Randi Rhodes of Air America made an interesting statement last week about Democratic hopefuls for President. She talked about now being the time not to narrow the field of contenders down to one or two but rather to open the door to “possible” candidates with the idea that time, money, and votes would do the narrowing for the party. Democrats, who have as short a memory as anyone else, would be wise to remember in 2004 that John Kerry was a second tier candidate in Iowa, that Howard Dean, the current party chairman was the leader in the nomination process, getting all the press and interviews.
The “snows” of Iowa, if there are any in 2008, are usually trodden down by the boots of many candidates. Iowa is a caucus process, which means that party “insiders” that run the caucuses have a much greater say in whom the state picks. But the momentum that you gain in Iowa moves on to New Hampshire and the rest of the primaries where the money must be “in hand” or the candidate fails. Howard Dean spent $4 million in Iowa and failed to impress the caucus leaders that ultimately gave him only a fourth place finish and in effect, destroyed his candidacy.
The question then is, who is the best, most representative nomination possible that holds Democratic values while they are able to appeal to a large moderate audience of independent voters? Notice, this is not an “issues” forum (Who will bring the troops home if we are still in Iraq? Who would be most likely to balance the federal budget? Who would be a proponent of election reform so that voting machines worked?) because issues change and we can only speculate on what those will be in early 2008.
Two candidates I would like to mention that have talent, vision, and the strength to be good presidents are John Edwards and Wesley Clark. You are more than able to suggest your own and “operators are standing by” (well, keyboards with send buttons) so that possible candidates can be discussed.
I could vote for John Edwards because he has a populist appeal based on his real life values and a career working with the middle class. He has some government experience as a senator, but he seems less tainted by it than most. He speaks well and thinks before he speaks, which is refreshing in a candidate and he has seen poverty firsthand so he knows the struggle that poor people face on a day to day basis.
He has experience campaigning and like Franklin Roosevelt, who was the Vice-Presidential candidate in 1920, has put together a good team of advisors who bring a fresh approach to a possible presidential run. He has also raised money for the party and gives a heartfelt speech when called upon to do so.
I could vote for Wesley Clark because I believe he has excellent values and a military background that would serve him well as President. Many generals have made the move from the military to the Presidency, Washington, Jackson, Grant, Eisenhower all come to mind and most served well as leaders in Washington. Clark has some added potential because of his service as NATO commander in the 1990’s so he knows how to bring America back in terms of our battered image following the Iraq debacle we are now going through.
Clark has an excellent sense of humor and speaks well of himself with a “down home” appeal from having led soldiers, who look into your eyes to see who you really are. He is a well reasoned man, very loyal to his friends, staunch in his opposition if you disagree. That would also appeal to moderates because they believe he is a man of his word whom they could trust.
Neither Edwards or Clark is seen as or is an extremist, neither would be tainted by Viet Nam, both are married and have good family values. Since the general election is waged by operative organizations with “swift boat” potential both candidates would have little in their closets to embarrass them.
You may think differently. That’s why a community like Gather is a great place to discuss this issue. So put on your “political thinking cap” and have at it!
Who should be the Democratic nominee for President in 2008?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 95
Well, you know what I think. I like Edwards. It is so hard to discuss the merits of one candidate over another without saying negative things about the other candidate. I don't want to do that, since I might have to support any of these people in the general election.
I will say that although Clark has a lot going for him, I have heard mixed reports of his military leadership during the Clinton Administration and especially in Bosnia. I would be concerned that, like Kerry, his military service might not end up being as much of a bonus as people might think.
I like Edwards because I think he is highly intelligent, pragmatic, and caring. Those are general qualities that I think are essential. I support his positions on the issues. I think he would be an inspiring leader who could get people to work together on something. I recently heard him say it's important to get Americans feeling patriotic about something other than war. I thought that was a wonderful comment.
I agree with your general point that it's time to look at all the candidates fairly and discuss their merits, not narrow the field.
Me, make a typo? Hehehe. Do you think my seeing "All the President's Men" recently had anything to do with it?
That may be Carter's new way of generating material for his book..LOL
Interesting, that is, because they have nothing else to do but suck on their guns and hope the trigger isn't pulled.
Jai has a point. We need a good mop and broom person.
The reason why I suggest Kucinich is because there seems to be very few moderate democrats on Gather and I just want you loons to vote your heart. Dennis is your man.
In your imagination Bush is great, the Iraq War was won and terrorism has been defeated. But you know, it is you in the minority on all those issues and out of touch. Kucinich may have as little as 2% of the Democratic Party support.
Both parties have those who are farther left or right than the mainstream party. Conservatives have Brownback, Cronyn and Hunter, Liberals have Kucinich.
But considering the respective positions of the respective candidates, if you'd run any of your fringe against Kucinich, it would be Kucinich who is more in step with the middle than any of your three crazies.
So my question to you is: Are you even further right than any of those 3? Feel lonely out there? Because that's what you are, alone...
Proof of what? Your party supports intelligent design as a science, Iraq as a winning situation, not pursuing Osama bin-Laden while you talk about terrorism as the greatest threat to America while economically raping the country 5 years in a row. But you do support brain dead people, diagnosed by Senate leadership by videotape.
Come to think of it....what other kind of people do you have in the party besides the brain dead?
If the polls are to be believed, 70 to 75% of the American people are ashamed of their president. If you accept the parties are split 50-50 in terms of enrollment, that means even 50% of YOUR OWN PARTY are ASHAMED of their vote.
You, however, out on the fringe of reality.... still think he's great. What are you missing that everyone else gets? Bush is no leader, a coward in battle and has perverted the American system.
But still...you think he's great. Again....isn't lonely out their on the fringe?
You want me to deal with the reality of 2004. Ok, I get it, Bush won in 2004. Now, however is the eve of 2007 and it is you that doesn't get it. Deal with reality NOW and smell the coffee, the WE HATE BUSH REALITY, published by the REPUBLICAN Party!
"The candidate" will have to be able to "respond" appropriately to nasty attacks and dirty tricks. Think how desparate the pubs are going to be.
Approximately half of the electorate doesn't much care how intelligent the candidate is [altho thanks to Bush that may have changed.] So, brawn beats brains and the ability to do laundry are the primary requirements to date. I'm not surre dems have a candidate -- unless Edwards can demonstrate that he knows how to take care of manufactured dirty laundry.
Taking the "crazy" factor into consideration, and whether voters have had their fill; if they're ready for someone with intelligence and integrity -- and able to do laundry -- and if voters are willing to rule out establishment "old hacks" then the only real candidate is Edwards. He'd better start carrying a jug of "Tide" around with him.
It is interesting that you would say someone should rule with the support of only 50% of his own party and none of the other because it reveals how far gone someone can be on the fringe. You may remember a little concept called democracy based on 50% OF THE TOTAL POPULATION supporting the candidate?
Now you write off half your own party as "not worth it." But reality is a great teacher and you will learn that without those you called "not worth it" everything Bush has tried to build in 6 years will be torn down in 2. And the people most likely to tear it down? The Republicans you said "aren't worth it."
Can't wait to hear what crazy you support in '08. Can't be from the 50% that "aren't worth it" unless you want to admit even more hypocrisy than you display now.
I was just looking for Democrats, if you were a Democrat and if you had an opinion. Why do you think Clinton (is it Mr. or Mrs.) would be a good candidate?
I agree on the attacks, but remember, most 527, including liberal ones, are building war chests for 2008 and some candidates don't have many "Kerry moments" like we had to deal with in 2004. Al Gore does, Hillary does, Edwards has a few and Clark very few.
That doesn't mean they won't happen, just means they will be easy to defend. Thankfully...
But I also wanted to say something about this sort of conceptual win-lose mentality that I don't really understand. Don might be just a troll here incapable of any intelligent thought but the man "acting" as president does this same thing time and time again with Iraq. Neither elections nor the fate of a country is a sports game. The media and Bush almost encourage this perception that Iraq is hockey and all we have to do to go home is have some speed with a well aimed puck. We're talking about millions of lives here...not something that should be so easily reduced like that.
And In terms of this blind support of whoever "won" the election, I mean, do you like fascism? Would you support Hitler too? Seriously if that is all of your criteria it seems like the evolution involving intelligent thought was completely wasted on you Don.
And to be honest, he is living and (more so) dying by Iraq. While I am frustrated with Iraq, and would most likely express that in a poll, I do not believe you can completely trash the guy based on recent polls....although I am well aware there are many of you who have been doing this for the past six years, no matter what the situation :)
And popularity does not when elections - electoral votes do. Bush won it twice and it's been debated to death and it's clear. Now if you think otherwise, it's likely you are in the 50% of the part that doesn't matter. You probalby take more than you give from our country, and frankly, the other half is tired of carrying your dead weight.
You just seem to look at facts as if they are phantoms you need to avoid. Bush's rating in the REPUBLICAN PARTY is only 50% positive. Now, I know that probably doesn't fit with you Bush-centered fantasy but it's true and soon you will see the full impact of that in votes in Congress.
But it won't matter to you, will it? Because after all, your warped loyality to a President who long ago proved he didn't know what he was doing and had NO direction (we're winning! we're winning! we're winning! Oops....oh, we're neither winning or losing...) is pathetic and contemptable.
Instead of looking at the world through the "fantasy vision" you've created for yourself, look for once at the truth. Iraq is lost because BUSH failed you, the soldiers, and his country.
In your heart, you know it's true...
He calls the "shots"? Surely you jest... Social Securty Reform? Dead on Arrival... Wiretapping? Exposed and about to get heavily investigated. Personal Responsibility in Government? Can you say Mark Foley, Bob Ney, Scooter Libby, and Jack Abramoff? WMD's in Iraq? Donald Rumsfeld? Mission Accomplished? All jokes.
And you Don? Fringe defender of lost ideals and defeated Republicans everywhere.
But you go ahead, keep thinking the 22 books on the war in Iraq are wrong while all the books supporting the war....well, there aren't any of them...probably lost on the way to the publisher will someday prove you right.
Hope your not holding your breath and stamping your feet like you seem to be. Hey here's an idea for you....click your heels togethter 3 times and say "Bush will someday be right."
Good luck Dorothy...
You don't want to wake up, or you're a plant. Oil, power and strategic position in the middle east -- only Bush and his blind followers and the Halliburtons lining their pockets call it "democracy" or, what is the new word now, "success?"
When Bush, Cheney and gang started beating the war drums and Rice began prattling on about mushroom clouds, anyone who said, "wait a minute," was labeled unpatriotic. Anyone who used the word "oil" was labeled an unpatriotic cynic. Let's face it, Bush is inept at best; he's unscrupulous and he's dangerous to our own democracy. The recent election demonstrates that the electorate is wide awake -- Bush' and Co's game playing with Iraq are over; he made of shambles of it and accomplished nothing but destruction. Unless he's crazy enough to push the button, his days of bullying the world and riding roughshod over the American electorate are over [not that he hasn't had a lot of help from "special interests"]. That's what the '08 election will be about -- slam dunk!
BTW, I agree with you on global warming and using plastics and other petroleum products like pure pigs -- we've all got to fix it -- but speaking of marketing and making it a political issue; or should I say, who spent a whole lot of my tax dollars and energy trying to make it a "non-issue"? Bush and his propaganda buddies -- and I'm still mightly ticked off about it.
"Let's define the 'winner' of a war: Whichever side in a conflict is meeting the most of it's criteria."
Well, I do have to say that our enemies are meeting the criteria of making their opponents (us) want to run away (which encourages them)... but hey, what do I know?
The criteria is to leave the Iraqi people with a democratically elected government. They've already had two elections, so right there we have some claim to victory. We need to stay because we need to stablize the government. One of the steps to doing that is to provide an economy that works... and we are doing that. Newsweek says their economy is booming, so we are winning in that regard. Another way we win is to kill bad people and terrorists. We are kicking the crap out of them in that regard. These are all indisputable facts. Everything isn't as bad as you HOPE for. Maybe if you would get on board and try to help America with a positive voice and attitude we could get this over with quicker, but that won't happen because you don't much care for America. I know your type pal - hell, your name don't even sound like you've been in America very long. How many generations do you have invested here?
You know, every conservative gets backed into a corner on Iraq because ultimately you have to know in your heart you're w-r-o-n-g. You keep backing off the bluster and brashness because it fails over and over again.
Now, if it were JUST ME telling you over and over that you are w-r-o-n-g, maybe, just maybe you'd have one leg to stand on, but you get blasted from every direction and you still don't get it.
Now, let's talk about A-R-B-I-T-R-A-R-Y standards. That's your new corner. We're winning because I SAY SO because I HAVE criteria that is met.
Iraq's government is only in power until we leave, no election can change that. No election would have been held if we weren't cordoning off the voting areas and shooting at anyone who might cause trouble. That's democracy to you? 239 political parties in the country. That's democracy to you? Voting along strict sectarian lines as the people were told to by the mullahs. That's democracy to you?
The truth is that this government meets no criteria for democracy. It is a splintered negotiation of special religious interests positioning for the chaos and rise of a new strongman like Saddam the minute we leave. What's more it's a government protected by our soldiers, who once again, YOU and BUSH betray and cowardly refuse to withdraw for your own bloodlust.
Now, as for the economy. You know economic STATISTICS are totally misleading in areas where you're only evidence in the military that occupies and the corrupt government in charge. Would you accept if Newsweek said so that Chavez in Venezuela is bringing "millions of new opportunites to his people?" No, because then Newsweek would be a "liberal tool."
Well, in Iraq, the amount of fresh water in the cities? Less than before the war. Electricity? Less than before the war. Employment? Less than before the war. Economy? Less than 10% of what it was before the war.
Now, stop running around naked and proclaiming you're wearing a tuxedo. The emperor has no clothes on, and pssst, Don, neither do you.
You're pissing into the wind if you think you're going to convince these GATHER libs to think in any way other than how they've been programmed. You and I know you're right, along with a great many others.
Those leftists driven and motivated by hatred for Bush (most all of them) are in for a rude awakening when their darlings soon to be in control Congress, fail to impeach our President and, in fact, fall in line behind the president in the war on terrorism. What the haters cannot see is, all rhetoric aside, we are doing the right thing and President Bush has been right all along.
Liberals don't hate Bush. We are disgusted by his lack of leadership and appalled that he hasn't had a plan to win in Iraq when his generals (like Shinseki) told him what he need to do. Then he has the audacity to say "I listen to my generals." Bush selectively picks what he "wants to hear" rather than knowing the real situation on the ground. This is also critical because U.S. soldiers are dying because of his mistakes.
It may be seen as cowardly to withdraw to you, but to proceed with no plan, no clear path to victory and in a situation where we don't understand the motivations of the enemy as we clearly don't is much more cowardly and w-r-o-n-g.
As I said to Don, click your heels together 3 times Dorothy...
Bush and you are both cowards. A coward doesn't face reality but rather creates in their own mind a fantasy or what they wish the world was. Bush said before the election that Republicans would win in November based on the fantasy that "Karl Rove's system" had to work.
When it didn't, he looked around and now says "We aren't winning." But you still support the man who lied to you over and over, now betrays your "we must win" philosophy and when reality knocks, attack the people who see the world for what it is.
As I said to Don, click your heels together 3 times Dorothy...
If this is all, in anyway, still related to the 2008 elections, I would suggest that the Dems get out of 'Bush Bashing' mode...he will not be running in '08 (I am sure some of you are very happy about that), and if this is still your only talking point in 2 years I guarantee you will drive the moderates/independents away before the summer of '08...and get trounced no matter who you put on the ticket…
So you admit that there is no validity to your statement ("Time will bear it out") but you still hold unto it. Insanity is defined as trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The same thing can be said for most beliefs on past events.
Some people believe Iraq had WMD's. Do you...?
Again, I am not bashing Bush, the person. I could care less who the President is. As an example, read my latest blog where I cite the last time we were as close to an imperial presidency as we got under Bush....Franklin Roosevelt. Do you think I hate Roosevelt, a Democrat for his ideas in the New Deal? Hardly, I agree with most of them. But packing the court so that he alone could make policy? That would be w-r-o-n-g and dangerous.
Threads do take on a life of their own and if you are a Democrat who wants to comment on possible Democratic candidates besides those already suggested I will be sure to let you know what I think.
As for "Bush bashing" and Democrats in 2008, it is interesting that you miss the issue for the person and I hope you will read the blog I posted today as I think it should help clarify the difference between the person (Bush) and the issue (the imperial presidency).
One more thing. Remember that it will be Ted Haggard standing behind Mark Foley behind Kerry.
I think you might have a bit of a fixation, bud, might want to seek counseling on that, posting the same comment twice in the same thread. Might be a bit of a problem there....
Your article quotes Randi Rhodes on Air America Radio saying that the field should be wide open. I would agree with that. It's too soon to say who the Democrats should nominate for 2008. Potential candidates, most of whom haven't even announced yet, would have to put out position papers on issues. I would want to study their positions on issues before deciding which candidate I would support. I would really like to see the 2008 election be about issues, instead of the personality cults that recent elections have been. So I'd have to say that it's way too early to answer your question.
Energy is the most important issue for the 2008 election, IMHO. The reason is that it is at the center of most other issues. It has dramatic impacts on foreign policy and the mideast wars we continue to engage. It affects the environment and public health, the economy and jobs, global warming and potentially associated natural disasters. And renewable energy technology could be good investments, as well as providing a spark within our educational institutions, inspiring our youth to study math and sciences. This is a winning issue, and I hope politicians of both parties will run with it. The Democrats, now having control of both houses of congress, are on the inside track to pick up this political football and run with it. I am watching intently to see what they will do.
Ii agree on both the openess of the race at this point and the energy issue potentially being important. I don't think it is too early to "suggest" people you think would make a good candidate because of the political process. In a recent roundtable discussion on the process, the experts who all had experience in campaigns said that if you hadn't raised over $30 million by next March that the amount of time you would have to spend to raise money after that would be too demanding to even consider the run in the first place.
The key to energy IMHO is education because of the link between energy and climate. If we do not develop alternatives to oil and gasoline as fuels, we are going to be in "hot duda" as one of my professors used to say because oil companies are going to be more and more policy makers since oil will get scarcer and dependence more ugly.
UGH! That's a big part of what's wrong with our political process. The public should be educated that it's not a good thing when a candidate raises $30, $40, $50million. It's just alot of debt, and it's a direct measure of how little that candidate will be able to directly represent the interests of the voters.
Of course, the increasingly consolidated media loves it. Political seasons would never end if they had their way. And don't think they aren't in there lobbying for even more money to be spent on political messages.
As I am writing this, I am listening to a "discussion" on CNN. No issues - just the personalities, with clear attempts to "define" them before they can present themselves. It's disgusting.
Climate is but one, although extremely significant, aspect of energy. Many conservatives (i.e., real conservatives, as opposed to these neo-cons, who have really messed up the republican party) are buying hybrids because they realize that whatever we spend on gas indirectly funds terrorism. Energy is core to nearly every other issue - it is the common denominator.
The answer you will get from liberals is this: "I hate George Bush." The thought process is about as deep as Brick in Anchorman
Once again, you think it's all about Bush, not his and the Neocons policies. When are you going to get it, Bush isn't the issue, the issue is the policy. You think people have no capacity for change, no ability to see someone else's argument and that simply is not true.
I actually argued that Gore was right to friends and in my blog in 2000 not pushing the election results further and remember, it was Gore himself as Vice-President who did not allow his party to push the country into a Constitutional crisis by not allowing a Senator to sign on to the protest. If you don't go see Fahrenheit 911 and watch him do it.
Bush didn't seem so bad in 2000, promoting personal responsibility and other ideas about governmental reform and his record working with BOTH parties in Texas was pretty exemplary for what government should be.
BUT 9/11 gave the neocons the means to their ends and Bush went with the flow in Iraq. Now I know you understand that and that this Iraq mess resulted not so much because Bush was "the decider" but because every decision was made by neocons who could care less about the Constitution, the people, or what it would do to the country.
Bush's prime mistake was not listening to the whole argument like those put forth by Tenant and Powell and which, in hindsight, were correct. That is where he failed and lost the respect of America.
Every step since then can be traced back to that decision which has colored everything he has done since. So he can't go back and accept mistakes, he can't move forward in an America 70% opposed to his policies and in the meantime, American soldiers die as his inability to act is the ultimate cowardice, freezing in the face of the enemy.
"If the polls are to be believed, 70 to 75% of the American people are ashamed of their president."
"Bush is no leader, a coward in battle and has perverted the American system."
"Deal with reality NOW and smell the coffee, the WE HATE BUSH REALITY, published by the REPUBLICAN Party!"
Cris, you talk out of both sides of your mouth.
Well, I'm a moderate, independent. I'm not thrilled with either party. I think that w. is argueably the worst president in U.S. history.
I remember recently, Joe Scarborough on MSNBC, discussing polls. At that time, w.'s approval rating was about 32%. Scarborough, a former Republican congressman asked, "Who are these 32%?" His tone was incredulous.
I don't understand what possible basis there could be for supporting w. or his policies. They are a disaster!
Hate is a personal issue, such as Bush is a "jerk" for doing such and such. That's not what I've said. I give real numbers and you say because I quote statistics that's hate? I tell you what Republicans have told me personally about their feelings and you don't want to hear it. Well, here's a revelation for you, as bull-headed as you are, I don't hate even you. Do I think you were horribly mislead and don't want to admit it? Yes. Think somehow Bush and the neocons will be "redeemed" in some way for their stupidity? Yes. Deny reality at the expense of soldiers that are dying because Americans like you continue to insist they die for your VANITY? Yes.
But I have no doubt in your sincerity or your "American" credentials.
Gather is a forum for discussion of differing viewpoints and while I detest personal attacks, I understand some folks are not mature enough to carry on discussion without it becoming about each other. So are you cowardly for not admitting your mistakes and admitting you were wrong about Iraq and your support of the President? Yes
As long as you continue to respond, I will respond and not with attacks on character but rather with my opinion on your analysis of the situation.
But frankly, hating someone is not something I do and I have had opportunities with people who did heinous acts against me without cause.
You....? Not even in the same league as them.
Thanks for your response. I agree the money is an issue and campaigns but I see no way to change it if we are going to allow people the freedom to give to the candidate of their choice. Wish I did...but no such luck. Open, however, to suggestions.
I was using global warming as an example, but you are right that energy is connected to many issues. Indirectly, even if we travel at all and who travels where is a major issue, for example.
Leadership which you support is cowardly because it has frozen in the face of the enemy. If you support that leadership, you are partly responsible. The soldiers are brave men and women who have been betrayed by that leadership and are not cowardly because they don't make the decision to stay.
We, the citizens, do by supporting the President and his lack of courage.
So, who do you side with? The President who is a coward or the troops who bravely face the stupidity that the President forces them to confront?
It can't be both....that's the illogical point of view.
Solution: http://www.publicampaign.org/
Don: "all the soldiers who fight and still believe in the Iraq cause, you are calling them cowards for not admitting the war is wrong."
Feb., 2006 Zogby Poll: "An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows."
http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
It does interfere with the implied power under "freedom of speech" because how you spend your money is your choice and is, in essence, a "voice." Conservatives would never give this up and while the Founding Fathers had mixed ideas about political campaigns (especially Jefferson who used newspapers to manufacture scandal about John Adams, then President) there is some merit to both sides of the argument.
The Supreme Court missed it on this one. They are not omnipotent, you know (2000 presidential election, corporations = citizens, etc.). Money is property, and confusing it with speech makes for "free speech" being undermined. It's the same principle as "free trade" vs. "fair trade." The wealthy and powerful dominate, which is what the American Revolution was attempting to overthrow in the first place.
"Conservatives would never give this up...."
Maybe, maybe not. I don't think either side likes the process as it now stands. At any rate, democracy is not served by domination of the conversation, as it has been for the last 20 years or so.
While I agree with you on this issue and believe me, I blogged on this repeatedly in 2000 and 2004 the Supreme Court changes course only when there is both a precedent that is undeniable (such as the "unfairness" of the accused in a courtroom defending themselves against the criminal justice system) as well as something in the Constitution that can be cited as meaning the Founding Fathers were in "tacit" agreement with the precedent.
The Supreme Court today is balanced 4-4-1 (moderate and conservative) on social issues and 2-7 on political and economic issues. So moving 3 conservative votes to back public financing would be almost monumental.
Conservative politicians, on the same hand, rely on the Wal-Marts of the world to fund them and liberals, while more small donation oriented than conservatives, do get funds from many of the same sources as conservatives.
Are you trying to convince Antonio that we can still win or yourself? You keep slipping into that corner of the room where you sound reasonable but in your heart still don't get it. I'm sorry for you in the sense that your betrayal by Bush is worse than most. But really consider how this all happened and you'll see that the propaganda was positioned and pointed at you by the Neocons and Bush for 4 straight years. It's brave for you to see the truth, finally.
As for nominating Edwards.... Do you admire Edwards? I would think he would be 180 degrees opposed to your values.
So why Edwards?
Regarding John Edwards, I watched the democrat primaries very closely in 2004 and John Edwards finished very strong against John Kerry. I thought Edwards ran a better campaign, but he just didn't have the experience of Kerry. So, the reason I say Edwards is going to win is because he is a very good communcator and a strong campaigner. I don't think anyone can beat him in that regard. That said, I think he is egotistical and in it for his own self glory. I don't think he would be a good president.
Well, I don't think Edwards primary results are a good indication for the next election because the campaign is much different each election cycle as will be the candidates.
As for winning "this debate" it isn't a debate, there is no scoring system and your points have all been refuted. Now, I know, in your mind everything is a contest but it isn't in mine. If you do want to debate this, we need independent judges and seperate articles.
Should you wish to look into that possibility, let me know, I'll see what can be done.
Don: "all the soldiers who fight and still believe in the Iraq cause, you are calling them cowards for not admitting the war is wrong."
Feb., 2006 Zogby Poll: "An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows."
http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Republican Senator, Gordon Smith:
"I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day," he said. "That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that anymore."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/08/AR2006120801579.html
I think Elvis (Don) has left the building. He doesn't want to engage in a debate (Surprise! Surprise! (done in your best Gomer Pyle voice)) and he has no real ability to address anything other than his own lack of answers.
He'd rather be run off than run down...
But I'm not going to give up. If he shows up here again, I still would like his comments on my above posts.
Yeah, I hate it when people don't respond too. However, you can't force them and generally when they feel pushed into a corner (especially the "unreal" ones they make for themselves) they just slink away.
That's the problem with the right's fantasy relationship with Bush, can't love 'em enough to make him better.