Knowing What You Know Now?

[Akno21]

I'm not sure here, possibly Gephardt, although the debate made me feel better about Kerry.

[Jake]

Dean, Gephardt, and Edwards were more electable.
Lieberman was the best man out of the group.
Kerry had to many skelatons as we've seen.
Clark would've fought a good race but would lose ~300 to ~200

[TheWildCard]

As a Republican I wish you guys would have picked Dean

but Lieberman or Edwards(and possibly Gephardt) would have been very good choices. Bush would be getting lambasted if he was running against Edwards.

[Wakie]

It didn't matter who we nominated, the GOP was going to attack them personally.

Leiberman is about as exciting as wallpaper and they would have attacked his religion.

With Edwards they would try to play the experience and trial attorney card.  And if that failed they would attack his dead son.

They were already labeling Dean a nutcase despite the fact that he really is really just a regular guy.

Gephardt they would have labeled "the most liberal man in Congress" and a "flip-flopper".  Plus they would have blasted his close ties to unions.

Clark they would have played the experience issue and then they would have rolled out some Pentagon insiders who were upset that he was promoted ahead of them.

Heck, we could run Jesus Christ and they would call him soft on crime and foreign policy and blast him for associating with prostitutes and some former criminals.

[lidaker]

John Kerry was the strongest possible choice and I've always supported him.

[Andrew]

I voted for Dean in February; I'd support him now.  Any candidate nominated by either the Democrats or the Republicans is "electable"--I never bought into that nonsense.

Even though Dean was my candidate, I have no reservations about voting for Kerry.

[Democratic Hawk]

Kerry. I'm becoming increasingly pro-Kerry as opposed to just pro-Democrat.

What I saw on Thursday was a a 'president-in-waiting'. Kerry will be a statesman with the pragmatism to forge a new consensus and restore America's dignity.

Dave

[HockeyDude]

I'm also becoming more pro-Kerry, but I still think Edwards was the best choice.  But the ticket we ended up with was a good way to get the two best men running for the nomination on the ticket, and Kerry wouldn't have done as VP.  That said, I like Kerry/Edwards alot.  Part of me still likes Dean tho, but he would only have solidified blue states, as I can't see him winning in any state Bush won in 2000. 

[© Tweed the Younger]

Since it is evident that Bush is beatable, at least at the moment, I'd say Edwards.

If it turns out that no one could have beaten Bush on Nov 2 I'd say Dean.

[Beef]

Since I voted in the Democrat primary (as a serious vote, not a "strategic" vote) I am counting myself as a Dem for purposes of this poll.

Voted John Edwards in the Primary.
Believed John Edwards was the best candidate.
Believed John Edwards had the best chance of beating Bush.

Still believe John Edwards was the best candidate.
Still believe John Edwards would have had the best chance of beating Bush
Still would have voted for John Edwards.

[Defarge]

I always supported Clark, but Kerry and Gephardt were my second choices

[Shira]

I know now what I knew than:

The war in Iraq has and never had anything to do with WMD or with terror.

An explicit anti war candidate like Clark could have been better than Kerry.

[A18]

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror? How much of a hack are you?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I supported John Edwards, and I'm sure I still would have supported him given new information because he is a client of the polling firm I worked for.

But had he not been a client, I suppose I could see myself supporting Howard Dean given the info we now know on Iraq. 

[Wakie]

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror? How much of a hack are you?

OK, explain how they are related.

[TheCommentator]

Clark or Edwards.

How many of you watching Kerry in the debate were reminded of Jimmy Carter? Kerry just kept nitpicking these little management things and didn't really say how he would WIN the war on terror. Bush kept talking about it, even if he did an atrocious job, Kerry didn't even try to talk about it. He could have expanded his statement about "isolating" the terrorists within the muslim world, rather than isolating the US, but he didn't really go very far into it. I am voting for Kerry but I do have reservations. If he were elected I want to see him do more than just shore up homeland security, but go on the offensive as well... just in a smarter way than Bush.

[Downwinder]

I'd stick with Dean.

I'm certain that he would have run an aggressive, well-run campaign, and that he would have appealled to undecideds on his populism and likeablility.

[Donovan]

It didn't matter who we nominated, the GOP was going to attack them personally.

Leiberman is about as exciting as wallpaper and they would have attacked his religion.

With Edwards they would try to play the experience and trial attorney card.  And if that failed they would attack his dead son.

They were already labeling Dean a nutcase despite the fact that he really is really just a regular guy.

Gephardt they would have labeled "the most liberal man in Congress" and a "flip-flopper".  Plus they would have blasted his close ties to unions.

Clark they would have played the experience issue and then they would have rolled out some Pentagon insiders who were upset that he was promoted ahead of them.

Heck, we could run Jesus Christ and they would call him soft on crime and foreign policy and blast him for associating with prostitutes and some former criminals.

You are totally right! They would attack anyone we nominated. I still wanted Clark to be my Presiden though. Kerry was my second choice, but I will support him 100%. And he is 1000000000000% better than Bush.

[J. J.]

Gephardt.  We would not arguing over OH, PA, and possibly MI.  MO, IA, and possibly WI would be in D camp.

[Donovan]

I'd stick with Dean.

I'm certain that he would have run an aggressive, well-run campaign, and that he would have appealled to undecideds on his populism and likeablility.

Hate to tell you this. But I would be voting for a third party candidate if Dean was the nominee. He is the only candidate running that I didn't like. He took credit for stuff he didn't have anything to do with that is the one thing I cannot forgive regardless of your party affiliation.

[Beef]

Gephardt.  We would not arguing over OH, PA, and possibly MI.  MO, IA, and possibly WI would be in D camp.

I doubt Gephardt would be doing any better here.  He does have ties to labor, but the labor vote is going to Kerry anyway.

IA Democrats were none too crazy about him in January, so that doesn't bode well.

MO would be a lock, though.

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

I supported Clark back then, and I would still support him now.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I supported Clark back then, and I would still support him now.

Welcome back!

[A18]

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror? How much of a hack are you?

OK, explain how they are related.

How much of a hack are you?

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

Iran = al-Qaeda ties
Iraq = enemy of Iran
Chechen seperatists = al-Qaeda ties
Russia = enemy of Chechen seperatists
Russia = friendly with Iraq

do the math