As one of the few other supporters, what drew me to him is the fact that he gets things done. He has a fantastic record of getting even controversial legislation through the NM congress. He has helped push through legislation in the US house such as the tax increase on the wealthy in the early 90's. His strong progressive record on civil liberties, social programs, diplomacy, environment, and education match his rhetoric.
His foreign policy is a huge change from the past. In his words, He wants the US to be the conscience of the world instead of it's policeman. He stated that sometimes human rights trumps national security in our foreign policy. He notes that they are not exclusive issues. He supports
building up third world countries economically, improving their education and health care. He doesn't support propping up dictators such as Musharraf as per our failed cold war policies that have led to so many crisis. He wants to end the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" policy of the past.
He has one of the most ambitious agendas. I'd rather someone start on the left on issues like global warming and withdrawal from Iraq then have to compromise than start from the middle and compromise.
Richardson has a strong focus on deficit reduction. He'd support a balanced budget amendment with exceptions for economic downturn and national crisis. IMHO, this is one of the most important least discussed issues on the campaign. Our huge debt limits our foreign policy and trade options. It also makes our currency extremely vulnerable to downturns.
Richardson has strong record of supporting human rights both here and abroad. He'd close Guantanamo and secret prisons. He'd end torture and investigate Shrub Inc on their use of these policies and other crimes. He opposed the Patriot Act back in 2003. He's always supported tying human rights to trade issues and cosponsored a bill to do that with China back in the 90's. Several civil libertarians have
endorsed him over all other candidates from both parties.
Finally, He's extremely electable. He's overcome his early poor debate performances and given solid performances the last several debates. He's a Midwesterner of Hispanic decent and can put some blue states into play. Like Howard Dean, he's been endorsed by the NRA in the past and would split Repug voters in red over that issue if Multiple Choice Mitt or Ghouliani get the Repug nomination. He polls with very low negatives and low vote against numbers. Despite being 6th or 7th in name recognition at the start of the campaign, he's managed to poll 4th in most polls and has done very well in fund raising. He, Obama, and Hillary are the only candidates that poll at the top of
Democratic nomination in their home states. He won his last election with almost 60% of the vote.
Obama is probably my second choice. He's got a progressive record but manages to put progressive ideas into context that even Repugs can accept. He's the most dynamic speaker and would be able to use his ability to rally folks to our agenda. He's run an excellent campaign and would be a strong campaigner in the general election.
Edwards has really shown a huge change in his policy. Overall, his policy is the second most progressive next to Kucinich.
Clinton has the campaign machine behind her and is best at fending off attacks. She's also got a mostly progressive Senate record.
Biden is the best debater of the bunch. He'd make mincemeat out of any Repug in a debate.
Dodd has a great recent record of supporting privacy and constitutional rights.
Kucinich keeps it real. He manages to say things that others are afraid to say but are true.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
