ONLY one of these three people will be the next President of the United States.

Obama, Richardson or Kucinich.

The first two weren't in Congress and Kucinich voted against it.

Sorry Hillary, Edwards, Biden, Dodd the IWR vote means you might as well give up now.

Kind of funny since four Senators, Bingaman (D-NM), Conrad (D-ND), Levin (D-MI) and Reed (D-RI), voted against the authorization; against setting a deadline for withdrawal and against cutting funding.

The war is illegal, but the U.S. must stay?






Oh, did I mention that Bush is responsible for this illegal war and those who oppose a timetable and cutting funding are prolonging the tragedy?

You know I disagree with you about congressional complicity, but I totally agree that of the current candidates, only those three have any credibility with me. For exactly the reason you articulated. The rest are up to their eyeballs in crimes against humanity.

Gore will be

:sarcasm:

... but that would be cheating, since it was a completely different war and different situation, though a Bush was in charge then too.

:hide:

That is not the only criterion the people of Iowa and New Hampshire are going to use.

Most voters - Democrats, Republicans and others - do not expect the candidates of either party to drop to their knees and ask for atonement.

Most voters supported the war, even if not on the pages of DU.

Most voters remember the first Gulf War and are very proud of that outcome. Again, perhaps not on the pages of DU. (I wonder how DUers would have reacted in 1941..)

If the Democratic candidate will be a reincarnation of McGovern of 1972, then be prepared for the Republicans, to win the White House for four more years.

as anti-war as DU--had the war gone well, the occupation ended and the handover to Iraqis fairly smooth, most Americans would have never thought the war was immoral or wrong. The awful execution and prolonged occupation soured folks much more than any sense that we shouldn't have gone there at all (the accepted position on DU). Therefore, deriding or marginalizing a candidate such as Hillary or Edwards for not being "pure" enough on the war is sheer idiocy. Yes, one might question their judgment, but we weren't there in the Senate to know what forces and pressures were brought to bear on them, and much of the nation was spoiling for a fight with Saddam anyway, in its confusing 9/11 with Iraq. The country is nervous about our security, about Iran, about getting out of Iraq without making the situation worse--forcing our candidates to yield to pressure from the more pacifist segment of the party will only help Republicans in the general election, who will run on a campaign of GOP=safety, Dems=Annihilation. People are still fearful sheep, and fear is a powerful motivator.

It is a good reflection of the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, most of America does not get that we know what is best for them. Hell, most of the Democratic Party does not get it. (As a Liberal I can get over that most Americans do not agree with me. I'll take what I can get and go from there.) Unfortunately, the perfect candidate does not exist (yes, even Kucinich probably has warts if you look hard enough). I think a Democrat will be our next president, but it will be a Democrat who gets the nomination and not necessarily the one who passes our strict DU litmus test for Democratic ideal purity. But basically the deal it that if you do not get the nomination, you will not be president. Pretty simple actually.

that will provide ammo for the GOP in 2008--we still have to keep an eye on the general even now, and it's up to us Dems to help keep our primary candidates electable in Nov 2008. Look at the sickening torture/Gitmo and anti-Darwin festival at the Repug debates--they are forced to do this by their Freeper base--hopefully, it will be fodder for us to use against THEM. I just don't want us to create our OWN fodder.

Edwards, or Hillary....Obama is fading fast. Richardson doesn't have a support and neither does any of the others.

evidence that Obama is fading? That seems to be the current theme on DU this week, and I don't see it, except that Hillary is doing better post-debate in the polls.

or those wingnutcracker sites. We have a great field, may the best marathoner win!

topwards Obama. People complain about her
1. Nails on a chalkboard voice
A. Obama's smile does irritate me.

2. Her "triangulation"
B. Obama's religiosity does not seem sincere to me. I think he is just trying to ride a fine line to get the fundies to vote for him.

3. Her love/committment for corporations
C. His smug sense of righteousness (His "can't we all get along attitude") does, in all honesty, make me want to gag.

I just hear about Hillary's voice and all this negativity thrown her way. I just thought I would try it out on Obama.

It was fun! :9 :9 :9

He did last time, despite the IWR.

Hmmm? LOL!

this is a race. They're not all going to win.

You are gonna want to change that out ASAP or the hallucinations will get worse.

link

Did anything in the post give it away?

My prediction.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070519/NEWS/70519028/1001

Poll: Oklahomans favor Clinton, Edwards among Democrats
http://www.examiner-enterprise.com/articles/2007/05/16/news/state/news474.txt

Ohio Poll: Clinton tops presidential candidates in name recognition
... Hillary Clinton had the highest name recognition among Democratic voters at 100 percent, followed by Al Gore, 99 percent; John Edwards, 97 percent; Barack Obama, 87 percent; and Dennis Kucinich, 79 percent ... The poll also asked respondents whether they felt positive about each of five possible candidates. Edwards has the highest favorability rating among Democrats, at 43 percent, followed by Clinton, 42 percent; Gore and Obama, 37 percent; and Kucinich, 5 percent ...
http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2007/05/14/daily34.html

... simply be the candidate: it will require a primary season with real distinctions between candidates but a minimum of bad feelings between people at the end of the process. Our party needs to show we can marshal talented people not only for campaigns but beyond campaigns into administration -- and to do this we have to work together. We can exhibit a diversity of candidates. If we proceed without unnecessary attacks on each other we can end up discussing quite a number of important issues. And if the primary season is handled correctly, whoever comes out as the top runner should have good access to a large number of different communities and an excellent advice on filling Administrative positions if and when we win the general election.

I really like Obama and Richardson and Clark, too, just to name a few. Hell, I'd really like to support Clinton in the primaries, because she's a smart woman and it's time for a female President -- but I don't want the history books to read Bush Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Clinton because it sends the wrong dynastic message. But I'm supporting Edwards.

I'm glad we have a search function so I can come back and look at this thread to see how right (or wrong) you were.

What's my point?

Maybe you could search my position on the IWR. LOL.

Or see this

I'd choose Hillary, Obama or Guiliani.

Kucinich? I don't know if he can break thru.

Richardson, maybe.

But it is too early to tell, isn't it?

Edwards, or Hillary....Obama is fading fast. Richardson doesn't have a support and neither does any of the others.

Obama's only fading in the eyes of the poll worshipers and over-analyzers.

It's all name recognition.

I have to disagree with you that the senators who voted to go in Iraq are at fault, that's a political tactic the other candidates are using and by your post they seemed to have duped yet another person. They believed Bush at the time when he said there were WMDs and it is not fair to judge people's decisions that were made while they were being lied to. But I do agree with part of your original three, in that group, I would go with Richardson, since the debate I've thought it unfortunate that he doesn't have a better shot; he's an honest man.

Richardson - Great resume for a light-weight

Obama - Former flavor of the month, support is wide but not deep.

Kucinich - Do I really have to go in to this?

Last I checked, the Democratic Party was still dominated by moderates. That is why Wes Clark doesn't have a chance either - because moderate dems won't vote for a military man in the primaries. The moderate dems will not make the war a deciding vote in 08 because EVERY candidate on both sides of the aisle will make ending the war a campaign staple.