Who would you have voted for in 2004 Democratic Primaries

[OSR stands with Israel]

I would gone with Liberman

[Mr. Reactionary]

Clark > Gephardt > Edwards > Kerry > Dean > Kucinich > Lieberman > Sharpton

[Mr. Smith]

Edwards.

[The Dowager Mod]

I voted for Kerry.

[NeverAgain]

Kucinich.

[Frodo]

At the time, I supported Dennis Kucinich (I was 21).  Looking back, I would have backed John Kerry instead. 

[IceSpear]

Dean

[Boston Bread]

Dean > Kucinich > Edwards > Kerry > Clark > Gephardt > Sharpton >>>> ... >>>> Lieberman

(if I'd known about Edwards' scandal  I would have placed him after Gephardt)

Dean

Really? Anti-establishment in 2004 but not 08 or 16?

[Asian Nazi]

I was, of all things, a Wesley Clark supporter in 2004.  Of course I was also 11 at the time and my logic didn't go beyond "we need to outflank Bush and nominate a military guy".

[Maxwell]

I was a little Republican in 2004, so I hated all of em (I was 11)

But thinking about it now, Kerry or Dean.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I was, of all things, a Wesley Clark supporter in 2004.  Of course I was also 11 at the time and my logic didn't go beyond "we need to outflank Bush and nominate a military guy".

You followed politics at 11 and knew who Clark was lol . In 200& when I was the same age I only knew 3 people running Obama Hillary McCain

[TDAS04]

Dean.

[SATW]

I'd still support George W. in the general, though.

[Asian Nazi]

I was, of all things, a Wesley Clark supporter in 2004.  Of course I was also 11 at the time and my logic didn't go beyond "we need to outflank Bush and nominate a military guy".

You followed politics at 11 and knew who Clark was lol . In 200& when I was the same age I only knew 3 people running Obama Hillary McCain

I've always been a huge f***king nerd, man.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Kerry, I guess

looking at this uninspiring list, why didn't Joe Biden run this year instead of 08? 

[IceSpear]

Dean > Kucinich > Edwards > Kerry > Clark > Gephardt > Sharpton >>>> ... >>>> Lieberman

(if I'd known about Edwards' scandal  I would have placed him after Gephardt)

Dean

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.

[White Trash]

Gephardt > Clark > Edwards > Dean > Kerry > Sharpton > Kucinich > Lieberman

[Clark Kent]

Lieberman or Clark. I do remember supporting Bush for some reason (my little brother supported Kerry).

[OSR stands with Israel]

Lieberman or Clark. I do remember supporting Bush for some reason (my little brother supported Kerry).

In 2004 i didn't even know who the dem nominee was(7 at the time ) but I wanted George w bush to win since he seemed cool

[beaver2.0]

Dean, but I voted Edwards.

Dean>Edwards>Clark>Gephardt>Lieberman>Kerry>Kucinich

[Boston Bread]

Re: IceSpear,
thanks for the explanation.

On a left-right scale I guess I would be closer to Sanders, but Clinton's 2016 campaign isn't that from me either. I would just prefer Sanders as president. Also I don't think I would be a very good left-winger if I couldn't even side with the more left-leaning 40% of the mostly moderate Democratic party.

[Goldwater]

Clark > Liberman > everyone else

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I was a big Kerry fan in 2004 during the primary and the general.  I was like, nine at the time, but there was something I found very appealing about Kerry for some reason.  Maybe because I lived in Connecticut at the time and thought, "Ooh, senator from the state I travel through every year for summer vacation?  Gotta be my guy!  He's handsome, too!"  After he won, I'm fairly certain I was the only fourth-grader at my school to have a Kerry/Edwards sticker on their notebook.

I had literally no idea who the other guys were because by the time I started following politics, the primary had come down to him and Edwards.  With hindsight, I would've been a Dean supporter.  I could have warmed to Edwards' populist message, obviously before the bad stuff came out.

Never would've supported Lieberman under any circumstances.  I enthusiastically backed Lamont in 2006.

[IceSpear]

Re: IceSpear,
thanks for the explanation.

On a left-right scale I guess I would be closer to Sanders, but Clinton's 2016 campaign isn't that from me either. I would just prefer Sanders as president. Also I don't think I would be a very good left-winger if I couldn't even side with the more left-leaning 40% of the mostly moderate Democratic party.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention this, but Obama wasn't really an anti-establishment candidate. The establishment stampeded over to his side the second he won Iowa. They were only with Hillary at first because they didn't initially see him as a viable candidate.

[Illiniwek]

I was, of all things, a Wesley Clark supporter in 2004.  Of course I was also 11 at the time and my logic didn't go beyond "we need to outflank Bush and nominate a military guy".

You followed politics at 11 and knew who Clark was lol . In 200& when I was the same age I only knew 3 people running Obama Hillary McCain

I've always been a huge f***king nerd, man.

I was also an 11 year old that was a Clark fan. My mom really liked him from his military experience and I bought in too. I still really like the guy, but would probably advocate for him being VP rather than POTUS. I was VERY bored by Kerry. I saw Howard dean, and watched his scream moment live and thought he was a freaking loon. It took until near the 2012 election when I realized I really liked him and today probably would cast my vote for him.

I also bought into Obama in 04 and knew he'd be president then. By no means was I surprised when he beat Hillary.