1. National Health Care
   
2. Demilitarisation
   
3. End GWOT in favor of coordinated international police action
   
4. Free public education from kindergarten to grad school
   
5. Clean energy policy-no nuclear subsidies, carbon tax,
   
6. Responsible environmental stewardship
   
7. Depoliticize the gov't bureaucracy (where to start there?)
   
8. Consumer protection from predatory lenders
   
9. End NAFTA--make trade fair
   
10. Lead on immigration law reform
    
11. Address the giant wealth and earnings gap
    
12. Leave Iraq, shutdown GITMO, stop illegal surveillance, etc.
    
13. Focus on the nation's physical infrastructure and the cities

1.funding for extensive commuter and urban rail in and around America's 25 largest cities.

2. Funding for high speed passenger and freight rail in Americas busiest transportation corridors.

3. Commitment to decreasing tuition costs

5. end the death penalty, and commitment to rights of the accused and prisoners.

6.funding for criminal rehabilitation.

7. immigration policy based on first family reunification, then merit and need.

9. extensive sex ed for all American students

1. Universal health care
   
2. Balanced budget, cut pork barrel
   
3. Decrease abortion through incentives
   
4. End the War on Drugs
   
5. Restore the Constitution, repeal Bush's PATRIOT Act and FISA nonsense
   
6. Recognize the rights of transgender
   
7. Sanction China and other egregious human rights violators

I was reviewing the comments to my earlier post, the Final Word on the Pile-On, and was struck by how many people are opposed to one candidate or another because they aren't sufficiently left or progressive.

BTD hammers Obama for not being sufficiently correct on various issues.

Jeralyn, you have to expect a blacklash, sooner or later, when metaphorically, you poke someone in the eye.

Word to the wise: if Senator Clinton falls behind, she will knee cap the frontrunner.  When that happens, I hope you're equally outraged.  

But, I'm wondering, what position on issues would your ideal candidate have?

my biggest issues are on the basics - a sort of "rules of the road." i want my candidate to be committed to:

1. the principle of self government by the people (and not some elite subset of the people)

2. open and transparent goverment.

3. telling the truth to the american people.

4. the principle of universality - whatever the rules (or laws) are going to be, we agree they apply equally to all. so, for example, if we decide it's ok for us to use preventive attacks and wars, then we're ok if others are going to do the same - even if we're that target. or if we think extraordinary rendition is ok, then we're ok with another country doing that to usa citizens (even elected officials).

5. the universality of human rights.

And who, among the current crop of candidates, do you think honestly shares them?

1.

put a lockbox on my social security benefits

do you even have the remotest clue what you're even talking about? i thought not. while it makes a great sound bite, it's meaningless. this originally came up with al gore, and even he didn't have a clue. he was smart enough to realize that, and it never came out of his mouth again.

SS benefits survive strictly at the whim of congress, there are no guarantees, period. the excess funds collected, over the current payouts, go into the trust fund, for future payouts. would you like them to just sit there, gathering dust, or be invested, earning interest? congress decided to invest them in the safest of them, gov't bonds. those bonds represent debt by the gov't, always have, always will, regardless of who buys them.

2.

Her answer on Iran was particularly upsetting.  She's going to "get a bunch of people together to come up with a plan."  

no, that's the intelligent answer, from someone who recoginizes that you kind of need all the facts, before coming up with a workable solution.

bush would rather just bomb them, after attempting to convince us that they are about to launch nukes on brownsville, tx. ok, maybe that's a bad choice, who'd miss it?

in any event, that's what presidents are supposed to do, it's why they have a cabinet and all those expert advisors.

sen. clinton obviously doesn't have all the answers, nor do any of the others. however, she seems to have a much better grasp of what's actually important, then either the rest of the democratic, or any of the current republican candidates.

  Our system and our society are such that not many "good" people even run for office. Of those that do, a significant number can't win mainly because of the qualities I find appealing are not appealing to those with them money and entrenched power.

   Unlike most people here though, I am not ideologically driven and judge candidates  first and foremost as human beings not as a repository of positions on issues. I'd vote for a person who is honest, ethical, sincere, intelligent, informed and open-minded who disagrees with me on important issues before I'd vote for a slimeball or hack who says what I want said. Obviously, my ideal candidate would be honest, etc. and agree with me, but I think one of the biggest problems we have is that so many people are willing to vote for dishonest, unethical, people simply because they pander to their prejudices.

Balance budget by shrinking government.  

End all foreign occupations by US forces.

Extensive review of all existing federal law leading to massive repeals of ineffective/unnecessary laws.