Centerfield

Well, I don't know who you like among the democrats, but Iknow who I don't like. I tried to like Clark but he has been an embarassment, too busy trying to not offend anyone and grow his base to stand up and say what he thinks.

Edwards is too young, and on the rare occasions when I've been exposed to his thoughts, he hasn't shown me anything to make me think he's wise beyond his years.

I am from Massachusetts, so I KNOW John Kerry, and he's odious. He has no shot. The fact that he plainly stated that if he were to be elected President, our troop committment in Iraq would decline to negligible levels within 6 months was enough to make me forever dismiss him. Because I know him well enough to know that he absolutely was lying to curry favor with the anti-war democrats.

I have seen Dean look intelligent and show nuanced views on subjects on multiple occasions. Other occasions have led me to think he's got a slippery side and that he has a gargantuan (I'm smarter than you!) ego and a big mouth to go with it. He might say something intemperate and blow it all at once. His unfolksy northeast bookiness is bound to come off as condescending in the south and west, and that will be a big challenge for him. But he won a lot of respect from me when he showed the courage to say that now that the US is in Iraq, we have no moral choice but to stay that course.

I've never much liked Gephardt, even though I don't know much about him. His sell-by date is way past though, he's a tired face, just like Lieberman.

Hi bk. Nice take on all the candidates.

I have actually been impressed with Dean in some ways as well. He does sometimes quite boldly tell the audience at these debates something they don't want to hear -- namely, that they can't have everything they want, and that we have to forego certain spending proposals for the sake of the deficit.

In other words, he does sometimes take a stand for fiscal responsibility.

I would be more impressed, on that front, if his agenda more closely reflected his record in Vermont. E.g., I think his proposals for a federal agenda, taken together, are not fiscally responsible. He did some remarkable things in Vermont -- balancing the budget under very difficult circumstances, and even cutting some taxes in the process.

I think he's basically running to the left of his Vermont record. He recognizes the core activists are liberals, and he's playing to that crowd, mostly.

When it comes to the war, however, I don't give him the kind of credit you do. He had the courage in the aftermat of the combat phase of the war to say we needed to "stay the course", as you point out, but he didn't make the difficult choice more recently to say we need to back the funds the president wants to send over there.

I understand the arguments on the other side of that issue -- believe me I do -- but I think, on the whole, that there was only one responsible choice.

His "win the war, now that we're in it" stance is more hollow to me now.

I haven't followed the 87 million dollar question all that closely. But I am not sure how fair it is to make a Y or N vote a referendum on war support. I support staying the course in Iraq, but I'm not sure where the 87 mil is going. My feeling is that the money for Iraq should be meted out in smaller authorizations done more often, as this would provide more congressional oversight. Just because I think we should see the occupation through doesn't mean i think it's a great idea to give the admin a huge poile of dough with few strings attached. So who is the strong centrist you like?

The centrist I like is Lieberman.

I kind of feel like all of politics is almost turned on its head these days. Choices that seem reasonable to me are not generally available -- probably a consequence of the polarizing nature of the war issue.

I watched the Democratic debate on Fox the other night, and, as I mentioned, I've been thinking seriously about the Clark and Edwards candidacies -- with the notion that both might be more electable than Lieberman.

I have to say what I see in Lieberman is uniquely presidential, for two reasons. First, because he has a backbone. And second, because he has a seasoned and thoughtful approach to the issues.