I wasn't too surprised with my results (Kucinich 100% > Sharpton 94% > Kerry 88% > Dean 84% > Clark 82% > Edwards 77% > Lieberman 69% > Bush 3%), though I wasn't expecting Kerry to come out ahead of Dean. Of course, this quiz is mostly about "issues," and therefore leaves out things like "electability" (although I could have knocked both Sharpton and Clark out of the picture by making "has held elective office" a non-negotiable requirement). I do find the categorization of issues in the priorities section rather odd--lumping crime with education and the environment with the economy doesn't entirely make sense to me (although there are connections there).
I guess I can't put too much stock in any quiz of this format--I think the multiple choice approach to issues is limited, and (more dangerously) limiting. I don't just want a candidate who opposes the invasion of Iraq and the Patriot [sic] Act; I want one who also proposes creative, substantive, effective alternatives.
Call me silly (hey, who called me silly?), but I much prefer talking about issues to talking about electability!
That's not silly at all--I didn't mean to suggest that electability ought to be the main criterion, just to note that leaving it out altogether might make the quiz results different from people's real-life preferences.
I still think the main problem with the quiz is in how the issues are presented.
I really hate that Crime is linked with Education. To me, education is the most important and integral issue for civil rights and crime, hey that's just not that important to me.
Whoever called you silly, Elayne, it wasn't I. 
Let me make a pitch for electability as an important criterion. My politics probably most resemble Kucinich's, with a couple of important exceptions (e.g., I didn't have to flip-flop to get to the right position on a woman's right to choose). But there is no single issue this election year that is of greater significance than dumping Bush. If we vote for the perfect candidate, the one our conscience most agrees with, and fail to ditch GWB, we may forfeit all future chances to make any kind of choice. Is Bush a dictator? Not yet! But we can make him one, if we allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good.
------
Echidne has just what it takes...
So help her out, for goodness' snakes!
- SB the YDD
Steve, you've got the job of the Divine Jester any time you want it!
Echidne, I am honored. Of course I accept! I am much happier being offered the position of "Divine Jester" than being presented with an obscene gesture, which is what my rhymes more often net me!
<blogwhoring> BTW, there's a lot more (and longer) doggerel on my site, though I haven't written much recently. In my banner nav bar, look for the series of links labeled
| LATEST | TEN | ...
and click any of them </blogwhoring>
Thanks again. I look forward to reading more of your posts!
------
On screeds and rhymes whole days we've spent...
If only blogging paid the rent!
- SB the YDD
After taking the test, I compared Dean, Clark, Kerry and Edwards.
They all have the same stance on the issues.
Steve, what evidence do you have that changing the president will change government practice? We'll just get another Clinton: someone who makes liberal promises and ignores them.
Steve, what evidence do you have that changing the president will change government practice? We'll just get another Clinton: someone who makes liberal promises and ignores them. - Redeye
Redeye, what evidence do you have that it won't? Given life in the Clinton years and life in the Bush years, I do believe the burden of proof is on you, not me. Ask any two dozen Americans the classic question: are you better off than you were four years ago? Then ask any two dozen liberals, progressives, left/libertarians... choose your own favorite word. Without praising Clinton... every lefty had issues with Clinton... I can say unequivocally that life was better in his administration than in the Bush administration.
The argument that Clinton (or his possible Democratic equivalent, Bush's successor next year) and Bush are not significantly different is false on its face. Consider, if nothing else, the environment. If Bush continues to occupy the White House, who will restore to life all the species that have gone and will go extinct during his term? Who will replace the national forests felled and sold? Who will "un-drill" ANWR? If there were no other differences, environmental policy alone would argue in favor of replacing Bush with any Democrat... yes, I said any Democrat... after which we can press for a more liberal course of action.
And don't get me started about civil liberties. Trust me, you don't want to get me started.
Pretending that Bush is no more dangerous than, say, Kerry or Dean, is downright disingenuous. You know better. If you don't know better... oh, never mind.
This is no year to be proving some grandiose point about the state of American political thought. This is the year America is saved from fascism... or is not. It's crunch time, if you insist on a sports metaphor. Vote to rid our nation of Bush, or suffer the consequences.
I do not want to live in the world that I am virtually certain will result from Bush's election in 2004. But if you really don't believe a change of president will make any difference... stay home. Don't vote. Do at least that for your country.
Commenting by HaloScan
