So tell me, JEP, do you actually believe Nader was responsible for either the Gore or Kerry losses?  If so, my ignorant friend, I would suggest you get ahold of “Was the 2004 Election Stolen” by Steve Freeman, PhD and Joel Bleifuss.  The Gore loss was occasioned by massive computerized voter fraud as well as voter suppression efforts, that included the illegal, pre-election purging of nearly 90,000 mostly innocent Democrats (primarily African Americans) from Florida’s eligible voter rolls by ChoicePointe and Katherine Harris.  Exit polls show Gore actually won by about 435,000 votes.  Naderites had nothing to do with it.

With increased Diebold vote flipping capabilities in 2004, Flori-duh became a nation-wide phenomena.  Freeman demonstrates that the odds against the massive shift between exit polls and official counts in the three key battleground states, PA, OH & FL, all favoring the incumbent president were about 660,000 to one.  Indeed there were gaps between the exit polls and official counts all favoring the incumbent president in ten of the eleven battle ground states.

And contrary to your unfounded beliefs, the truth is that Democrats have consistently hurt their chances when they have sought to minimize their differences between a principled stand on behalf of the middle and working classes and the Republi-crooks by becoming Republican-lite.  This is one of the reasons so many Americans are as disgusted with the Pelosi/Reid led Congress as they are with the abmoninable Bush regime.  The notion that we must reduce the gap in policy by supporting the policies of perpetual inequality, which is precisely what Clinton’s support of NAFTA created, is nothing more than DLC sophistry to justify a betrayal of the democratic base. 

News flash!  The vast majority of Americans are “not” CEOs of major corporations.  The vast majority of Americans have been harmed, not helped by NAFTA, the WTO and U.S. imperialism abroad, especially by the war in Iraq.  When you say I am wrong, are you denying that John Edwards voted for the USA/PATRIOT Act and sponsored the bill authorizing the invasion of Iraq?  Are you suggesting that Edwards’s sham “universal coverage” plan actually amounts to single-payer when it does not?

The truth is that if the only legitimate Democrat in this race, Dennis Kucinich, received the nomination, even the corporate media would no longer be in a position to marginalize his message.  The blind poll taken last August which set forth candidate positions on policy, but excluded names, and which had Kucinich at 53% and Obama/Edwards/Clinton at less than 5% a piece reveals that once a nominated Kucinich broke the corporate media sound and sight barrier, Kucinich would win the general election in a landslide, as even fools like you would finally have to vote in favor of substance as opposed to the empty image of John Edwards, corporatist masquerading as man of the people.

“Oh my goodness, JEP, please don’t try to put Edwards phoney populist rhetoric on par with Dennis Kucinich.  Edwards may play lip service to the class divide, but he is every bit the corporatist as Obama and Clinton.”

Just plain wrong on all counts, my friend. You are everything the Republicans desire in an opponent.

Edwards’ very public appeal to establish a class-free society of equal members should be proof enough that his motives are serious and honorable

And you will only learn the hard way, just how devastating your confusion might be, like the Naderites did (finger-wagging geniuses, all) if a Republican somehow slinks into office again because one of the “others” (whom they might just beat) wins the Democratic nomination.

Pay heed to the history you have already experienced. And don’t for a moment assume your perspective outweighs reality.

Sheer arrogance.

Unfortunately, you seen like one of the many (just enough arrogant ego to let the Republican machine use you for their own purposes)Kucininich supporters who would throw Edwards to the wolves, like a child from a sleighride, because your delusions matter more than everyone else’s reality.

Even suggesting that Edwards is one of the corporate creeps just reeks of psuedo-liberal elitism.

I’m a bona fide progressive liberal, in the Voltairian/Jeffersonian sense, but you are a post-modern “liberal” elitist, another self- appointed genius with very little understanding of the realities you force the rest of us to suffer with every day, along with your arrogant minority. 

To put it simply, I’ve been places you don’t even want to go.

Read up on Metternich and you might get a handle on what you don’t understand.

The seeds of class warfare that were born centuries ago are is still sprouting today, and anyone who thinks the post-modern era somehow divides us off from the struggle for equality of all humankind, will be embarassed by the truth that unfolds in the very-near future.

Impotence, with conviction, is still impotence.

Edwards is exactly what you really need, whether you realize it or not.

Oh my goodness, JEP, please don’t try to put Edwards phoney populist rhetoric on par with Dennis Kucinich.  Edwards may play lip service to the class divide, but he is every bit the corporatist as Obama and Clinton.

In addition to the fundamental difference between the healthcare insurance company subsidy scheme known as “universal coverage” and single-payer, there are these fundamental differences:  Edwards voted for the USA/PATRIOT act.  Kucinich voted against it.  Edwards did not only vote to authorize the war in Iraq, he was a co-sponsor of the measure, alongside his pal, Joe Lieberman.  Kucinich, from day one, opposed the war in Iraq.  He has voted against every bill to fund it.

There’s an old saying.  Don’t just listen to what people say.  Watch what they do. 

By the way, some of the frankenfoods may be more dangerous than the fly food.  Disturbing that you would swallow either of them, along with the empty calories that come with populist rhetoric that is not matched by past deeds.

PS;

As for your “flyfood” reference, what was it Captain Guts used to say?

BTW, I wouldn’t eat everything a fly eats, but I would not consider eating something they WON’T eat!!

Like frankenfoods…

“the corporate media polls tell you who is going to win…”

Find me a corporate media poll that gives Edwards the credit he’s due, and I will agree with you.

And you are quite mistaken that I vote just for electability, let me state this quite plainly, I don’t support Edwards just for electability.

I think Edwards is very much a true populist as Dennis, his connections to all the evil influences you attach him to are mostly in your head, only because you support Dennis.

Putting Edwards in the same category as the “others”  with big-machine connections is nothing more than an expression of myopic support for your own chosen candidate.

It is like the Greens calling Gore an anti-environmental compromiser back in 2000.

I can see how both the Chicago and the New York machines can be referenced for two “other” candidates, as the very influence you suggest.

But who is Edwards’ machine made up of?

Certainly not corporate enablers and neocon crossovers…

But, like I said earlier, so many of Kucinich’s people see Dennis as some diminutive political messiah, much like Nader’s own blind mice, your list of acceptable people just ignores the facts, and depends on blind loyalty.

I would not even consider supporting Edwards if he was everything you so blindly consider him to be. Lumping Edwards into that category is just wrong.

I know better. I read what the candidates say and write, and weigh it all against a neutral POV.  And I believe Edwards when he talks about uniting us as One America.

But I would guess from your obsessive and exhaustive anti-everyone else diatribes that you don’t believe anything anyone but Dennis says, just more proof you have your own form of counter-productive prejudice brewing.

Read what Edwards says first, then try to trash him.  Your anti-Edwards argument is always made about things long past, that he has had the courage to admit he was wrong about.

Read him lately.  You might find it refreshing.

I doubt you can see through the rose-colored Kucinich glasses, though. 

Everything anyone says you will no doubt distrust.

JEP.  I have said nothing about casting my vote for a third party candidate.  What I have consistently said is that this nation will never be lifted out of its present malaise unless and until voters like you, cast their vote on the basis of who best represents the interests of the vast majority of Americans—the middle and working classes—at least during the primaries.  When it comes to substance, I think even you would concede that Kucinich stands head and shoulders above the rest.  Unfortunately, despite such knowledge, people like you continue to be sucked into this nonsense that you must cast your vote because the corporate media polls tell you who is going to win, and, well, you want to go with a winner.  That sort of mentality is the source of what Noam Chomsky aptly refers to as the “democracy deficit”—the gap between citizens and their representatives on policy.  Voters like you JEP become the source of their own demise.

This poll driven mentality reminds me of what I saw written on a men’s room wall at UCLA in the early seventies:  “Eat sh-t!  Ten billion flies can’t all be wrong.”

to Cyrena

When in any election has the public not faced the choice of the less of two evils. However when it comes to politics that are some issue that are a deal breaker .

I for One will never vote for a pro choice pro death /Nazi candidate NEVER
So that for me rules out ALL of the democrats or as I call them The Party of Satan.
There is a large percentage of American that share my view.
The problem for the democrats is that the war in Iraq is turning around and US death are way down thank God and that is removing it as a major issue in 2008.
The issue that is taking its place is illegal immigration. On this issue the independent voters are siding with the republican position on the issue

So I for see the GOP keeping the White House in 08
Now who is the Best GOP candidate, My opinion is Mike Huckabee and I am proud to support him in both word and money.

“I simply don’t understand the factual basis for your assertion that a nomination of Dennis Kucinich as his party’s nominee would lead to another “Nader-style” loss.”

No, it is that so many Kucinich supporters claim they will vote independent or write-in Dennis if any of the other Dems win the nomination.

Even Hillary is better, at least incrementally, than any other Republican (repeat, ANY REPUBLICAN!) but Edwards actually represents a populist appeal that Kucinich should be the beneficiary of, unfortunately there is so much money in the game that he’s been permanently marginalized by the corporate media (THE MSM) and his ascerbic personality keeps him from rising above that false designation.

But Edwards openly defies these corporate interests, and manages to hold his own in TWO Presidential elections, despite his total detachment from the ruling political machine(s) in his own party.

I am not suggesting Kucinich, if nominated, wouldn’t get my vote, quite the contrary, I’m suggesting Kucinich WON’T get nominated and all the sour-grapes self-appointed geniuses who think the rest of us don’t get it will split the party like Nader’s people did in 2000.

It may be a moot point, though.

I have always contended that, since 94’ the fact our nation was divided closely gave the R’s a chance to steal the past 12 years worth of elections, but they depended on the 55-45 split to make it happen, and as Rove learned in 2006, you can’t cheat the system like that when it is a 60-40 split, the numbers (like in Ohio, and in Florida’s 13th?) start to look so fishy that they get caught, or worse.

So, since the turnaround has been much more stark this time, and the numbers are closer to 65-35 now, there is not a chance in Diebold hell they will be able to fix this one. Only some monumental deception like the California electoral college manipulation initiative could throw a monkey-wrench into the owrks, but they do have the money and the mischief (Issa’s a crook)to try.

Even Nader’s 4% spoiler fund wouldn’t be enough to beat the Dem this time around, and only if Hillary gets the nod and the anti-hillary R’s turn out in record numbers just to beat her, is there a chance the Dems will lose this time around.  And even that is getting less likely as the weeks go by, even another engineered disaster wouldn’t work for the R’s.

Part 1 of 2
#118265 by Sharon Ash

Sharon: THANK YOU! Yours is an excellent and inspiring post.

#118022 by driving bear
•  The problem with the democrats now is they saw the results of a poll last week that showed in a head to head race Clinton would loss to all of the top 5 GOP candidates ( Rudi , Romney, Thompson, McCain and Huckabee).

The above post indicates the very serious troubles that we experience with “Damned Lies and Statistics” (that’s the name of a book BTW) when combined with the myths and ideologies of those who rely on them so feverishly. (like a racing form). This isn’t to say that polls are not important, but when they are presented with no real common sense, they can be dangerous.

It’s impossible to believe this one, which basically ignores the fact that even though we are at our wits’ end in the debate over the next president, all comments point to the fact that the BIGGEST FEAR, (of nearly every person, regardless of party affiliation) is to have another repug in charge. So, IMO, this isn’t really a poll. It’s just the same old shit that we routinely get from a poll-junkie that likes to create propaganda, based on an affinity for ‘polls’ that probably don’t even exist.

That said, reading this and ALL of the other comments, it’s obvious that we are – regardless of party affiliation, overwhelmingly concerned with the logistics of who REALLY has a chance, based on the overwhelmingly faulty system that we have in place, for selecting elected officials.

Nearly every comment that I read, (at least 4 out of 5) reflects the same concern: I REALLY want ‘so and so’, but they don’t stand a chance, so I need to basically hedge my bets. This is perfectly understandable, based on the flaws of the system, (which would be IMMEDIATELY fixed, if we were able to make 1st, 2nd, 3rd and even 4th choice candidates from ANY party). THAT will never be, because the system is far too corrupt, and our populace is far too uninformed. And, in these times, there are far too many issues CRUCIAL issues that divide us, as we examine the choices. Some of us base our choices on what we think is best for our own PERSONAL and INDIVIDUAL concerns. Others, (though in a much smaller minority) actually look at a larger picture. Others don’t have a clue, and only act as gadflys.
Health care SHOULD BE a major issue. But, it’s not the ONLY one, because there is an entire portion of the population that just doesn’t get the importance of that. Too many have had no experience with the system as we see (from Ernest’s standpoint) how broken it is. But, the younger people don’t see that as a priority, because they believe they will live forever, or at least long enough that there are other issues that appear to be far more urgent. (like the lost of our civil liberties, and the enormous disparity in wealth/resource distribution).
Others are focused on what has become the total destruction of our Constitution, and the fact that we no longer have a democracy, or anything close to the rule of law. We have become a 3rd world country, that has lost it’s ability to survive without the dependence on others, or the further degradation of our own resources, until we simply become totally bankrupt, and lose ALL independence. IMO, this has already occurred. To deny this, is to further the destruction, and to make stupid or diluted choices, in a system that is already rigged.

So, we’re all looking for either the least of the evils, or the one who might best address the most of our concerns. At least we should be. Because, it’s the only way that we can possibly survive. No ONE candidate is going to be on the side of every single person or groups needs/issues. We need to accept that, and get on with it, by a process of elimination, based on the bigger picture.

Part 2 of 2
ALL of these individual concerns, (all are valid) MUST find as much of a common point as possible, keeping in mind that this is POLITICAL, and there is only so much that is pragmatically possible, TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE GREATEST NUMBER OF US. THAT’S what a democracy is. Experience in conflict resolution informs me that there are MULTPILE reasons for the failure of the majority, to exercise their collective agency over the minority. Too many to include now; WHATEVER the reasons, the differences and divisions serve only to empower the controllers, which is why we’re in the state that we are now. We fight amongst ourselves about the piddly shit, (which really isn’t piddly anymore) and while we’re battling each other, -THEY- take it ALL.
So, let’s get it together peeps. Anyone who’s been paying even a LITTLE bit of attention, should have an idea where to start. WHO is the ‘enemy’ here? Well, it’s the elite, and the 1% that has somehow managed to take control.
WHO are they? WHO do we eliminate first, based on what we already know about them, and their connection to the destruction?  IMO, we can eliminate Guiliani, Clinton and PAUL, right off the bat. No need to consider ANY, because they are NOT in our own interests. (They’re also the most deceptive and conniving within the bunch)
Whom else should we eliminate? For me, every single repug running, but I accept there are many others who must be convinced of this. For many, Ron Paul is becoming a possible alternative, if only because he’s deceptively appealing to their desperation, by way of ‘packaging’ himself in a new wrapping of Libertarianism. He’s packaged himself as a ‘savior’ to the majority of the underdogs who have been convinced that all of the dems (with the exception of Kucinich and Gravel) are either the corporate backed ‘enemy’  or are unelectable, because of the odds. It is the standard “divide and conquer” strategy, which we continue to fall for, century after century, crises after crises, (once we’ve figured out that we are in major crises)
THAT means FIRST recognizing WHO might really be “honest” in this endeavor. (very difficult these days) It means recognizing that ALL of these politicians are necessarily involved in the SAME games of “odds” that we are involved in trying to select between them. And it means understanding that we’ve been intentionally dumbed-down, for at least a generation.
So, here’s my “tip sheet” and for the moment, I’m not going to break it down by all of the issues/odds/paradigms that must be considered. We can do that later. But, there IS an urgency…NOW, and so I’m just throwing this out there, based on the things that I personally believe, are most ‘do-able’ and safest, in terms of at least stopping the destruction. It is a pragmatic view, with a large portion of hope included. I’ve even included a couple of repugs, because I know that some folks can simply never accept the idea of a democrat, no matter what. 
Kucinich, Obama, Edwards, Gravel, Richardson. (all democrats)
If you MUST consider repugs, here’s the tip…and I know it will surprise many…
Fred Thompson, John McCain. Yep. I know. But, these are your only chances, if you insist on a repug.
NONE of the others should be considered!!! I’m serious. (Giuliani and Paul should be avoided at ALL COSTS) I’m speaking from a bottom line perspective that affects us ALL. And, if ya’ll haven’t figured it out yet, what affects or is best for the majority of us, is the only thing that’s gonna save us. (if it’s not too late)

I’ll explain later about how I arrived at these ‘tips’ and the line-up. Feel free to ask questions.

Final word…this is NOT arrogance on my part. Rather, it’s an attempt to share some thoughts and strategy. So the normal flamers and “Cyrena Hate Mongers” should just save their energy. IOW..IGNORE this post. No need to read or respond.

Regards to the rest of you…

Corporate media has all ready done all it can do to “break” John Edwards. They consistantly portray Obama and Clinton as the only viable candidates and only, and seldom, mention John Edwards as an afterthought. Once again, any mention or discussion of any candidate must be used as an opportunity to insert rabid attacks on all candidate except Dennis Kucinich. If he’s your choice, that’s just fine and dandy, but could you please have the courtesy to allow those of us that do not favor Dennis Kucinich as our candidate to discuss someone else. Dennis Kucinich may well be a good man and I do agree with some of his ideas. I do loathe on principal ANY old man married to a much younger wife and could only vote for such a critter by holding my nose with both hands.(hard to vote that way) I also do not want any G.Dee Republican in the White House when the next one or more likely two Supreme Court Justices retires. I believe that Dennis Kucinich as the Democratic nominee would guarantee that happening. That’s what I think and what I believe. My right you know.

JEP.  I simply don’t understand the factual basis for your assertion that a nomination of Dennis Kucinich as his party’s nominee would lead to another “Nader-style” loss.  If Kucinich were the nominee, it is unlikely that Nader would run.  If Clinton is the nominee, there is a good chance he will run again.

Ertnest, our only disagreement is with your ability to detach your passion from your senses.

We agree completely one everything but Dennis’ electability, and I for one am not ready to let another Republican take us into the future just because my candidate doesn’t make you swoon with self-righous “I’m so right"ness.

Let me repeat, I agree with you about health care, and I can say that from personal experience.  I had a copy of Sicko given to me long before it was released. I keep a photo of Bob Greenwald and Michael Moore on my wall with the one of Martin Luther King.

But I can’t justify another Nader-style loss.

So lets stop arguing about what we agree on, my point all along has been that baby steps are better than backward steps, the Nader/Gore factor should have shook every self-appointed perfect-person from their egotistical intractability.

Trashing Edwards serves no purpose but to encourage Republicans.

Tout Dennis all you want, that would be a worthy act of meaningful purpose. I do it all the time, I posted more than once that I support Edwards because I hope once he gets in office he will ac t more like Dennis Kucinich.

But relegating everyone to your personjal trash-heap of indignant and rather arrogant certitude only serves to prolong the same kind of futile error we saw with Nader and Gore.

As I have noticed before, you seem to have a penchant for negativism, not positivism, so I guess that is how you deal with things.

I would suggest that you make your case for Kucinich, and let us decide for ourselves.  But don’t trash the other candidates who might help turn this ship of state back to a benevolent course, just because it doesn’t turn fast enough for you..

Either you just don’t get it, or you are a compulsive contrarian. But there’s not much wriggle room in between.

JEP.  Although I saw it when it first came out, I recently purchased the Sicko DVD—watched it again last night.  Still can’t get over the astounded laughter from patients and health care workers at a UK hospital when they were asked by Michael Moore how much their treatment costs.  They gave him this, “have you lost your mind?” expression.  No doubt, citizens in single-payer countries think we are all out of our minds.

Our health care system is not only corrupt but utterly irrational.  The system not only includes the presence of unnecessary middle men (for-profit carriers and HMOs who account for 31% of the cost as compared to 1% to 2% administrative costs in single-payer countries), but provides financial incentives to those unnecessary middle-men to prevent people from getting needed care.  The one scene that continues to haunt me is the young widow tearfully relating how the HMO where she worked refused to provide her husband with a life-saving bone marrow transplant even though her husband’s youngest brother was a perfect match.  Her husband died a short time later.

As Dr. Linda Pino’s testimony revealed, the current system is not merely irrational.  It kills people!  To go on talking about “universal coverage” is to condone a system that needlessly kills and maims.  Yet, Clinton, Obama & Edwards all advance “universal coverage” and ignore “single-payer” because they need the blood money from the health care insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies.

It is the duty of each citizen to become informed on issues that truly matter.  With the fulfillment of that duty comes a significant responsibility.  Any citizen who chooses to ignore this, and, like mindless sheep, cast their votes for one of the “universal coverage” candidates because of poll numbers, or in your words, JEP, because they “rock,” becomes complicit in the future deaths that will certainly flow from a continuation of this thoroughly corrupt and callous health care delivery system.

Driving Bear

You are right, that is certainly a possibility, and Richardson would likely be that fourth candidate at the end, if your scenario plays out. 

But it is rare that the “nonviables” join to create a “viable” from their union. Gephart and Dean found out the hard way.

But it can happen.

And that speaks volumes!

No, YOU speak volumes, (1,200+ posts?) most of it tantamount to negative campaigning towards people you may have to depend on some day to represent you, when Dennis (bless his progressive heart) is in the cabinet where he can make a difference.

Your challenge is pointless. What good is being right if you can’t do something with it. While I agree with your opinion about Dennis’ qualities, I simply shake my head at your willingness to spout negatives about everyone else, as if anyone but Kucinich is selling out.

It really is your choice.  You can let your self-stroking ego rule, and lose the impact of a meaningful vote, or let your whole party rule, and claim both chambers and the White House.

Simple logic.

reply to #118033 by JEP on 12/04 at 8:35 pm

One problem I see with you thinking is that I have heard that Clinton has already promised the VP slot on her ticket to General W. Clark so what is she going to offer Richardson for his support.
I think that since Richardson is at about 10% the other also ran will pool their support around him .

What the Hell are you talking about, JEP?  Nader ran against Gore in the general election—at a time when splintering can result in the election of a Republican.  Dennis Kucinich is running in the Democratic primaries.  How does my action, as a responsible citizen, in voting for the candidate whose positions on substance accord with the interests of the vast majority of the electorate—the middle and working classes—act to “splinter” the party?  Or is it your position that the Democratic Party—supposedly the party of the people—has become the property of corporate America and those candidates who have been bought off—like Clinton and Obama?

Your pal Edwards has offered up a scam “universal coverage” plan that, like those offered by Clinton and Obama, amounts to a subsidy scheme for the health care insurance industry.  Kucinich, on the other hand, proposes a single-payer system that would eliminate the unnecessary middle men, for-profit carriers and HMOs which account for 31% of our spiraling healthcare costs, as compared to 1% to 2% in single-payer countries.

Our solemn decision to elect a president of these United States should not be based on someone’s views that so-and-so “rocks” but on the basis of the substance of their policies with respect to issues that truly matter.  For some time now, I have posted this challenge to all Truthdiggers, and do so specifically with you.  Name a single policy position on a substantive issue in which you believe the position of Mr. Edwards or any other candidate is substantively superior to that taken by Mr. Kucinich and tell me why.  To date, not a single poster at Truthdig has stepped forward to meet that challenge.  And that speaks volumes!

A lesson in Iowa caucuses;

Lets say 40 people show up for one of the caucuses in Iowa. If the first-count numbers match the current polls (which are quite variable for Clinton and Obama, but steady for Edwards) hypothetically expect Obama, Clinton and Edwards to each get 25% of that, totaling 10 votes apiece. (Actually, I’m predicting Edwards 14, Obama 9 and Clinton 8, based on 40 caucus goers.)

To be “viable” and claim delegates, a candidate must have 15%, or 6 votes. But with Kucinich, Dodd, Biden and Richardson all polling similar single digits, that means the other 10 points gets split up so none of them is viable. (“Viable” is the actual term used to designate any 15% plus candidate).

Once viability is clearly determined, the people supporting the non-viable candidates then must decide which of the already-viable candidates they will support, or more rarely, they join forces to create a fourth viable candidate. Very rarely.

Many deals are struck long before the meeting, some deals are made on the spot, but before it is over, those last 10 votes typically get spread out to a couple of the other candidates, and in this case, probably just one of those candidates will take the lion’s share of those crossover votes.

Stop and think about it. 

Which of the three leaders would those crossover people support?

The New York Machine candidate, with Republicanesque corporate connections, who voted for Kyl-Lieberman? The Chicago Machine candidate with the Rovish “win at all costs” staff, who didn’t even vote on that crucial issue? Or the Southern populist who can also get the southern and the labor and the middle class vote, the only one outside “the machine” who consistently beats all the Republicans, north south east and west…

Simple logic, really. So according to my numbers, I see Edwards getting around 50%, which equals 20 of those 40 votes, with Obama taking a couple of the crossovers, but Hillary gaining nothing after the first cut, (unless some of Richardson’s folks have been promised some sort of VP thing, which isn’t likely in Iowa because of the Vilsack factor.)

We will know Janauary 4th.

The problem with the democrats now is they saw the results of a poll last week that showed in a head to head race Clinton would loss to all of the top 5 GOP candidates ( Rudi , Romney, Thompson, McCain and Huckabee). Clinton supporters are starting to ask themselves ” what if we win the battle but lose the war” . Now the question is if Clinton can’t hold on to her supporters , who will they go to Obama or Edwards. I think that is anyone’s guess now

Ernest, you go right ahead and vote for Dennis. 

I think he’s the one I agree with the most, but I am also not a Naderite, willing to call Al Gore an industry hack because of his pragmatic approach to what Nader lives in fantasyland about.

Now that Gore has a Nobel prize for his environmental work, I wonder what the Florida Greens think of the damage Bush has done to the environment.

Kucinich can be right all day long, if he can’t get the support to make it happen, and people like you try to splinter the party along ideological lines, then he becomes another Nader.

But Kucinich is smarter than most of his intractable supporters,  he will vote for whichever Democrat gets the nod.

Like The Merchant of Venice, you have a problem justifying your ego with your own real benefit.  Splinter off for Kucinich, divide the party along incremental lines, and what will it gain you but the delusion of self respect.

Just like Nader’s supporters. 

At least most of them have the sense now to admit their wrongheadedness.  And most of them realize Al Gore is just as much of an environmentalist as Nader, just like Edwards is just as much of a populist as Kucinich.

Go ahead and essentially, just promote yourself, because that is what many of Kucinich’s intractable supporters are really doing. Exercising their self-righteous egoes.

No offense to Dennis, either.  He won’t be so willful or arrogant when the time comes.

Sorry Mary & JEP but Edwards, whose Senate vote enabled Geo. Bush to take this nation to war, whose position on trade with China was inimicable to the middle class aspirations of working men and women in both countries and whose “universal coverage” plan is merely a variation of the health care insurer subsidy schemes offered by Obama and Clinton under the same “universal coverage” label, does not rock.  As to Obama, he is no different from Clinton, a fact underscored by his recent vote to expand a NAFTA-like agreement into Peru. 

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2558

These so-called “free trade” agreements embodied in NAFTA & the WTO have been the bane of American labor, opening the door to a betrayal of this nation by the ruling elite through outsourcing of our manufacturing base in search for the $2/day laborer.  We are in the midst of a global class war, and the corporate favored candidates—Obama, Clinton & Edwards are all on the wrong side.  If you could get past the images of these three which have been skillfully erected by the PR teams, and enhanced by a thorough corrupt corporate media; if you could get to their substance on policies, you would learn that there is no “there” there.  That is why, last August, when the results of a blind poll which listed candidate positions on policy but excluded their names, one candidate, Dennis Kucinich received over 53% of the vote, whereas Clinton, Obama and Edwards received less than five percent.

Mary, you are right on all counts!

Edwards rocks!

Look—-better it be partisan and stand for something and stand firm rather than conform to the Right’s definition of bipartisanship:
  Capitulation of the Democrats.

  I say the hell with bipartisanship if that is what it takes to challenge these Rightwing thugs and bullies—who wants to be in any kind of unity with them?

  I am weary of Obama’s pretty, airy talk when the wolf is at the door—it reeks of triangulation to me.

John Edwards is the Republican nightmare, especially teamed with Obama.  They want Sen Clinton!  And since our so-called-media want to be the deciders in charge, we will be handed Sen Clinton whether we want her or not.  I’m sure Sen Clinton would be able to do the job, and do a very good job, I’m not so sure she can get past the past.

All of these candidates should be given a lot of attention.  This country needs to choose a President we have confidence in, not a chosen pupet like Bush.  And who decided John Edwards would be finished if he doesn’t win Iowa.  Don’t we have a lot more people who still get to vote!  I’m just so tired of the media and their obvious choices.  What we really need is independent news reporting….