of the mainstream candidates the refusal to acknowledge the elephant in the room, 911 questions and the total gutting of American ideals might lead one to believe a lack of sincere concern for the human condition. Ya, people do say it's just me.
http://www.rockcreekfreepress.com/

Is John, suck up to globalist organizations going to bring the steel mills back to the US? I think not. Restore the middle class? Horsemanure.

Whatever "selectee" the globalists decide to foist upon the US rest assured your lifestyle will decend into thirdworldlyness at a rate you will find phenomenal.

that I am in a place that very many others find themselves, looking for the least odious candidate that sorta meets my criteria for someone who might do a good job. John Edwards is not the the answer to all our problems but I think I would prefer him to the other two.

So I find myself doing what everyone else does, looking to vote for someone who might do some of what I consider good and not do too much evil and hopefully reverse some of the current admin's excesses. I am doing the same thing farmers have done forever, hoping the sun will shine tomorrow so we can get the crops in.

And so I choose to be hopeful because being otherwise is anathema to me. And if my lifestyle descends into a third world state then I will deal with that as best I may, but I will not descend into hopelessness.

_{"I beseech you in the bowels of christ think it possible you may be mistaken."}

I was reading the NYT online and it had a feature where you can bring up candidates and a profile of their positions on issues and easily compare them. Cool little thing they made there. I compared Edwards, Obama, and Clinton.

Edwards proposes a 16-month withdrawal plan from Iraq.
Clinton will draw down some, but not all troops from Iraq.
Edwards and Clinton have very similar ideas on the environment.
His health care ideas look very similar to Clinton's.

Those are the three most important issues to me. They also look similar on immigration.

Here's the main difference I see between the cnadidates, and it has to do with putting their money where their mouth is. In other words: does Candidate X keep their word? It's the basic measure of integrity.

Edwards record tends to reflect what he says in his speeches. Hilllary's does sometimes; and sometimes it does not.

Obama's pretty much does not. Obama has a terrible attendance record at major votes in his state, and although he claims to be a champion of veterans rights and is on the Veterans Affairs Committe, he has missed 19 out of 37 votes and has missed crucial votes because he was preparing a campaign speech.

Obama is all personality and he is a 24/7 campaigner. He's got rock-star status, and he's got Oprah.

So what does all that say about what kind of job he does as senator? Nothing - my point precisely. And when you check under the hood, it looks like he's governing on two cylinders.

People need to really understand this about Obama - the glitzy glare of his fantastic stage appearances is simply not matched by his job performance as Senator for Illinois. Those 19 out of 37 votes are gone: you can't change the role-calls on them, you can't plaster them over with a big white-teeth million-dollar smile.

Clinton, in the final analysis, is untrustworthy. You really, at the end of the day, don't know if she is going to keep her word or not. Too often, it has been "not". She can't be antiwar and pro-AIPAC. She can't talk about timetables and then vote against them. Doesn't work for me.

Obama has rock-star status. Hillary has the big political machine and the money.

Edwards is less prolific, and actually spends time working at his job doing what he promised voters. That makes him a better choice for me.

Unfortunately, the nomination may turn on rock-star status and big money, in which case I will end up voting for a candidate I don't want in order to avoid bringing on the Great Depression Redux combined with WWIII by failing to vote against the GOP.

Once again, I will be out there voting against what I don't want, because there was no possibility of voting for what I actually wanted.

That's not how democracy is supposed to work.

But Dodd's too far behind to make a race of it. Of the three leading candidates, that leaves Edwards. Despite what I once dubbed a "disqualifying" gaffe regarding Iran, Edwards still represents more good things than I see in either Obama or Clinton, both of whom have sold out to AIPAC and the Lieberman crowd, which is to say, they've become back door Bushies.

Edwards isn't a back door Bushie. That's why the MSM hates him, because Edwards represents real change in a populist direction, the kind of change that scares the shit out of America's economic royalist rulers.

I'm still not to the point where I would send money to a Democrat who aped the RNC nuke 'em slogan, "all options are on the table" concerning Iran. Not quite yet, but desperation will probably force me to push for Edwards rather than risk seeing another rabid Republican take over the government. America is anemic from these vampires; it needs time to recover, or it will descend into a death spiral. Grover Norquist wants that. Shall we do what Grover Norquist wants?

John Edwards would make a good president, but only if he has the benefit of a Democratic congress.
.
"Adapt or perish." Murphy's Law? Nope, Darwin's Guarantee.

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

I hope he does well tomorrow.

have put up a great slate of candidates. The issues and platforms have been excellently laid out and reported on, if one is willing to look. Every candidate will bring the country in a direction that is needed.

Obama's strength is his ability to be vibrant and give vision to the country

Edward's strength is his unyielding commitment to working people, and the progressive values that help middle class families. I truly believe he would keep his eye on the ball.

Hillary's strength relates to her ability to understand and fight the Republican machinery that will remain entrenched in the system this time after eight years of the Bush Gulag. And no matter who wins the reality of this shadow government will work hard against the Democrat who will be President.

I am confident in this process. The system will vet out the candidates and I would love to see a means for every Democrat presidential candidate to find a role in the next Democrat Presidency and Congress.

I don't buy at all the less odious arguments, and that kind of cynicism is what gets us George Bush's in the first place.

These are great people capable of great leadership.

http://agonist.org/don/20080102/ron_paul_for_president

I did inhale.

What if it turns out huckabee vs. clinton ? This is in the realm of possibility. I would have to consider leaving the US if that happened.

What do we do with those great steaming piles of dung in Congress that we voted for in 2006? The pledge was to get us out of Iraq. Didn't happen--instead we got a bunch of corporate butt-kissers who seem to want to ask Bush if it's okay to vote against something...

Edwards won't help the status quo. Not until Congress passes some lobbying reform (bwa-ha-ha-ha!).

DES MOINES, Iowa (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama surged to a four-point lead over John Edwards in Iowa, with Hillary Clinton fading to third just hours before the first presidential nominating contest, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Thursday.

Obama and Edwards gained ground overnight in the tracking poll, and Clinton fell four points to third place -- a finish that, if it held, would deal a dramatic setback to the one-time Democratic front-runner.
More

1 Gail Collins- The slice of the sliver speaks
2. Timothy Egan - Two buck Huck

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

Edwards/Dude is the choice in a sane world. But then ...

Edwards is calling for a ten month withdrawal. Only Kucinich, Gravel, Dodd and Richardson propose similar or quicker withdrawals.

Based on what Edwards has actually done for the poor and working class, he easily jumps to the front of my list, along with Dodd. That is a dream ticket certainly.

... that of the Dem front runners, Edwards is the best candidate. Hillary is too tied to corporations, beltway politics, and can't stand for anything that the polls won't have. Obama has near zero experience and sways almost as equally to Hillary with near the same rhetoric.

Edwards was always the clear choice. He would have been a great VP and he'll be a great President. He's really being beat up by the media and the MSM for regurgitating this pretty boy-expensive haircut-hypocrite lawyer persona that really isn't him. Go figure.