Kucinich
Clinton
Obama
Richardson
Edwards
Dodd
Gravel
Biden
Paul
McCain
Huckabee
Hunter
Romney
Guiliani
Trancedo
Brownback
I'm surprised to see Clinton so high up on my list. Also disappointed in Obama. Even the things I agreed with him about we're crap things like lead paint. I also thought the test was interesting because, at least for me, it buries any notion that Republicans and Dems are both the same. Half of what the Republicans were saying scared the bejesus out of me and I had to wonder exactly what world they were living in.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
interesting: our top four were the same (with richardson and obama flipped in my results). but i agree with your earlier comments about the flaws in the test.
i was also scared shitless by some of the republican statements. made me realize that i had better start playing closer attention to what those fuckers are saying. one of them might be our next president (if, in some bizarre twist, kucinch somehow DOESN'T win the election...)
heya,
i want to go through every category before i report back, but a few initial comments... i am shocked by how high i find richardson and clinton ranking...but, let's remember we're voting on soundbites, eh?
it's a long test. Especially if you stop to find out "who the fuck said that?"
My list: Kucinich (are we really surprised?), Obama, Clinton, Richardson, Dodd, Gravel, Biden, Edwards, Paul, McCain, Huckabee, Brownback, Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Hunter, Tancredo.
Yeah, the drop-off between the Ds and Rs was pretty dramatic. I was also surprised by Edwards poor showing, but let me venture an explanation. On a number of issues (health care immediately comes to mind), Edwards has been the only candidate to release specific, detailed proposals. So, for example, with his health care plan, we were given specific policies to agree or disagree with, rather than vague platitudes and the like. So while on the whole, I might think Edwards plan is a good start, there are specific things in there which I don't agree with, so I wouldn't check that particular statement. Obama, in another f'rinstance, has played his policy cards pretty close to the vest and hasn't proffered much in the way where I could disagree with certain policy proposals, so he comes out looking better. Just a thought.
At the risk of losing all friends based on this, here is my list: Clinton (gasp, I know!), Kucinich, Obama, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Edwards (tie), Gravel, McCain, Paul (tie), Huckabee, Hunter, Thompson (tie), Brownback, Guiliani and Romney (tie-3).
I agree with Wobblie on the issue with Edwards. However, I also think that the methodology is a little messed up. This test gives every statement the same weight. Assuming that there are an equal number of statements for each candidate (I didn't check), then it means that every statement I check "yes" means that it is equally important to me. My "yes" agreement on something like, say, the plan for the Iraq is much more important than my thoughts on music in the classroom (one of my three "yes" responses to Huckabee). While I firmly agree that music education is important for children (my nightmares resulting from my ill-fated season in marching band aside), I do not believe it takes the same priority as a logical plan for disentanglement from the Iraq mess.
As Patrick notes, this is based on soundbite, which should give "mainstream" candidates the advantage, it is extremely disturbing that I could only find ONE response to agree with both Guiliani (stem cell research should be legal) and Romney (despite his little quip about a "spending binge", I gave him the benefit of the doubt because the federal debt is a burden on our economy...). That these are the two top Republican candidates is really scary to me.
Post a Comment