Now, I'm not a Democrat (nor much of a Republican, how about that Green party, egh? ), but I've been watching some of the debates - like the one for the Iowa Caucus last night. I am more rational than the typical voter, I weigh each candidate's qualities independent of his/her party affiliations. For example, I
almost voted for Al Gore last time around,
almost; I liked his college education plan.
This time around, there are some good ideas coming out of the democratic camp. I like
Lieberman,
Edwards, and
Kucinich, in that order.
Dean is "okay". I'm not sure any of them are
better than
Bush. After all, it is easy to criticize but difficult to lead (especially in these difficult times). I would really like Kucinich if it weren't for his plans to pull out of Iraq "immediately", he has a more or less socialistic healthcare plan - which I think we need - and his other ideas have merit as well. When Lieberman opens his mouth, he speaks the truth. I think he is one of the most well balanced of all the candidates. He is never over optimistic nor overly pessimistic, and I think this is a good quality. Edwards exhibits similar qualities. These are some intelligent people with good ideas. In any case, if Edwards doesn't win the nomination, any candidate would be wise to take him on as a running mate. He has it. Democrats seem to like Dean, though. I don't get warm fuzzy feelings with Dean. I think he would be "okay" - just like Bush is "okay".
Hmm...
