Edwards leads Thompson, Romney by 20+ points

"As for media darlings Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, if they don't start to use their positions in the Senate to speak out firmly against the proposed capitulation bill on Iraq ......"

Harry and Nancy seem to have rolled over completely on this one. But the dems are between a rock and a hard place. You may recall the republicans tried this dance with Clinton on a budget bill, nearly shutting down the federal government, and it backfired miserably. The public sided with the president.

Without the two thirds vote necessary to override the presidential veto, the dems risk the same backlash. Unless some republicans are willing to abandon the president and support some kind of conditional spending bill, the dems look bad no matter what they do. "Failure to support the troops" or "failure to implement the will of the voters" reaps the same reward: ineffective leadership.

Let's see...Edwards is leading Thompson by 20 points?

Edwards has spent 3.5 million for the 2008 election and has had media coverage for a year, Thompson has spent...oh, wait. Thompson ISN'T EVEN IN THE RACE.

In this case, I'd say 20 points up on man who isn't even running looks dismal, not encouraging.

"In this case, I'd say 20 points up on man who isn't even running looks dismal, not encouraging."

CONservative republiCONs have been salivating for another John McCain to enter the race, in the form of actor Fred Thompson. This is a perfectly valid poll. True, Thompson has spent zero on "his campaign" as yet, but he has received considerable face time in the "liberal media," despite his having not announced his decision to run.

Clark,
Not questioning the poll's validity... just questioning how being up 20 points on Thompson is noteworthy.

I see this poll as bordering on silly. Why not poll on Gore v. Thompson. Two non-candidates facing off in a non-election. Winner take all.

O boy! Edwards is beating the Republicans. What a shocker! I bet if Al Sharpton was running, he would be beating the Republicans. This poll is anything but suprising.

The Keith Olbermann article was especially powerful. Thank you for linking it.

I think your second paragraph is well... one-sided. I think you have your blinders on. You could easily substitute someone else's name in there for Edwards'. With that being said, I cannot accept that paragraph as part of the argument.

What I wonder is what exactly people want of certain profile people? Do you want darling Obama or Clinton to come out and say, "Bad Democrats! Bad!" All they can really do is cast their vote and stand by their beliefs...

WM H., in my opinion, the only thing that will get the Democrats in trouble is not standing up strong against Bush on this. Unfortunately, they've already backed down to him. I think sending back the same bill with a timetable would have been better. It would be Bush's fault if he didn't fund the war and the Democrats would have at least made a strong effort to do what they were elected to do.

I do recognize that they are in a difficult position on this one. They don't have the votes to override a veto. But that's why leadership and strength and outspoken determination is absolutely required here. I will vote for Democrats over Republicans every time, because in the end they are better for the country every time, but I feel really let down by their decision to compromise with Bush on the war.

Although Clinton and Obama and a few others voted against it, I also feel let down by their lack of leadership. They could have spoken out strongly and tried to mount a filibuster instead of waiting until the last minute to see which way the wind was blowing and then voting to protect themselves, which was basically what I think they did.

All, Thompson has been widely billed as the Republican's savior in an election when Republicans are flailing around trying to find any candidate that would appeal to the electorate and are dissatisfied with all their choices so far. That's why I think it's significant that Edwards is so far ahead in this poll.

Lainie, with all due respect, no, I could not have written that second paragraph about anyone. John Edwards is the only top tier candidate who has a detailed universal health care plan at this time. He's the only one that has a detailed plan for fighting poverty. He has one of the best plans out there among the candidates for stopping global warming. He has been more outspoken on getting us out of Iraq than any of the other top tier candidates. While Clinton and Obama triangulate and calculate the political damage of doing this or that, Edwards speaks out strongly and relentlessly on the war. And, he is the only one of the top tier candidates to reject the "global war on terror" political frame. So, I think I've done my research on this and I could have only written that paragraph about John Edwards!

And yes, I would like Clinton and Obama to have some beliefs and stand by them. What I see them doing is calculating what they think will get them the most votes, not taking a principled stand on something. They are following, not leading.

astrogirl - "......not taking a principled stand on something."

It ain't over yet. I heard an interesting analysis yesterday. The funding bill just passed only goes through September. Another funding bill will come due in July or so. Expect a stronger stand by the dems on the next round.

Its all about strategy, tactics and timing. I am sure the Dems would like this issue to stay front and center as the primary season grows closer. As more time passes it will be harder for GWB to claim the "surge strategy" is working. And as primary season approaches you will start to see fractures in republican unity on this issue and you can expect at least a few will be willing to cross the aisle.

WM H., I hear you, but the problem with that strategy is that it's prolonging the war, and that is costing lives. To be fair, I guess we'll never know if sending back the same bill with a timetable again would have ended the war sooner, since they didn't do it. But keeping to that strategy would have given Bush the choice of either funding the war with a timetable for withdrawal, or Bush refusing to fund the war, which would have forced an end to it.

Waiting until September means that it will be that much longer until another strategy is even tried, then how long will it be prolonged? This is a matter of life and death and should not be a political calculation.

".... Bush the choice of either funding the war with a timetable for withdrawal, or Bush refusing to fund the war, which would have forced an end to it."

Bush has other options. He can use money from the general defense dept budget. He can sequester funds allocated to other programs. These have been done before. He can get away with a lot under the guise of "national security".

With only a year and a half to go he will do everything possible to dump a final resolution and eventual withdrawal on his successor.