IT'S WAY TOO EARLY TO SAY WHO I'LL BE VOTING FOR

While it's way too early for me to say who I'll be voting for in the 2004 presidential election, it's not the same for a lot of other people I know. Blog after blog and friend after friend are writing about how great Howard Dean is and about how I should donate money to his campaign. One friend even went so far as to tell me and about 50 or his other friends via a mass e-mail message that Dean is the only Democrat so far who is openly stepping up to challenge Bush and his policies. God, do I hate gross-generalizations!

As I wrote on ChristinasWeb.com earlier this month, there's still a great deal of time between now and next November, and I urge everyone to study the candidates and their stances, and to not be afraid to vote for the candidate who you truly think will do the best job according to your values.

In my world, there's no such thing as throwing away a vote... not in a democracy... especially if the democracy is to succeed over the long-term. Short-term thinking, where votes are concerned, is akin to short-term investing: the gains usually don't last as long as you'd like or planned for.

From the political blogs I've seen, not everyone is going to vote for Dean. In New Hampshire, at least at the moment, it doesn't look like all the Democrats are going to vote for Dean either. (I keep on typing "Dead" instead of "Dean"--Freudian slip?)

Good Blog Mikal.

Everyone hear that?! Take it easy for a month or so. Here's something to consider... All the Republicans I've talked to really seem to like Dean as well. They think he'd be easy to beat.

I hate to say this but I'd vote for just about any of the democrat options as long as they run with the following two items in his/her platform...

1) Balance the budget
2) Get Bush the heck out of the office.

I definitely hear you barkin' big dog and I agree with everything you say in theory. It seems that there are a lot of people who are unsatisfied with Bush's performance. There are many folks like Doug who want to get Bush out of office. The only way to do that is to back the candidate that has the best chance of doing that. Winning a Presidential election takes (at least) three things: Party nomination, money, and media exposure. Dean is not a shoe in for the Democratic nomination, but I think he has a great chance. He is working on the money, has great media exposure, and is very web savvy. For this election, we have two options: 1. vote our conscience and scatter like roaches (ex. 2000 election with Nader taking significant votes away from Gore ñ which I did), or 2. unite with the candidate that has the best shot at taking the presidency away from Bush and who shares a majority of your core political values. With approximately 205 million voters out there, we will not find one candidate that will serve everyoneís interests. A theoretical perspective will not get Bush out of office, but a pragmatic approach just may have a shot.

Ford & Doug got it right. Clinton was able to balance the budget & get Bush the heck out of there. Maybe Hillary should have run this time around. Unless a Democrat wins this time & is a strong contender for re-election, Hillary is poised to be the 2008 Democratic nominee. Theoretically, no vote is wasted in a democracy - if you vote to make a point, create awareness, etc. But, the big enchilada in elections is winning - that's why Nader cost Gore the presidency last time around. Sure, democracies (and republics, which the US is) need constant awareness and envelope pushers, but sometimes a decision is best made by assessing the overall impact. Case in point: Nader's the best candidate, Gore is 2nd best, Bush is 3rd, among the major choices. If I vote for Nader (who has no chance - really - of winning), I'm essentially making Gore find another middle-of-the road swing voter, thus making it easier for Bush to win. True, Gore could have & should have carried either or both TN & Arkansas, but Nader's support cost him Florida alone. The Democratic nominee is the only hope of beating Bush, so the Dems should choose someone who can beat Bush by appealing to the swing voters.

I'm not convinced Gore didn't win Florida. Come on... of all the states to "muck" up the election, it had to be the state of Dubya's brother...

I'm originally from FL, and while I'd like to scream Dubya conspiracy theories...I just can't. Granted, there were a great number of wrongdoings in Florida on election day 2000, but a strong candidate should have one outright. Nader, I don't believe, didn't steal the Florida vote. The counties with all the trouble had exceptionally high percentages of people voting for Pat Buchanan, supposedly by mistake due to the 'confusing' butterfly ballot. If we really want to look at the case, the US Supreme Court 'stole' the election by becoming the smallest electoral college in US history. All that aside, we are a republic and we need to vote like a republic.

I've studied that candidates, and I believe that Dean is left enough to effect positive change when negotiating new legislation or policy. I believe that Kerry and Kucinich - two front runners - are too moderate to create change. I feel that they will bring the extreme right back to right, and still too far from center. I don't agree with Dean's views on socialized medicine, but I think they will drive the conversation in the correct direction, as an example.

I will keep my ears & eyes open as the race continues...but Ford is right and it does take a lot to win the Presidency.