re comment #61882 by GB.  Progressives don’t need more choices.  They need to form a united front in support of the Kucinich campaign; then actively educate others.

The candidate that seems to be the most disconnected from arms dealers in Dennis Kucinich making him the most responsible candidate for administering the public’s interest. We will always get mediocre politicians as long as corporations can weild their interests. Unfortunately, the same corporations operate the national news sphere (spin). I keep hoping for more party choices…

susan28, you miss the whole point. The issues you mention, important as they may be on their own level, are relatively insignificant in the big picture. They are distractions from the real issues, which are the way our rights are being eroded.

Our corporatocracy uses these little distractions to create the appearance of differences in the Republican/Democrat duopoly that effectively works for it and to fool us into thinking we’re actually getting to make significant choices while its corporate captains continue to whittle away at our basic freedoms. People of the U.S.A., WAKE UP!!! We can still make a difference if we actually do that! Our forefathers warned us this would happen if we didn’t stay alert, and it’s happening big time! Better notice and notice soon!

All this premature extrapolation on election ‘08 is not helping address the constitutional crises we are facing now, today. There is an unelected madman plotting to end civilization for all except the richest. All the mainstream candidates kiss Israel’s ass, despite the whole world’s disgust at blind US support for the rogue state. While we wrote our opinions, a thousand children died of malnutrition. Priorities, anyone?

Good on Edwards for taking a stand on global poverty. This is the step in the right direction. Environmentally sound development is the new way to make money. Helping people who are starving it turns out might even make us some money, according to the Borgen Project. I’m only framing this in the economical context because that was the premise that led us into the Iraq fiasco. Only helping people wouldn’t cause insurgency. Occupation like Kucinich says only adds fuel to the fire.

How do you find a leader?  What defines leadership?  How do we become inspired to be our own leaders?  How do we return to public service being about sacrifice and living by example?  One thing’s for certain—we won’t find answers to these questions in the business world.  We have become so apathetic and beholden to the corporate bosses that we have lost our democracy.  We need to return to a sense of community and duty to ourselves, our children, our country and our world.  Instead of looking to the business or legal communities for a new set of leaders; perhaps we should look to those who regularly contribute to society in positive ways.  Instead of waiting for candidates to display ‘bold, innovative ideas’—perhaps we should be demanding answers to very pointed questions regarding restoring our civil rights,ending the war in Iraq,rebuilding the economy and ending the corporate world’s increasing hegemony, becoming good steward’s of this world and it’s resources, building renewable, green energy, providing healthcare for all, providing sound education budgets for all, and restoring REAL JOURNALISM WHICH QUESTIONS AUTHORITY AND WILL NOT TOLERATE THE INTELLECTUAL PABLUM WE ARE BEING FED.  IT DOESN’T REQUIRE FOCUS GROUPS OR POLITICAL CONSULTANTS—IT MERELY REQUIRES FULL ACC0UNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY OF THE ACTIONS COMMITTED BY THOSE IN POWER.  IT’S CALLED LEADERSHIP.  THE POLS SHOULD TRY IT SOMETIME.
Jeanine Molloff

As an addendum to my comment, consider the following colloquy between Amy Goodman and Dennis Kucinich:

Ms. Goodman:  “But what do you say to those [who] make the argument that if President Bush has on his desk a bill that gives money, gives a fortune in continuing the war, and he has to veto it because he doesn’t like the timetable, that this puts him in a difficult position.”

Mr. Kucinich:  “Our decisions have to be way above politics.  We have the lives of our troops at stake here.  There’s no military victory in Iraq.  We’re there illegally.  The occupation is fueling the insurgency….Democrats can still take the right position, which is refuse to fund the war, use money in the pipeline to bring the troops home.”

I am a Vietnam veteran.  I understand all too well what is at stake.  Good men and women are dying and Pelosi and friends are playing politics.  Enough!

I actually read and signed the Draft Gore campaign…..then I read a couple of articles at Mathaba News that said he is running a hedge fund that is set up to trade, or bet on trading carbon allowances.

Folks, in my neck of the woods…...that smells.

A hedge fund, they make Las Vegas look tame, would definitely want everyone scared to death and ready to accept whatever ¨solution¨ sold to them by corporations and governments.

I would appreciate more info on this if anyone knows anything.

All you people recommending Gore need to get it through your heads: Gore is NOT going to run for president, period. And why would he? Why would anyone who is truly committed to making a positive difference in the world run for president? The presidency is nothing but a glamor job anymore. If Gore was elected president, he would either need to put aside his values or get himself killed by the criminals who really run the show.

I personally think Dionne and anyone else attempting to predict the candidates or the American voters are extremely premature.

There is a lot going to happen in 2007 still. And many voters are waiting to see how effective or worthwhile their votes were in the last election. The next presidential candidate will face that wall of distrust as well. There is an anger simmering beneath the surface in this country as more and more become aware of the violations of the basic Constitutional Rights this country was founded on. As more scandals are exposed, as more lower political and judicial authorities continue on the path that is set by example in Washington, Americans will take those 2008 elections extremely personally.

And it will show long before the elections. True, a “leader” has to come out of this, and Americans want to see one that will step completely outside of the patterns that have been existent in this country since long before the Twig’s administration. But the leader will have to do more than even Kennedy did in the 60s, thanks to the war in Iraq and the damage by the Administration shown by the exposure of corruption and violations of law and constitution. At least Kennedy didn’t have the global community’s contempt for this country. And any waiver or misstep by the candidates or even the one ultimately elected will result in facing a horribly angry public.

If nothing else, current issues are triggering some awareness of the public that there are things terribly wrong within the system that simply can’t be ignored any longer.

Defining the historic moment?  We can’t leave that to the politcos.  It’s up to us.  They’‘ll be sure to follow.  Otherwise, out they go.

I want to hear each credible candidate declare that he will not pardon Bush, et. al.

E.J. - dig a little deeper and you just might find someone worth a crap.

Hillarious hasn’t had an original idea in her life. Obama hasn’t the experience or the connections necessary to bring his ideas to reality. Neither will win the vote in 80% of the country. Kucinich is the only one who hasn’t sold out. Will the voters have the guts to vote for him. I hope so or someone very much like him. Otherwise the country will continue it’s slide further into the corporate toilet and only itself to blame.

i rather like Richardson. pro gun rights, pro gay rights, pro choice and pro weed is a hard combination to find and one i as a gun-toting liberal prize very highly.

“A presidential campaign is a contest to define the historic moment and winning candidates are usually the ones who best do that,” ... 
“Obama has the best definition of the moment but doesn’t yet have the substance underneath it. Hillary brings a wealth of experience and ideas to the table but she needs to offer a definition of the moment.” - David Kusnet

Pardon my Sinicism Dionne, but I do not think either one of these folks truly defines the moment beyond their place in it. There is only one candidate who actually does define the moment. And as usual the Washington D.C. press, and you chose not to mention him.

Dennis Kucinich

“American voters want to shake things up. My hunch is that they will reward candidates who take chances. This time, being safe will mean being sorry.”

Hope you’re correct Dionne, because if you are, Kucinich will be the next president!

Kucinich takes chances. Speaking truth to power is taking a very big chance in today’s Washington and Washington controlled press. And jumping in without Big Buck Backers, which Obama and Clinton would never dare, speaks volumes to the mans dedication and character.

Kucinich ‘shakes things up’ every time he opens his mouth. We are listening.
How come you are not?

I suspect the polls are the product of information gleaned from the press. And the press as usual, thinks we the people are to stupid to pick our own candidates, so they better do it for us! Ergo, only the candidates of their choice get the numbers!

Boo and Bah!

I for one am sick of it!

But maybe I’m being unfair. Everyone knows name identification is key to being a successful candidate. Maybe the problem is nobody in the news industry can identify with open candor, or pronounce that difficult name.

Kucinich

Practice!

How about Gore/Edwards ?

Refreshing article,  sorting the candidates like that. We have a long ways to go, it will be one of the most interesting races in a long time.

The only person, aside from Ralph Nader, who actually has the courage and honesty to speak the truth is Kucinich. If he is completely beholden to corporate intrests, I do not know it, and he does not act like it, unlike the Dems elected this last election…...kissing a__ all over the place and pretending to be concerned about the people who elected them…...while expecting those same people to be so stupid as to not notice that they are facilitating not only the wars already going on, but helping to start another…..and with someone who will and has the wherewithal to shoot back.

AND THE PLANS INCLUDE NUCLEAR BOMBS…..HOW STUPID IS THAT?

OUR BODY COUNT IS GETTING ON UP THERE TO RIVAL STALIN…..THINK THAT MIGHT BE ENOUGH TO FINALLY GET US TO SAY ENOUGH?

WHERE IS THE POLITICIAN TO SAY ENOUGH? OR ARE WE HAPPY TO HAVE AND PREPETUATE SUCH A HISTORY? IT CERTAINLY SEEMS SO BECAUSE IN MY LIFETIME, THE NADERS AND KUCINICHS OF THE WORLD DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO BE ELECTED.

Mitt Romney is bad news for your health.  He destroyed MA.  Held residents as “hostages” for years from state monies. If you dig into the books you will see the financial empire mess that he left behind.  The towns including children suffered so under his dictatorship.
A Former Hostage

““A presidential campaign is a contest to define the historic moment and winning candidates are usually the ones who best do that,” says Kusnet”
What a crock this is. With all the big vote states going to an early primary the choices will no longer prevail. Like the election popular vote will be diminished more and more. The one with the biggest adverting budget[ and we know what this means, corporate money…the big fix] will control who becomes President.
Primary elections should be done away and all candidates on one ballot in November should be the rule. This early Primary thing is a corporate money-saving ploy.

Funny thing about polls.  Especially the CNN one that polled a grand total of about 430 people.  They can sometimes be way off - far beyond their stated margin of error.  How else would one explain the latest Zogby poll that has Mitt Romney in double digits?  Zogby certainly has more credibility than CNN, yet most of the MSM is only quoting the CNN one.  Could it be that they (and you) have an agenda by spinning the truth?  Talk about NOT digging beneath the headliines.