Last I saw the DFA poll was Kucinich, (Gore as a write-in), then Edwards right before closing. Hillary was way down the list. I think that is great news.

And I think his traction is real... at least among real people and not the Clinton press.

Whoever wins the Dem nomination will be in for some serious swiftboating from the Republicofascists. It will strong, sustained, coordinated and brutal.

I think when push comes to shove, the primary voters are going to fall back on a straight white male a la Edwards.

While Hillary and Obama fight it out, Edwards is going to go right past them.

My two cents for what it's worth.

I hear you, monkeys.

Maybe I'll just vote with my hormones.
;-)

Most people who will vote haven't been asked how they'll vote.

In my lifetime anyway, polls have been wrong as much as they've been right.

There's still a chance for a real Democrat to win the nomination.

If he would go after The Republican Crime Syndicate his poll numbers would jump.

Bashing Hillary is like republicans bashing Nancy Reagan.

theWalrus @ 4:

Whoever wins the Dem nomination will be in for some serious swiftboating from the Republicofascists. It will strong, sustained, coordinated and brutal.

you are unequivocably correct!

Unequivocally is the Standard adverb, meaning “plainly, unquestionably, clearly,” as in We were unequivocally correct in our judgment. Unequivocably does occur occasionally, but it is Nonstandard and should not be used.

snewp @ 16:

Unequivocally is the Standard adverb, meaning “plainly, unquestionably, clearly,” as in We were unequivocally correct in our judgment. Unequivocably does occur occasionally, but it is Nonstandard and should not be used.

You correction is unequivocally annoying.

Too bad but pretty sure the demos will nosedive on this election...

I'd love for Kucinich to be president, but I'm also a realist.

Edwards is my choice. I've had enough of the Bush Crime Family -- and of the Clintons (though I love Bill), too.

I'd support Hillary against any Rethug, of course, but I just wish she'd go away.

Time for a new name, a new family, a new direction ...

If I have to vote for Hillary a year from now, it will be with my nose held. I won't be happy to do it, it'll just be the lesser of two evils. I haven't seen much from her that she says she isn't more of the same. I can't in good conscience vote for anyone who doesn't take a strong stand against the corporate takeover of America and that's the BIG difference between Edwards and Clinton for me. He has, she won't.

Chicago Joe @ 17:

Say what some will about Edwards, he has neither the slickness and IN-experience Obama has or the corporate government are my posse Clinton has - he's the middle man with the experience to govern this country and all without the cloud of dark corporate-run greed hovering above him while he's doing so.

He's neither the wimp or pretty boy people make him out to be - he's represents a balanced center to what everyone else in the foray is offering themselves up as.

Edwards has my primary vote! Let's hope I can say the same thing for the Presidential vote a year from now!

Oh, by the way - Edwards and Wes Clark as running mates...sound good to you, too?

Yes, it does.

Edwards is the guy the Republicans fear the most. A progressive southern white man with a plan.

God help Mittrudy McThompson if he's nominated.

hadenuf @ 23:

Johnny2Bad @ 18:

snewp @ 16:

Unequivocally is the Standard adverb, meaning “plainly, unquestionably, clearly,” as in We were unequivocally correct in our judgment. Unequivocably does occur occasionally, but it is Nonstandard and should not be used.

You correction is unequivocally annoying.

Irregardless.

They're prolly right. Supposably, anyway.

Looks like Dennis Kucinich is winning in the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party as Howard Dean used to say...

2008 Democracy for America Presidential Poll...
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/pulsepoll/results?&r=1

Too bad he didn't get much support today with his bill (H.R. 333) to impeach Cheney. Time will tell.

Kudos to Edwards for sticking up for American workers. It's so hard when Hillary and Obama get all the coverage

Volum @ 19:

swarmofkillermonkeys @ 2:

And I think his traction is real... at least among real people and not the Clinton press.

That's pretty rude. I know plenty of "real people" who support Hillary %100.

Edwards is spinning the same crap about "she takes money from lobbyists!!" I wish that would die, as there are MANY of very progressive lobbies in washington, including Teachers lobbies, Nurses lobbies, Auto Workers lobbies, etc etc etc.. And Edwards hopes you don't know that so his rhetoric will push through.
puke

So you condone Hillary and bribery rather than regular lobbying? Gee, that's great. If you watch the clip, maybe you'll understand the difference between bribery and lobbying.

And pointing out that the mainstream press AND democratic outlets have given Hillary FAR more press than her compeditors -- even before her lead in the "polls" -- is not rude. It is the truth. Count the headlines. Orders of magnitude off.

Don't get upset at me if you don't like the truth.

naschkatze @ 9:

I can't vote in the primary here in Oregon because I am a non-affiliated voted, but I will vote for any Democrat nominated unless it is Hillary Clinton. John Edwards was trying to be diplomatic, but out of all the Democrats she is the one who comes across as dishonest, insincere, and unworthy of trust. It's fitting that the two Democratic senators who screwed us with Mukasey are Clinton supporters.

That is EXACTLY where I'm at. I'm not so happy with the Dems that I will join their party. I'll probably always be independent (never been any party memeber, but I helped Ross Perot the first time, and have helped certain individuals that happen to be local Dems in the reddest of red states).

But I really really regret not joining a party for the first time to vote for Edwards in the primary. I feel that my vote was needed there, but what can I do now? (other than annoy people here at C&L) I just moved so I'm still researching any last ditch options.

This is the guy. He's saying EXACTLY what all of us have been demanding for years. There probably won't be a better candidate, or a better time, to get in and fix the system. But somehow, suddenly people are wafffling! Very frustrating to me. I hate to say it but I myself was interested in Obama for his good charisma alone, until the new wore off. I'd also think it would be neat to have a minority president. That would say a lot about this country. But not at the expense of fixing the system FIRST, I've come to realize.

So on positions, I think he is unmatched. DO THE RIGHT THING DEMS, PLEASE! Take your party back from the Clinton machine. Please.

edwards said at the AIPAC conference that he’d nuke Iran. That’s all I need to know about him.

I've never seen he say that. And I highly doubt it. However, any serious candidate will say, "I'm not committing to a hypothetical. Of course, I'd use all legal options available as president to defend my country. But that isn't the issue in front of us."

That is a stupid gotcha question, I'm sorry. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet, yes or no?!" I thought Obama did a good job of pointing this out in the last MSNBC debate about UFO Russert's just horrible "questions". Obviously the answer is, IF IT WAS THE ONLY WAY TO SURVIVE, "yes". But it isn't and WILL NEVER BEEN THE ONLY WAY FOR AMERICA TO SURVIVE. Period. Sorry for shouting, but it isn't that hard to figure out the trick to that.

That is not the same thing as "nuking Iran". Give me a break, you're smarter than to allow yourself to be manipulated by bad media.

I respect Wes Clark. I'd rather have him focus on rebuilding an honest military/intelligence command structure instead, however. I wish Gore would just endorse Edwards already. But he always has to be the boyscout... BTW, I thought all the Howard Dean guys were helping to run Edwards' campaign now?

Johnny,

I've actually met Edwards twice - once at a book signing in Chicago just before he announced his running and again in Chicago at a fundraiser. Each time I was introduced to a genuine person of intelligence, charm and the ability to draw people together with his ideas for the future of this country.

I agree with you - he's the candidate ReBUBS fear the most because they have NOTHING on him, he's a southern gentleman and he has more ideas in a single day than the entire GOP can come up with in a 8-year Presidential run.

Edwards in '08!!

Rusty Shackleford @ 33:

miss_kitty @ 28:

hadenuf @ 23:

Johnny2Bad @ 18:

Irregardless.

They're prolly right. Supposably, anyway.

I would like to see less corrections. If y'all spent more time at the liberry you'd be less ignant.

I could of told you as much.

Volum @ 19:

swarmofkillermonkeys @ 2:

And I think his traction is real... at least among real people and not the Clinton press.

That's pretty rude. I know plenty of "real people" who support Hillary %100.

Edwards is spinning the same crap about "she takes money from lobbyists!!" I wish that would die, as there are MANY of very progressive lobbies in washington, including Teachers lobbies, Nurses lobbies, Auto Workers lobbies, etc etc etc...

puke

That a specious argument. You know damn well (or you damn well should) that Edwards is not talking about the "nurses lobbies" or "auto workers".

Its the defense industry and the HMOs that are giving big to Hillary.

Follow the money, Honey.

Chip @ 37:

I think Hillary is going to get a lot of support from women voters. They guys have messed up the world enough as it is.

God, I hate that attitude. Female leaders have been just as bloodthirsty and corrupt as men. And anyone who votes for a candidate solely based on their gender/race is a moron.

Edwards is my personal favorite but I will vote for any Democrat over any Republican/other. Edwards would set a tone for this country without in my opinion divisiveness. This country is backward when it comes to electing anyone but a white male as president. Hillary would cause problems with all the manly men, and Obama would cause problems for people who hate/dislike people of color...

Media Concepts @ 41:

Did Edwards ever answer the question about what the difference is between his criticizing Clinton for taking money from lobbyists and his taking lots of money from people who hire lobbyists? It seemed to me like a good question. Edwards said, "I'll answer that, but can I take it bigger first, because there's a much bigger question ...." He then went on at length on his "much bigger question." Pretty clever avoidance tactic.

Yes, he did answer in the clip. He responded that lobbying as a job makes perfect sense. Similarly, when he'd step into court to argue a case against big corporate interests, it was his JOB. But if Edwards whet to court and just started paying the judge and jury... thats BRIBERY! Yet that is what supposed "lobbyists" do every day in Washington, and the supposed law allows it. Money in the system corrupts, period.

I think he is saying that you should be allowed to go to D.C., and of course argue your case whether you are Exxon or the NEA. But the moment you stop talking, and just pay people off instead, that is wrong. Then the richest corporate interest will then always win, and each individual loses. I'm not happy about that state of affairs, and Edwards and Feingold are the only people that seem to be taking it seriously.

naschkatze @ 13:

Jon @ 6:

I think when push comes to shove, the primary voters are going to fall back on a straight white male a la Edwards.

While Hillary and Obama fight it out, Edwards is going to go right past them.

My two cents for what it's worth.

I agree. I don't have anything against Obama, but I think Democrats are going to be nervous about having a black as their candidate in the end.

For me, it's not about black or white or Latino or anything else. It's about experience. Obama and Edwards both have the experience to cheer them on as VPs. Richardson has real experience. Dodd has experience by virtue of staying power in the Senate. Hillary has experience because of the vast Republican conspiracy that tried to thwart both her and her husband through eight long years and after millions of investigatory dollars found...a blow job.

Whom do I support? Not a clue. Not yet. Any Democrat in this race is better than any Repug in this race. But I'm liking Dodd right now, and Edwards (despite his lack of experience). About Rudy: if you believe that the country is on the right track (27%?) and you want to see a more authoritarian, pro-torture, anti-Constitution government, then there is only one candidate who can fulfill your wet dreams (and our nightmares): Rudy Mussolini.

Youffraita @ 48:

About Rudy: if you believe that the country is on the right track (27%?) and you want to see a more authoritarian, pro-torture, anti-Constitution government, then there is only one candidate who can fulfill your wet dreams (and our nightmares): Rudy Mussolini.

And do we really want a leader that talks like Sylvester The Cat?

swarmofkillermonkeys @ 46:

Media Concepts @ 41:

Did Edwards ever answer the question about what the difference is between his criticizing Clinton for taking money from lobbyists and his taking lots of money from people who hire lobbyists? It seemed to me like a good question. Edwards said, "I'll answer that, but can I take it bigger first, because there's a much bigger question ...." He then went on at length on his "much bigger question." Pretty clever avoidance tactic.

Yes, he did answer in the clip. He responded that lobbying as a job makes perfect sense. Similarly, when he'd step into court to argue a case against big corporate interests, it was his JOB. But if Edwards whet to court and just started paying the judge and jury... thats BRIBERY! Yet that is what supposed "lobbyists" do every day in Washington, and the supposed law allows it. Money in the system corrupts, period.

No, that wasn't the answer to the specific question from George S. That was Edwards' "bigger question" about why lobbyist money is evil. He didn't seem to answer why, if that is so, it is ok to take money from people who hire their own bribers. It appears that Edwards' distraction tactic worked on you.

I think he is saying that you should be allowed to go to D.C., and of course argue your case whether you are Exxon or the NEA. But the moment you stop talking, and just pay people off instead, that is wrong. Then the richest corporate interest will then always win, and each individual loses. I'm not happy about that state of affairs, and Edwards and Feingold are the only people that seem to be taking it seriously.

DraftGore.com

Say no more!

hope @ 49:

Chip @ 37:

I think Hillary is going to get a lot of support from women voters. This election expect a big turnout from women, both white and black. They guys have messed up the world enough as it is.

Every woman I know from the very young to the very old have an almost visceral negative reaction to her. The only woman I know that has had anything kind to say about her is a fundamentalist conservative. If Hillary is "elected" I think the only thing positive that comes of it may be that she will be a more benign dictator. I only hope Edwards is given a fighting chance but it seems the candidate has already been decided before even one primary has been held.

My experience, too. I know of no woman who supports Clinton. Most say "I just don't trust her." Women's intuition?

I was with Edwards and then not with Edwards.
I'm back with Edwards again.
While I don't like some of his ideas, I do think he is being honest with his audience.
I can't say that for anyone else.

STEPHANOPOULIS: The same words keep coming up, again and again and again: honesty, sincerity & integrity. It sure sounds like you’re suggesting that Sen. Clinton is not honest, is not sincere and can’t be trusted as President.

Edwards: No, what I’m saying is that this is a very important issue for America, and I think there are questions that have arisen. And I think those questions are fair to take into the account.

Nice dodge. Proof that on the sincerity and honesty question ... well we vote for politicians, don't we? And they all hedge because taking a stand that pleases the base often costs them votes in the General. I wish that weren't so, but look at Obama with his ex-gay pal and you know I'm right.

The Repubs have nothing on Edwards? In a nutshell ... slimy defense lawyer with no balls and pretty hair. Will it stick? Hard to say. Do they have nothing else up their sleeve? Ummm ... hello...

In terms of who is more sincere, honest, etc between Edwards and Hill ... it's a wash. They both strike me as pretty similar, though Edwards is a little slicker and more charming about it.

But if Edwards is the nominee, I will fight like hell for him. If Hillary gets it, the same is true.

And I would be content with either as president over any Republican.

DickCheneyShotMeInTheFace @ 50:

Youffraita @ 48:

About Rudy: if you believe that the country is on the right track (27%?) and you want to see a more authoritarian, pro-torture, anti-Constitution government, then there is only one candidate who can fulfill your wet dreams (and our nightmares): Rudy Mussolini.

And do we really want a leader that talks like Sylvester The Cat?

I had to learn FRENCH from a woman who spoke with that speech impediment.

as I said elsewhere put them in an arena (our version of the Coliseum) and let them go with close quarter weapons of their choice...Dems one Sunday Repugs another....Grand finish on Christmas or New Years Day 2008/9 and there we have it...no more bullshit analysis and all this blather...wanna nmake bets who wins.........

Carl Gordon @ 27:

Early Diagnosis: Hold the pickles, hold the lettuce, borderline latency involving the Palmar Median sensory response with associated demyelinating process involving the Ulnar response across the elbow and the bows of their ships. Give him a broadside. Chronic neurogenic changes of some severity involving the territory of the C7/T1 nerve roots. Decapitation an immediate necessity in order to realize improvement in patient’s attitude and demeanor. No apparent purpose to existence. Found severe evidence of past familial trauma in patient’s pineal node. Upon removal of cranium patient experienced remarkably profound improvement.

Recommendation: No stems or seeds.

Other than blowing up the moon, and a particularly offensive habit of not keeping my hands to myself whence in the company of buxom legal-aged women, I will take a little time out from my usual digital hijinks to contemplate the absurd sequence of events and pratfalls that resulted in my present state of languor in regards to taking the “next step”, and, of course, Mr. Edwards. I remember a retarded adage my whiskered mother used to tell him: “Better to have not tried, than to permanently wear the royal ass hat”, and with that needle-to-the-amygdala recollection, I punch myself really hard in the upper abdominal area, directly in front of the isles of Langerhans.

In my best Jon Stewart voice: "Whaaaaaaaaaat?"

I'm an Edwards supporter. I supported him last time around too. I think out of all the Democrats running he has the best chance of winning. This whole Hilliary thing is a scam IMO. The media and the GOP would love for her to be the nominee. That's because they know that she can't win. I don't care what the polls say, Hilliary can not win. I hope Democrats will realize this before it's too late.

Yeah, with Edwards you'll get a candidate who is both more electable AND more liberal than Hillary. Is there really any need to consider further?

I'm sorry, Nicole et al., but I just don't trust Edwards. He's saying all the right things now, but when push comes to shove, I don't think he has any integrity. He voted for the invasion of Iraq. He couldn't even deliver his home state for Kerry. He's a trial lawyer, and has taken a ton of money from trial lawyers.

I know Obama's campaign got tied up with that ex-gay preacher, and I didn't hear what he said about "Clean Coal." I just think he's more trustworthy, and I like his wife.

No matter what, I'm voting straight Democratic ticket. Hillary is alright by me, so is Edwards.

Old Billy @ 72
You like his wife? Interesting criteria. Edwards talked about clean coal and nuclear in one of the 10,000 debates. Don't have the date at my fingertips.

Piren @ 74:

Old Billy @ 72
You like his wife? Interesting criteria. Edwards talked about clean coal and nuclear in one of the 10,000 debates. Don't have the date at my fingertips.

All of them have very accomplished spouses. I really get a positive vibe from Obama and his wife. Edwards talks about running a positive campaign, but at the last debate, he was anything but positive. Maybe I'm just a dopeless hope-fiend, but I'm buying what Obama is selling.

motorfingaz @ 12:

If he would go after The Republican Crime Syndicate his poll numbers would jump.

Bashing Hillary is like republicans bashing Nancy Reagan.

The guy has been beating on BushCo criminality like a drum...where have you been, homes?

John Edwards has only become "progressive" and involved in public service since he started running in politics- Check his resume- He wasn't even a boy scout leader- he made money- lots and lots of it- How does one explain building, within the last few years, a 28,000+ sq foot house and also profess to work on environmental issues? There is no way to justify it- Ask his neighbors- those who know him best-They don't like him at all- He used to run those ambulance commercials- if you've been hurt or injured just call John Edwards -ick- He hasn't had a full time job in years- his full time job is running for President- he stands in picket lines-he helps the poor- he sucks up to unions- What a snow job- He told the Kerry campaign that they shouldn't admit that the Iraq vote was a mistake because it would look like a flip flop- Give me a break-this guy is a phony-

swarmofkillermonkeys @ 69:

hadenuf @ 64:

swarmofkillermonkeys, I look forward to you persuading me to change my vote. The primaries are a long way off.

I told the Edwards' campaign that I would looooooove to support him, if only....

Don't count on me. I'm not the "best persuader". But lately I've been pretty concerned about politics (haven't most of us), and had some free time. I can google Edwards campaign site though, and learn a lot just by discussion in places like this. I'm not a Dem or a member of Edwards' campaign, however... I'm too fond of my typos and goddamn swearwords. ;)

Tim @ 60:

STEPHANOPOULIS: The same words keep coming up, again and again and again: honesty, sincerity & integrity. It sure sounds like you’re suggesting that Sen. Clinton is not honest, is not sincere and can’t be trusted as President.

Edwards: No, what I’m saying is that this is a very important issue for America, and I think there are questions that have arisen. And I think those questions are fair to take into the account.

Nice dodge. Proof that on the sincerity and honesty question ... well we vote for politicians, don't we? And they all hedge because taking a stand that pleases the base often costs them votes in the General. ...

The Repubs have nothing on Edwards? In a nutshell ... slimy defense lawyer with no balls and pretty hair.

The quote from the clip does seem obscure. But I think he answers better further in. Personally, I respect him for refusing to be baited into slinging mud on Hillary personally. Besides it isn't necessary. The problem really IS the system she is defending, whatever she personally does.

While I'd agree that blindly trusting trial lawyers and politicians is usually a recipe for disaster, that is a pretty low blow. I really don't see Edwards as slimy since he is talking about anti-corruption, and if you have special knowledge of his privates... do tell the story...

Oh, I wasn't saying that about him. I don't have an issue with lawyers in general and think he defended some people who needed defending (including the little girl who got caught in the pool drain).

My point was that they have a line of attack ready for all of them and they all have to hedge a bit to get elected. I don't think it's cynical to say that. It is realistic.

I like Hillary. I don't always agree with her and I don't always support her positions. So what? That's true for Edwards and Obama as well.

I guess I'm old enough to remember when Hillary came into Washington ready to turn it on it's ear and they pounded her into the ground. I have no reason to believe her desire for change has abated even if the reality that the system is sometimes bigger than one woman with no political allies can take on.

She has earned her allies and her enemies. She has made some famous bad votes, but I think the sum total of her work has been positive. I think she will make a good president if she goes all the way... much better than many are expecting, to be sure.

snewp @ 16:

Unequivocally is the Standard adverb, meaning “plainly, unquestionably, clearly,” as in We were unequivocally correct in our judgment. Unequivocably does occur occasionally, but it is Nonstandard and should not be used.

your non-equivocating criticism is not at all disconcerting, but incontrovertibly annoying only in the slightest modicum. please consider any further abuseration of the queen's english(albeit american) another exquisite opportunity to extend our polysyllabical discussion. ;)

D.G. Bowman @ 22:

I'd love for Kucinich to be president, but I'm also a realist.

Edwards is my choice. I've had enough of the Bush Crime Family -- and of the Clintons (though I love Bill), too.

I'd support Hillary against any Rethug, of course, but I just wish she'd go away.

Time for a new name, a new family, a new direction ...

you can vote for kucinich in your primary. don't give up until then.

I agree with this comment:

Tim @ 82:
I like Hillary. I don't always agree with her and I don't always support her positions. So what? That's true for Edwards and Obama as well.

I guess I'm old enough to remember when Hillary came into Washington ready to turn it on it's ear and they pounded her into the ground. I have no reason to believe her desire for change has abated even if the reality that the system is sometimes bigger than one woman with no political allies can take on.

She has earned her allies and her enemies. She has made some famous bad votes, but I think the sum total of her work has been positive. I think she will make a good president if she goes all the way... much better than many are expecting, to be sure.

And this one captures the essence of my feelings about Edwards too:

Menemsha @ 80:

John Edwards has only become "progressive" and involved in public service since he started running in politics- Check his resume- He wasn't even a boy scout leader- he made money- lots and lots of it- How does one explain building, within the last few years, a 28,000+ sq foot house and also profess to work on environmental issues? There is no way to justify it- Ask his neighbors- those who know him best-They don't like him at all- He used to run those ambulance commercials- if you've been hurt or injured just call John Edwards -ick- He hasn't had a full time job in years- his full time job is running for President- he stands in picket lines-he helps the poor- he sucks up to unions- What a snow job- He told the Kerry campaign that they shouldn't admit that the Iraq vote was a mistake because it would look like a flip flop- Give me a break-this guy is a phony-

He just seems like an opportunist.

I'd vote for him, but I think Hillary is more likely to follow through on getting this country back on the right track.

hadenuf @ 23:

Johnny2Bad @ 18:

snewp @ 16:

Unequivocally is the Standard adverb, meaning “plainly, unquestionably, clearly,” as in We were unequivocally correct in our judgment. Unequivocably does occur occasionally, but it is Nonstandard and should not be used.

You correction is unequivocally annoying.

Irregardless.

you stole my next retort ;)

I'm paying attention. I like this guy John Edwards. He has come out of nowhere. Think about it.
He began by making a case for the lower class. Take another look at his debate responses, and what he's
stood for.

Old Billy @ 91:

Oops. Sorry about the tags.

Old Billy! Usually I am the only Hillary defender here. Must be because we're old enough to remember Hill getting the tar kicked out of her by the Right back in the 90s and her giving back as good as she got.

I think Edwards and Hillary have this in common. They are both fighters. However, I think Hillary is much smarter than he is.

Hopefully smarter will matter once again in politics, but I fear holding my breath waiting for that to happen will be as enjoyable as waterboarding.

swarmofkillermonkeys @ 93:

Tim @ 82
Well I think I see what you're saying. But I see the attack of a anti-corporate trial lawyer EXACTLY what we need in the White House now to regain our very democracy. Hillary has learned to work the system well... and is fine with that. And I have a big problem with that. You sound pretty committed to her, though, I don't harbor any delusions that I'll change your mind.

But I think she already has compromised her ideals, and that is exactly why she has the most money right now (and hence the polls and news stories). The lure of the power from being a "first", a sure thing for all the History books now and forever, is apparently too strong for her to resist selling out. Those weren't "bad votes", she intended them. I think that is too bad.

That's what I meant by "bad votes". They were intentional and calculated to be sure and that's bad.

I was a BIG Jerry Brown supporter back in 92, so I understand voting your heart. It's what primaries are for. Beating up on the frontrunner is part of the process, too. Have at it.

At the end of the day, we are electing imperfect people to run an imperfect system. I keep it simple and vote for the smartest one who also has the connections and political saavy to get things done for our side (which after all benefits everyone, while their side just benefits the elite).

So, I guess my ideals have been compromised as well. We don't live in ideal times, an ideal country or an ideal world.

The far right thinks Hill is a radical leftie and the far left thinks she's a right-wing tool. As much as it may hurt to hear this ... that is exactly where she needs to position herself to win the General Election in the United States in 2007.

And if Edwards wins the primary (and bless him if he can) ... then you will watch him tip-toe right back over to the center for the general...

Menemsha @ 80:

John Edwards has only become "progressive" and involved in public service since he started running in politics- Check his resume- He wasn't even a boy scout leader- he made money- lots and lots of it- How does one explain building, within the last few years, a 28,000+ sq foot house and also profess to work on environmental issues? There is no way to justify it- Ask his neighbors- those who know him best-They don't like him at all- He used to run those ambulance commercials- if you've been hurt or injured just call John Edwards -ick- He hasn't had a full time job in years- his full time job is running for President- he stands in picket lines-he helps the poor- he sucks up to unions- What a snow job- He told the Kerry campaign that they shouldn't admit that the Iraq vote was a mistake because it would look like a flip flop- Give me a break-this guy is a phony-

Nice talking points of inaccuracies. Intent to deceive = LIAR

Chip @ 37:

naschkatze @ 13:

Jon @ 6:

I think when push comes to shove, the primary voters are going to fall back on a straight white male a la Edwards.

While Hillary and Obama fight it out, Edwards is going to go right past them.

My two cents for what it's worth.

I agree. I don't have anything against Obama, but I think Democrats are going to be nervous about having a black as their candidate in the end.

I think Hillary is going to get a lot of support from women voters. This election expect a big turnout from women, both white and black. They guys have messed up the world enough as it is.

I am a woman voter, and I think Clinton is the one with too much testosterone in the bunch.

If Edwards doesn't get the Presidency, I hope someone names him Attorney General and turns him loose on the Bush Crime Family.

Orangutan. @ 30:

Looks like Dennis Kucinich is winning in the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party as Howard Dean used to say...

2008 Democracy for America Presidential Poll...
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/pulsepoll/results?&r=1

Too bad he didn't get much support today with his bill (H.R. 333) to impeach Cheney. Time will tell.

I voted for DK early on. Can you imagine him and Gore. I could use 16 years of those two.

moonsha @ 101:

BaScOmBe @ 11:

4) edwards said at the AIPAC conference that he'd nuke Iran. That's all I need to know about him.

...
Klein: So when you said that all options are on the table?
Edwards: It would be foolish for any American president to ever take any option off the table.
...

It's clear to me that I can take that quote at face value and type what I typed and be correct. No equivocating, or parsing is required. what you presented just reinforced my point.

Obama also said things very similar to what Edwards said. He also lost my vote on that basis alone.

That they both made the point of catering to AIPAC is even more frightening. AIPAC has not demonstrated the slightest interest in any moderate policies concerning the middle east and their militarist intentions for their neighbors inhibits the possibility of a lasting peace.

Check out this great new attack ad on Hillary at thirdrailradio.com

PS . I said this on election day 2007. On election day 2008, i'll go to sleep early knowing I am right.

Menemsha @ 80:

John Edwards has only become "progressive" and involved in public service since he started running in politics- Check his resume- He wasn't even a boy scout leader- he made money- lots and lots of it- How does one explain building, within the last few years, a 28,000+ sq foot house and also profess to work on environmental issues? There is no way to justify it- Ask his neighbors- those who know him best-They don't like him at all- He used to run those ambulance commercials- if you've been hurt or injured just call John Edwards -ick- He hasn't had a full time job in years- his full time job is running for President- he stands in picket lines-he helps the poor- he sucks up to unions- What a snow job- He told the Kerry campaign that they shouldn't admit that the Iraq vote was a mistake because it would look like a flip flop- Give me a break-this guy is a phony-

The Boy Scouts have been a front for the Mormons since the mid eighties

V V

David Hawes @ 109:

Barack Obama will NOT be voted president. Hillary Clinton will NOT be voted president. So,people if you don't want one of those RePug clowns,ya better start thinkin Real hard.

With Democrats like you no Dem candidate will be a republican.

Oh Fuck off Stephy!!!

This female democratic voter LIKED them taking Hilly to task ... because I don't want Hilly "Business as usual" Clinton as Pres.

In fact the guy you were taking to task is one of the three I really want to be pres.

I'm female and I deeply resent stephy's assertion that I would get made at the males for treating Hillary as a equal and going after her like all front runners are gone after.

So Fuck off Stephy!

Don't you people see? No matter who the Democrats put up for the nominee the republican crime syndicate will move heaven and earth to *stop* the election of a Democratic president right in their tracks!

Remember 2000? That right, Ralph Nader and Bill Bradley candidacy aided republican criminals in weakening Gore. Then the giggling murderer Bush slipped right in.

Gore had to use precious resources to fight off Bill Bradley in the primaries and Nader in the general election.

WAKE UP DEMOCRATS!!!! If Hillary is all we have next Nov. we should rally around her! We hold her feet to the fire and hold her accountable to change the direction of this nation!!

VOTE DEMOCRATIC!!

[Tag edited-Sitemonitor]

David Hawes @ 115:

motorfingaz @ 114:

David Hawes @ 109:

Barack Obama will NOT be voted president. Hillary Clinton will NOT be voted president. So,people if you don't want one of those RePug clowns,ya better start thinkin Real hard.

With Democrats like you no Dem candidate will be a republican.

Huh?

I know. Huh? :lol:

Vitam Vas @ 112:

Menemsha @ 80:

John Edwards has only become "progressive" and involved in public service since he started running in politics- Check his resume- He wasn't even a boy scout leader- he made money- lots and lots of it- How does one explain building, within the last few years, a 28,000+ sq foot house and also profess to work on environmental issues? There is no way to justify it- Ask his neighbors- those who know him best-They don't like him at all- He used to run those ambulance commercials- if you've been hurt or injured just call John Edwards -ick- He hasn't had a full time job in years- his full time job is running for President- he stands in picket lines-he helps the poor- he sucks up to unions- What a snow job- He told the Kerry campaign that they shouldn't admit that the Iraq vote was a mistake because it would look like a flip flop- Give me a break-this guy is a phony-

The Boy Scouts have been a front for the Mormons since the mid eighties

V V

Addendum: Those slimy ambulance chasers win money for poor people, creating social justice where none existed before. Granted they take a third as a fee, but how much would you want if there was no assurance of getting paid if you don't win. By the way, most successful lawyers work INSANE hours.....80 plus....so you will have to forgive John if he missed a couple of fucking rotary meetings, cutting his teeth in local politics (I know that I could give a fuck about them), or throwing barbecues to get friendly with his neighbors......as far as I'm concerned these are plusses......we "elected" a real nice friendly (incompetent boob) guy last two times and look where that got us.

David Hawes @ 119:

Clytemnestra @ 117:

Clytemnestra @ 116:

I'm female and I deeply resent stephy's assertion that I would get made at the males for treating Hillary as a equal and going after her like all front runners are gone after.

So Fuck off Stephy!

That should read ". . . I would get MAD at the males . . . . "

We know. But us neandertals got a yuck at'being made'. Silly us.

Well I didn't want the "made man" of the Bush Crime Family things going on ...

but as long as you "yucked" it up :-P

motorfingaz @ 118:

WAKE UP DEMOCRATS!!!! If Hillary is all we have next Nov. we should rally around her! We hold her feet to the fire and hold her accountable to change the direction of this nation!!

Um, no.

Quite simply, no. There is very good reason she has historic negative feelings against her in HER OWN PARTY.

People will NOT rally around her like they would any other Democratic candidate. Sorry.

You have been warned (not by me... this feeling is everywhere). People. Really. Do. Not. Like. Her. It just can't be any more plain. And (so long as the actual people get to vote) they are stating right now that they don't like her for this race. That 33% that is absolutely negative on Hillary will vote elsewhere. Nominate her at your own risk.

Just telling them to "get in line" and do what you say, just because you say is simply going to turn even more people off to her. You can be mad about it, but that's just reality.

And for all these people mocking someone for being an attorney... I guess you've never been falsely accused or abused by the system. Otherwise you wouldn't be so smug and condescending towards Edwards. Sure whine and complain like a spoiled child, but I know who you will be calling when you are hauled off by the republican thugs.... hypocrite. Why don't you go ahead and mock the ACLU and EFF while they are working hard to defend YOUR rights... That's just pathetic.

miss_kitty @ 127:

motorfingaz @ 118:

...Remember 2000? That right, Ralph Nader and Bill Bradley candidacy aided republican criminals in weakening Gore. Then the giggling murderer Bush slipped right in.

Gore had to use precious resources to fight off Bill Bradley in the primaries and Nader in the general election.

WAKE UP DEMOCRATS!!!! If Hillary is all we have next Nov. we should rally around her! We hold her feet to the fire and hold her accountable to change the direction of this nation!!

VOTE DEMOCRATIC!!

Nader blamers remind me of people who bring up Clintons Blow job. Distorters. Quit rewriting history. Gore lost his home state. Tell me when THAT'S ever happened. SCOTUS robbed Gore and he refused to fight. As did the party machine. Total bullshit. The Democrats gave it up to Bush.

Glad I'm not a democrat. I'd hate to think Hillary was my only choice. If these assholes want my vote, they need to stop acting, sounding, living and breathing like the Thugs.

I've voted Democrat all my life. I'm thinkin I might sit this one out. i agree,Kitty. I see no difference. But ya'll are welcome to vote yer Thug of choice.

Bottom line...Republicans WANT CLINTON!! That is why the MSM is pushing her. We don't have a "liberal media". That's a farse. We have a conservative media. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!

BaScOmBe @ 106:

moonsha @ 101:

BaScOmBe @ 11:

4) edwards said at the AIPAC conference that he'd nuke Iran. That's all I need to know about him.

...
Klein: So when you said that all options are on the table?
Edwards: It would be foolish for any American president to ever take any option off the table.
...

It's clear to me that I can take that quote at face value and type what I typed and be correct. No equivocating, or parsing is required. what you presented just reinforced my point.

Obama also said things very similar to what Edwards said. He also lost my vote on that basis alone.

That they both made the point of catering to AIPAC is even more frightening. AIPAC has not demonstrated the slightest interest in any moderate policies concerning the middle east and their militarist intentions for their neighbors inhibits the possibility of a lasting peace.

I wasn't attempting to parse anything by posting part of the interview. The whole context of the interview paints a much clearer picture than putting words in Edwards' mouth saying that he said he would nuke Iran. Criticize him for catering to AIPAC because it is warranted, but saying he would nuke Iran is a bit of a stretch which displays more of your anger towards AIPAC itself than with Edwards the candidate. Edwards may not be getting your vote, but why is it necessary attempting to convince others not to vote for him by putting words in his mouth rather than on the issues?

Hello, people! Wake up!!! (esp. Clinton supporters). You DO remember that Hillary was supported by Rupert Murdoch last year, don't you? And that she also attended a Washington party celebrating the 10th anniversary of Fox News? Need I say more?

Edwards can win. He must win. I just don't see anybody else who is as sincere AND capable of defeating the RepubliNazis.

it seems like the neo-repugs and the(eir) media have been the decider of elections since the cold war. To me it appears as if it is their choice over whether they win, or they crash and burn from hubris. They seem to often pull the strings necessary to cover the margin, to an amazing and frightening accuracy, by whatever means.

Who do they fear the most? Who do they want most to be their opposition?

The press is determined to make Hillary the democratic 'contender.' They don't seem to adequately cover the remaining candidates with such zeal. Both Edwards and Obama are fine candidates who seem to get shaded by the press coverage of the Hillary. Is this the same press who gave us Dubya Bush? I think so.

Well, Kunnich (spell?) is slipping through with a Cheney impeachment- not unlike Pelosi whom also did an about face at the last minute. Clinton who is not a head in the polls- regardless of what you may have heard- the net does not lie- If Clinton wins- we know the electoral process is completely doomed- she is a bitch and a liar and no one believes her (if the rumor that she's a lesbian turns out to be true- it will be the only thing about her that is interesting!)- Edwards is cagey and Ron Paul just sounds too good to be true (I smell a rotten fish)- no matter who wins (if we even have an election!) has a huge mess to clean up and they will need to start by abolishing and eliminating the CIA (basically a sloppy version of Blackwater with a license to kill). We have the FBI and do not need the CIA. The next Prez should also re-institute the constitution- which would provide legal grounds for all these necessary actions. I do not understand how difficult this all is- yet it escapes most people. In the 1960's the slogan, "Power to the people" worked- we got the F&^% out of Vietnam- which we should never have been there in the first place (Those poor people). We need a President who will stand up and be a voice for the people and for true democracy- which, sadly I doubt we will ever see. I for one know this 2008 election will prove once and for all- what we are truly made of and who we are as a team nation- and does well over half the population of America.

The world IS watching!

Darrell Kern @ 140:

Well, Kunnich (spell?) is slipping through with a Cheney impeachment- not unlike Pelosi whom also did an about face at the last minute. Clinton who is not a head in the polls- regardless of what you may have heard- the net does not lie- If Clinton wins- we know the electoral process is completely doomed- she is a bitch and a liar and no one believes her (if the rumor that she's a lesbian turns out to be true- it will be the only thing about her that is interesting!)- Edwards is cagey and Ron Paul just sounds too good to be true (I smell a rotten fish)- no matter who wins (if we even have an election!) has a huge mess to clean up and they will need to start by abolishing and eliminating the CIA (basically a sloppy version of Blackwater with a license to kill). We have the FBI and do not need the CIA. The next Prez should also re-institute the constitution- which would provide legal grounds for all these necessary actions. I do not understand how difficult this all is- yet it escapes most people. In the 1960's the slogan, "Power to the people" worked- we got the F&^% out of Vietnam- which we should never have been there in the first place (Those poor people). We need a President who will stand up and be a voice for the people and for true democracy- which, sadly I doubt we will ever see. I for one know this 2008 election will prove once and for all- what we are truly made of and who we are as a team nation- and does well over half the population of America.

The world IS watching!

Well, I agree with most of what you say....though not so much on the CIA thingy...the FBI is supposed to only investigate cases that happen in the states, the CIA everywhere else...they just need to be de-politicized. which in and of itself would be a major undertaking.

Edwards is a winner. HRC will split the party as many Dems I know will not vote for her under any circumstances. If HRC cared about the party and the country more than her own ambition, she'd see that.

I have had it up to here with this smarmy hillbilly! You all hate Hillary because she voted for the war, but he was hand-in-hand with her. As disgraceful a VP candidate as Lieberman was in 2000, Edwards was even worse, rolling over like an old collie while Cheney lied though his teeth--even about something as simple as whether they had ever met before the debate. His pathetic "she takes money from the special interests--I never would" is laughable. Both his 2004 and 2008 campaigns was/are overwhelmingly funded by the trial bar--a more parasitic bunch than even the bankers. His position on drivers licenses for illegals is laughingly incomprehensible--solely because he now finds himself wrapped in knots because he's always been for them but now it's awkward to endorse the same plan as Hillary did. The exceptionally creepy business about his serial "you're the only one I've ever told this to" use of his son's tragic death and--again smarmy--use of his wife's illness in his new ads seals the deal for me: no way, no how.