Politics matter people, pay attention
So, I am very disappointed in the American public for their lack of knowledge about the current political race. When asked about the positions held by various candidates, the American public gets it wrong a lot. Apparently, about 50% of Ron Paul supporters think that he is pro-choice, but he is not. Almost 60% of Richardson's supporters think that he supports gay marriage, but he does not. Granted, this poll was of a very small number and has a rather large margin of error, but the fact that anybody claims to support a candidate and not only does not know their stance on major issues, but thinks their stance is the opposite of what it actually is, is a bit disturbing.
The same is true for larger polls, asking people which Democratic candidate is the most progressive. For some reason, Clinton, Richardson, and Obama top that list, when in fact these are three of the four least progressive Democratic candidates. John Edwards polls as the least progressive, but in actuality is by far the most progressive of the major candidates, and is at least tied with the minor candidates. The same goes for the furthest to the left and furthest to the right. People have it backwards.
Essentially, if you want to support the Democratic candidate who is furthest to the left, you want to support Kucinich (or Edwards if you are looking only at the top candidates), if you want the one furthest to the right, you want Richardson (or Clinton if you are looking only at the top candidates). Of course, politics is far more complicated than that, but if people paid attention, they would at least know this.
Personally, at the caucus I am supporting Edwards, without any doubt. However, if my district doesn't have enough support to win him a delegate, I will caucus for Kucinich (even though I think he's a bit off his rocker and uses too much rhetoric and not enough actual info), but I'm not positive about this. Obama would probably be my third choice, maybe Gravel or Biden as forth, Clinton being fifth, and Richardson the only candidate for whom I would not caucus. However, this ranking could change, as I am paying attention.
The same is true for larger polls, asking people which Democratic candidate is the most progressive. For some reason, Clinton, Richardson, and Obama top that list, when in fact these are three of the four least progressive Democratic candidates. John Edwards polls as the least progressive, but in actuality is by far the most progressive of the major candidates, and is at least tied with the minor candidates. The same goes for the furthest to the left and furthest to the right. People have it backwards.
Essentially, if you want to support the Democratic candidate who is furthest to the left, you want to support Kucinich (or Edwards if you are looking only at the top candidates), if you want the one furthest to the right, you want Richardson (or Clinton if you are looking only at the top candidates). Of course, politics is far more complicated than that, but if people paid attention, they would at least know this.
Personally, at the caucus I am supporting Edwards, without any doubt. However, if my district doesn't have enough support to win him a delegate, I will caucus for Kucinich (even though I think he's a bit off his rocker and uses too much rhetoric and not enough actual info), but I'm not positive about this. Obama would probably be my third choice, maybe Gravel or Biden as forth, Clinton being fifth, and Richardson the only candidate for whom I would not caucus. However, this ranking could change, as I am paying attention.