January 20, 2004

Lesser Of Multiple Evils

Here's a question for you all: Hypothetically (of course) (knocking wood), if you had to pick one of the Dems running to be President -- that seems to have an actual chance of getting the nomination -- which would be the least scary choice to you as Commander in Chief? And if you feel so inclined, explain why.

I'm curious to see if the responses match the mental conversation I've been having with myself today.

Posted by Ithildin at January 20, 2004 6:45 AM | PROCURE FINE OLD WORLD ABSINTHE

Okay, I'll go first. W. Clark. would be my pick. Ex-Military, Strong leadership skills, not a political insider, but neither is he an outsider with no experience in diplomacy, politics of funding, negotiating and such. No to keen on the family first tax thing - I already pay to much to support other people's children, but then neither party keeps tax cut pormises so, no big woop.

Posted by: Roberta at January 20, 2004 9:48 AM

Now if only Wesley wasn't a nutty megalomaniac that almost started WWIII...

Posted by: Paul Jané at January 20, 2004 11:23 AM

Roberta, we'll get to have a good political chat when I see you next month.

Paul, there is that.

Have you heard the sound bite of him running down Kerry's service in Vietnam last night on Larry King? I think that sort of attitude must be an example of why so many people with military backgrounds seem to think so little of him.

Posted by: Ith at January 20, 2004 11:28 AM

I'm sorry, but all of those who have a chance are too frightful to contemplate, which is why -- even though Dubya has betrayed conservatives SO completely -- I can only support the Prez.

But to play along, I'd have to say Kerry. I see him as most amenable to suasion by the Inside-the-Beltway crowd, who seem to be able to act as buffers between the public and the worst excesses of either Right or Left.

Dean seems to have crashed and burned. As a trial lawyer, Edwards promises negative tort reform -- not something the country needs. Clark is a genuine wack job. I think his peers in the officer corps owe it to the country to be less circumspect than they have been about his character flaws. Is there anybody else? No? Didn't think so.



Posted by: Mark Alger at January 20, 2004 11:33 AM

Mark, just play along and no one gets hurt.

Posted by: Ith at January 20, 2004 11:45 AM

Dennis Kucinich -- for the same reason Dennis Miller said he'd voted for Perot: because the military would never let someone THAT crazy anywhere near control of nuclear weapons. ;-)

OK, more seriously, of the four real contenders, John Kerry, for the same reasons as Mark. It's very much a lesser of evils, indeed, but I'm sure he'd continue the Reagan policy of defining ketchup as a vegetable.

Posted by: Dave J at January 20, 2004 2:27 PM

Do we really have to choose from that bunch? *sigh*

Joe Lieberman would get my vote, I suppose.

Wesley Clark scares me the most because he seems to talk out of both sides of his mouth, his tenure at NATO was riddled with problems, and respected leaders within the military can't endorse him for reasons they won't reveal. As a mil-brat, he horrifies me.

Posted by: jen at January 20, 2004 3:46 PM

Okay, points taken,but as a MA native - no Kerry, please. Bad, Bad, Bad. Can we Kermit to run?


Posted by: Roberta at January 20, 2004 6:19 PM

Jen has the right idea, the only sane one in the bunch is Lieberman.

Of course, he's also as charismatic as a baked potato Al Gore, so that's a bit of a problem...

Posted by: Paul Jané at January 20, 2004 6:40 PM

No question here. Dick Gephardt.

Huh?? ....

Oh, damn it. Then Joe Lieberman.

After Lieberman, it would be any Democrat able to prove that he can "channel" Scoop Jackson.

Posted by: Peter Sean Bradley at January 20, 2004 8:03 PM

Lieberman. Don't count him out too quick. I mean who expected Edwards to finish second in Iowa?

With the exception of the time he was drinking Al Gore's kool-aid, he seems overall to be the most consistent in his positions and the most fiscally "moderate" of the batch. He has held steady on his position regarding the war on terrorism. He seems to have a healthy view of the role of religious faith in the life of the nation. I don't know his specific positions on gun control, the drug war, immigration, etc. but then I'm asked to choose the lesser of nine evils...

Posted by: Desert Cat at January 20, 2004 8:13 PM

Roberta, I'm originally from Massachusetts, too, even though I don't live there anymore. I'm not saying President Mr. Teresa Heinz/President Did-I-Mention-Yet-That-I-Was-In-Vietnam? would be a good thing at all, just a better thing than President Trial Lawyer, or Presidents Psycho #1 or Psycho #2.

I'd answer Lieberman as well, but at this point he's outside the parameters of Ith's original question. No candidate since the advent of the primary system has won the nomination without being in the top three in either Iowa or New Hampshire. Possible, maybe, but he's a longshot now, not one "that seems to have an actual chance of getting the nomination."

Posted by: Dave J at January 20, 2004 10:38 PM

Joe Lieberman is my pick, and I'd pick Edwards over Kerry. As a retired Naval Officer, Wesley Clark goes to the bottom of my list... would even prefer Dean over Clark.

Posted by: oceanguy at January 21, 2004 5:03 AM

At this point, I really haven't had time to study up on all of this. But since I'll basically be voting against Bush, whoever gets the nomination will be getting my vote! (Bush made me nervous before the last election and he's scared me to death since then. Not that I think he's evil or anything but because he's so darned isolated from reality!)

Of all the candidates the last time around, Lieberman was the one who really stood out in my mind! Would be nice if he got the nomination, but doesn't look like that will happen, does it?

Posted by: Carol Andrus at January 21, 2004 1:12 PM

Lieberman would get my vote. He's pro-defense and (relatively) pro-family, my two biggies. Weasley Clark is too Clintonesque for me--he's a two-faced liar.

But Bush is still far, far and away the best choice for America for the foreseeable future.

Posted by: Ian at January 21, 2004 2:25 PM

Leiberman, if he had a chance. I doubt he does.

If for some ungodly reason Bush wasn't in a position to win, I'd go for either Edwards or Kerry.

And despite the trial lawyers, I would probably favor Edwards, because 1) he's positive, 2) we can survive 4 years of a trial lawyer, 3) he doesn't act as if combat service makes him automatically a better human or leader or President, and 4) he's got Bill Clinton's charisma without Bill's obvious lack of morals.

But I don't forsee having to make that commitment. Bush '04, please, and Rice or Guliani as Veep and heir presumtive.

Posted by: Dave at January 21, 2004 2:36 PM

That's easy. 9/11 made me into a single-issue voter. I want to aggressively pursue this war and I want to win it unconditionally.

That means Lieberman, which amuses me because I would never have considered voting for him before the war began.

Posted by: Mike at January 21, 2004 3:03 PM

Pick a Demoncrat? Difficult, difficult indeed. Unfortunately, most demoncrats have this vision of government solving everyone's problems coupled with the ( false ) attitude of " whatever is going wrong with your life is not your fault". This kind of loopy, crackpot thinking from our potential leaders ( wanna-be leaders ) gives me the willies. Additionally, demoncrats are for gun-control ( flashy, loopy talk for blame the tool and not the person ) ( which ties into the " you are not at fault" theorem, mentioned above.) Since I have not really followed this circus act...I suppose Lieberman, if I had to pick a demoncrat....and yes, I am misspelling the word on purpose.

Now, I wonder how many people will be pissed off by this...heh.

Posted by: Bob at January 21, 2004 4:55 PM

I'd pick Lieberman too, but I doubt he has a chance, so second lesser evil would be Kerry for the same reasons as Mark and Dave J.

Posted by: Ith at January 22, 2004 10:46 AM

Kerry looks like the front runner now, although that could change in a hurry...as it already has back in Iowa. Is it too much to ask for a candidate with the best ideas from both camps along with a healthy dose of common sense?

Posted by: Bob at January 22, 2004 4:29 PM

Bob: uhhhh... yep! :)

Posted by: Ith at January 22, 2004 4:32 PM

* sigh *, I know, I know. A fellow can dream, right?? Well maybe I will move out of MA to NH once the housing market implodes or whatever it is going to do....

At least I won't be annoyed by silly MA politics.

Posted by: Bob at January 22, 2004 4:37 PM

Most of them. I can't see most Dems supporting the Patriot Act or *shudder* Patriot II, for example. Someone above said 9/11 had made them into a single-issue voter? Well it has me, almost. And anyone who will not so blatantly destroy my civil liberties has my support.

The only thing Bush happens to have going at the moment is this space thing. And that's the only reason I would consider voting for him, unless someone like Sharpton got the Dem nod.

Posted by: at January 23, 2004 1:09 AM