Dean > Kucinich > Edwards > Kerry > Clark > Gephardt > Sharpton >>>> ... >>>> Lieberman
(if I'd known about Edwards' scandal I would have placed him after Gephardt)
Really? Anti-establishment in 2004 but not 08 or 16?
I don't base my support solely on whether someone is pidgeonholed into "establishment" or "anti-establishment." I was a Clinton/Sestak voter this year after all.
I also would've supported Bernie against most Democrats other than Hillary this year. The only exceptions I can think of off the top of my head would be Gillibrand or Feingold.
Besides, each field was quite different. In 2004, for instance: Why would I support Kerry? The guy is extremely bland, uninspiring, and about as exciting as watching paint dry. He only won Iowa because he was generic D and happened to rise to the top after Dean and Gephardt kicked the crap out of each other and turned everyone off. Then he swept to inevitability because Democrats were terrified and in a rush to coronate their candidate so they'd have a chance against Bush. Oh, and people thought him serving in the military would neutralize Bush's attacks. So much for that.
Edwards is an obvious phony and about as genuine or authentic as a used car salesman (digression: I find it
hilarious that many of the people who supported Edwards in 04/08 now attack Hillary's "character." Perhaps you guys just aren't a very good judge of it?) Gephardt was old news. Lieberman was a terrible loser and a Droopy dog lookalike. Kucinich and Sharpton were joke candidates. I might have considered Clark, but Dean was easily the best of the lot here.
In 2008, nobody was relevant besides Clinton/Obama/Edwards. Edwards, the above still applies. Obama served in the Senate for a massive 2 years before running for president. Not exactly a stellar resume. This inexperience and naivety hurt him, as we saw throughout his presidency with Republicans taking advantage of his attempts to sing kumbaya and be "reasonable and bipartisan" again and again. Toward the end he's learned that Congressional Republicans are foul, spineless, rotten, and unprincipled creatures that will vote against their own ideas and legislation solely to stick it to the black guy and ride the wave of discontent to huge midterm wins, and that they have no concern whatsoever about the welfare of the country. I'm glad he's learned that, but it would've been nice if we had Hillary, who wouldn't have had to learn that lesson on the job (she saw it all through the 90s.)
Despite having a much longer Senate career than Obama, Bernie is just as naive unfortunately. He really thinks a bunch of kids from Reddit spamming Mitch McConnell/Paul Ryan's emails/phones will get them to pass his socialist programs. That's not how it works, because as I said, they couldn't care less about public opinion or the welfare of the country. He talks about a political revolution, but has put very little effort into supporting candidates for Congress, which would be absolutely essential to even get slices of his agenda through. Despite all this, I do agree with him that the Democratic Party needs to move away from centrism and take a more left-wing approach. But I'd argue that Hillary can actually get more progressive goals accomplished than he could, since she knows how to work the system. Give me the tough as nails tenacious sketchy bitch that knows the true colors of the Republicans and the ugliness of sausage making over the naive inspirational black guy or the somewhat delusional socialist, every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Also, Hillary has always been a liberal. The "right wing neoliberal warmonger" crap is a myth perpetuated by sexist whiny bros on the internet. You can't hold her accountable for her husband's presidency, considering the Congress and the country as a whole was very right wing in the 90s. She's done a lot of great work with her advocacy for health care reform and women's rights. So although I do agree with Bernie that the Dems need to move more to the left (which is why I would've supported him over say, Biden or Cuomo or Warner) I line up much better ideologically with her than I do with a self proclaimed socialist.
In addition, I kind of have an emotional connection to Hillary since she was the first candidate for president I ever supported. I obviously didn't follow politics much in 2004 as an 11 year old, and only vaguely supported Kerry because "he is against Bush and Bush is dumb." I only truly became a political junkie in 07-08. So there's another reason, if not a great one, that I support her. Oh, and it's time for a female president. Sorry Reddit bros, it is not "sexist" to think this.
Anyway, jeez, I did not expect this post to be so long. Hopefully I answered your question.
Poll
