate other than Rev. Sharpton that you agree with. Do you know about Rep. Kucinich? What do you think of him? What are his faults? And does anybody have any information about whether Clark may be a war criminal for his leadership in the U.S. war in Yugoslavia?

[praxis1966]

Don&#39;t really know too much about Kucinich. It doesn&#39;t appear that he gets a lot of press. It&#39;s almost as if the media now choses the candidates by selecting which ones get the most coverage. As far as Yugoslavia goes, I don&#39;t know that the misdeads of our soldiers over there could be directly tied to him.

As I recall, there was a lot of scuttlebutt on NPR about American soldiers mistreating Muslim women, but those guilty of inproprieties were summarily dealt with. The only other thing I can think of would be the "accidental" bombing of the Chinese embassy in Kosovo. The Serbian diplomatic contingent here in the &#036;tates was expelled from their offices at the onset of the bombing campaign. The Chinese then allowed the Serbians to set up shop temporarily in their building. Many of the left-leaning pundits hypothesized that the bombing was direct retribution and not the error in military intelligence that the establishment said it was.

You&#39;re right, though. I like Clark alot. I think he would make a better Vice-President than President, though. Historically, generals have not made good presidents. They&#39;re too used to giving orders and having them carried out without question. They tend to forget that there is a direct correlation with the ability to govern and the ability to compromise.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Your point on generals taking power in civilian governments with poor results is well taken. I suggest that you look into Dennis Kucinich. He makes the "liberal" Howard Dean look like a half-assed Republican (which he is, but I am nothing biased godless commie anyway&#33;)

[EneME]

lol same here Marxist....and Kucinich doesn&#39;t sound like a Democrat at times...maybe just a Leftist in a Democratic politicians clothes

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I was thinking a few minutes after I posted last here...

Kucinich is almost a democratic socialist trapped in the body of a "Democrat." In some ways, he sounds like the second coming of Franklin D. Roosevelt. He even spoke of establishing a "true deal", which would pull the U.S. out of recession by creating jobs rebuilding infrastructure.

I have to say that I am not a worshipper of FDR, but that sounds better than the other "Democratic" candidates. After all, Sen. Kerry seems to be the second coming of John F. Kennedy while Howard Dean and Sen. Edwards both, to an extent, sound like the second coming of Bill Clinton.

All points considered, I will take a new FDR over a new JFK or Clinton.

[praxis1966]

Marxist in Nebraska
Point me to Kucinich&#39;s website. I&#39;d like to research his platform. I&#39;ve been considering switching from SPF to Democrat for the purposes of this primary (mainly so I can brag that I voted for Al Sharpton). I&#39;d like to be informed of his opinions so that I can make an educated vote in the general election come November &#39;04 (in the unlikely event one of the better candidates wins the nomination).

[Lefty]

But Kucinich won&#39;t win. He is the best, there is no question. However, unless he really steps up the campaign, he won&#39;t get that many votes. The nomination looks like it will go to Dean or Kerry. Whatever, anything but Bush, really. What do you guys think of Wesley Clark?

[CompadreGuerrillera]

Clark and Kerry will be just as bad as the Republicans, in my opinion, Dean or Kucinich is the way to go, but because Kucinich wont win, Dean will most likely run up against Kerry(maybe Clark), either way, Dean will be a better choice, at least better than Bush. BUT if it comes down to Bush vrs. either Kerry or Clark, ill take the democrat any day&#33;

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Comrade praxis1966,

Kucinich for President Official Page (http://www.kucinich.us/issues.htm)

There is Dennis Kucinich&#39;s official platform.

CompadreGuerrillera,

Clark has sounded better than Dean. Dean has shyed away from being called a "liberal", and has even said publicly that he is "to the right" of George W. Bush on some issues&#33; Dean got a straight-A grade from the nutty right-wing NRA. He will not touch the Pentagon&#39;s budget.

[captainjustice]

Kucinich is great. He is all for cancelling NAFTA and the WTO. A break for the Zapatistas. The only problem is that he supports Israel; but everything else almost, [I]almost makes up for that. Sharpton is great to and doesn&#39;t support Israel. As for Clark, he sounds good but he did some bad things when in the army.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

captainjustice,
Do you know anything about the accusations of Gen. Clark being a war criminal in Yugoslavia? Can you point me to any sources?

I have not heard much about Kucinich being pro-Israel... I know that Dean is clearly pro-Israel...