Locobot

Liquor Dealer, I suspect you're being coy with this post. Information on each of these candidates is readily available to anyone with access to the internet, television, or a newspaper. You've also forgotten three candidates: Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, and Carol Mosely Braun (dropped from race). Clark is not running in Iowa which means he loses the chance to gain delegates to the national convention from Iowa.

Howard Dean has emerged thus far as the front runner because he has been able to tap into widespread anger over the lies and misrepresentations used to justify the war in Iraq. Dean has been very successful turning his popular support into the kind of support that pundits, news editors, and politicos pay attention to: namely $$$. Although I think its wrong that he's gained front-runner status solely based on his ablity to generate $$$ (every time this is a slide away from democracy towards oligarchy), it's exciting to me that his donations have been averaging about $100 per (sliding our oligarchy back towards democracy). This means as president he won't be as beholden to special interests and corporations the way that pretty much every other politician is. Dean is often straight-forward and plain-spoken in a way that makes him feel like an outsider to the political world. Today this is actually a big plus, outsider candidates and the sense of freshness they bring is exactly what voters are looking for. Dean's second biggest issue so far has been universal healthcare, which he supports. I don't know what his actual plan is, but he does have crediblity in this area due to his experience as a medical doctor.

Dean's lead in the race for the Democratic nomination has shrunk in the past few weeks for several reasons. Primary voting is about to begin so many people are just now paying attention to the candidates and where they stand. Criticism of the Iraq war has been Dean's strong point up until now, but this issue is somewhat divisive within the Democratic party (Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt and Clark supported the war, Kucinich and Sharpton did not). There has been a steady stream of anti-Dean articles (not editorials mind you, anyone see the cover of Time last week?, media bias runs wha?...Wait a minute!) portraying him as being hot-headed (I don't think he is) and as having changed his postion on issues historically (there is some truth here but, shit, remember 4 years ago when GWB campaigned against nation building and a large federal budget? I do).

Kerry is second behind Dean in terms of the money he has available to him, but his money comes largely from his wife's family, heirs to the Heinz ketchup fortune (just imagine all the pro-condiment legislation we'd have to suffer through under his presidency). Aside from John McCain, Kerry has the most politically-valuable military experience of any major politician. In Vietnam Kerry was in the shit. He has admitted to and asked public forgiveness for participating in the slaughtering of Vietnamese civilians. This means he's dealt with the kind of moral conflict and decisions that every president must be able to take on. To me this makes him a person of character and attractive as a candidate. What I dislike about Kerry, Gephardt and Lieberman is that they come across as politicians, unable or unwilling to make strong statements of belief or platform. They're too well versed in the kind of political rhetoric that simply turns me off as a voter. Kerry has done better on this front since he dropped Gore's former advisors and handlers, but it seems too late.

Lieberman is a de facto Republican. He supported the Iraq war AND Bush's tax cut for the wealthy. While his positions may attract centrist voters, they ultimately spell death for the Democratic party. If the party is indecipherable from the opposition it ceases to have a purpose.

I haven't decided who I will vote for yet. The decision should already be made by the time my state votes but this didn't keep me from voting for Bradley over Gore in 2000.