BY all account Obama was outstanding today, out shining everyone and of course you mention nothing about it. You guys are way to obivious.

Edward is the most opportunist politician along Hillary. let them join force and Obama will blow them away.

i hate obama. no experience and isnt for gay rights, leaniant towards gun control. answer me this, why is it we have all sorts of conservative democrats but no liberal republicans? i mean other then the handful of liberal republicans, snow (who isnt even that liberal) and gioulani who now claims to be conservative.

Who really gives a crap what Hillary had to say to "Haircut" Edwards. None of them are going to win. Republicans ALL THE WAY!!!!

Al Gore is the only legitimate democrat who can win. He did not vote for the war, got more votes than bush and is out to save the planet--Get the guy in there folks so we can hurry up and impeach the over pompous toad.

Re: DESTARDI -- All Presidents hide stuff. Just like your boy Clinton's little romper room affair. Know what I'm saying? The only difference is between Bush and your boy Clinton, is the fact that Bush and his peeps are not going down in flames like "Slick Willy" did.

On a more positive side. Hillary is not going to win for the fact that she's a woman. O'bama is not going to win because he's black.

You heard it here first. I represent the "Common Sense" type of American and most of America (But not your freaks on here) share the same thought processes. Giuliani will be your next President. As I said, you heard it here first.

Dream on Liberals, you havent got a chance.

Eric Has Spoken.

HAHAHA...just try and gang up on Obama, you'll lose all his supporters in the general election-if ya make there, Hill. I'm voting Obama in the primary, and WAS going to vote Hillary if she got the nomination.....however, if she gangs up on Obama, I'm through with her.

Eric: You and I know Rudy will never get the nod. And I hope you don't nominate him; I don't want it to be THAT easy for us win.

How is that no one ever mentions the name of Joe Biden or Chris Dood? I would gladly support either one.

And a Clinton/Edwards ticket is looking more attractive as a way to win. Obama in the second spot with just about anybody sounds useful too. Who cares? Just get rid of Bush and all of this facist cronies. I would vote for a chimpanzee over anyone associated with Bush.

Hillary with Edwards is more palatable.

They're concerned about the coverage of the forums. I hope they're not planning to drop Gravel. He's not the reason the debates or forums are being trivialized. They're being trivialized because you can't have a debate with 8 people on stage for an hour long event.

I'll just be happy when the primary is decided because we are in a point in time where we can't afford to waste time overanalyzing the differences between Democratic candidates.

Oneness is extremely important for the Democrats now, and this was the nicest headline regarding the Democratic campaign I've seen in awhile. The world is at stake. Let's have an old-fashioned campaign trail instead of American Idol just this once.

For the record, Hillary's presidency is a concept that still interests me like no other could possibly hope to, and I know there are many others who feel the same way. I'm sure she'll take a good Vice President as well.

I'll tell you what makes me a democrat.
I have a brain and think for myself.

They both agreed to team up for the 08 election and be the Pres or Vice President. They should also agree to hire Obama in their cabinet. Also draft Mc Cain.

I love how you tell people their own political affiliation. You immediately lose your footing for rational debate when you simply demonize a party. I'm fairly conservative, and I hate the republican party right now. The only candidates I would even consider are Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, and perhaps Obama. Everyone else out there is crap. The problem isnt the Democrats or the Republicans, it's one sided thinking and an adherence to the party line without any sort of reasoned thinking. It's simply posturing. What happened to actual republicanism? LEss government, less intervention, less taxes, support of American sovereignty, etc.? You still have done nothing but make broad generalizations without any factual evidence or any evidence of critical thinking. You make me ashamed to even be associated with the ideals you think you are representing and as an American, regardless your political affiliation or views, embarass me and our entire republic. Holla.

John, I agree, I am a Dem, but I definitely disagree with them on some major issues. It's just that ol lesser of two evils thing. The only reason I vote along party lines is because the current predicament in congress proves that the power comes with the numbers. Although, I do try to find a few pubs to vote for each time-usually small local posts though. I voted for Jesse Ventura, that was a huge mistake-he was very bad for our state.

Cat - you're from MN too? We should talk!

ABC News has asked both campaigns what the two candidates have agreed to work on together....

-----

Destroying Obama, obviously.

A fellow Minnesotan! Only the greatest state in the union!

I am a Democrat, a progressive, liberal, democratic Democrat. I am a progressive liberal Democrat because I read history and I know what happened when big business conservative Republicans were in charge. I favor the little guy and the family over big business. I favor diplomacy over military might. I am not afraid of my enemies, but not about to ignore my friends, either. I believe in my country and its blessings, too much so to allow big business and one-issue fundamentalists to hijack it for their personal reward. I am personally against abortion, but I firmly believe that society (individuals, local govt, churches, schools, business and the federal govt) must do all it can to prevent unwanted pregnancies, including use of sex education, distribution of condoms, information etc. Even then, the use of a woman's body is up to her. Men have no right to use it, abuse it and then lose it. I believe in a fair, living wage for a hard day's work. (I used to be a steelworker, USW) I believe in a balance of fair trade, limited immigration and economic controls. No excess, either way. I do not trust big business (Enron is just one example) I am not afraid of taxes, just wasted tax dollars. I believe in good government. I believe that universal healthcare is affordable and achievable, if we remove the profit motive. I do not believe that private enterprise can contract to supply most government services. I believe in personal integrity. I believe that actions have consequences. I love my wife and have never cheated on her. Never. I love my children and want a sound, secure, financially stable future for them. I believe in God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

"On the poll situation....as I said earlier, I dont really pay attention to polls because polls can be manipulated by political groups that either pay, or lobby people to call in to manipulate the numbers. So go ahead and quote all the poll numbers you want."

Do you have any facts that the current President "Lied to us" to get us into war? No talking points mind you, I want to know what affiliation you have with the intelligence community that solidifies your statement that the President lied. You dont have any affiliations do you? I didnt think so......So, your statement is not credible"

So by that logic, I suppose you must have proof that most polls out there (especially the ones where Bush is in the 20's for approval), are PAID FOR by some group? Do you know someone, or have proof of, someone that actually called one of these polls on purpose (if that's even possible) to skew the results?

I'm just sayin....

AtticusinPa, I agree with every single word....well said!

Actually, your wrong about me. If you read my earlier posts, I fit right along with a middle of the road American (Even though I'm a Republican), and, I absolutely believe that a woman has the right to chose what she wants done with her own body.

Eric, looks like you're the one with "NO answers" You can't even tell me what makes you Reupublican.

This has been obvious for a while. Edwards has been splitting the anti-Hillary sentiment. One on one with Obama would be a contest.

Well, I know that I can definately call you out on your failure to pay attention to detail. Go look back at what I said - I am CONSERVATIVE. I am against majority of gun control and believe that if the police force can have it, so can a citizen. I believe in dismantling the federal government, piece by piece. We are talking about Department of Homeland Secuirty, Departments of Education, Transportation, Energy, Commerce, Agriculture, all of it. The income tax (alson known as the 16th amendment) was never ratified and is against the constitution, as it is an unapportioned tax on the labor of Americans. I believe that government is the problem, not the solution. The only things that I believe government should be involved in is making sure the playing field is even, that there is regulation, that the government and not a PRIVATE BANK is in control of an actual and not a fiat currency, and defense, but not in the sense that you are probably talking. The only other thing that I believe there should be, in terms of government run departments, is health care. I think it should be a single payer non-profit system. Aggression is not the answer. Our problem with the middle east is our occupation of it, not our western values and lifestyle. You know why I think Osama Bin Laden attacked us? Because of our support for israel, our bases in holy lands, and our aggression in the middle east. You know why I think that? BECAUSE THATS WHAT HE SAID! Diplomacy is far superior to military, especially pre-emtive, aggression. I do believe in responding to attacks and threats on our actual security, but not to defend our trade markets or corporate interests. You cannot force people to be democratic - you have to make them want to emulate it. And all you are doing is falling for tired fear-mongering rhetoric. I honestly believe there will be a false flag terror attack in the next year or less and all the marshall law provision written into law through the PAtriot Act and The Military Commissions Act will be enacted and there will be no elections. And that's a point that, if you disagree with, I hope you are right about. I'm just not shocked any more. YOu are probably right about Rudy simply because Rove has sought to make a permanent republican majority and I don't trust the electoral process. But I'm fighting for Ron Paul to the bitter end. Paul/Gravel - the American ticket!

President Giulinani? Creepy, creepy, creepy thought. That happens, I'm moving to France. Eight years of this nightmare is all I can stand.

I'm an arch conservative Republican but let's face it, the Dems are surely going to win. As much as i loathe Hillary, I have to admit that if she wins the Democrat's candidacy, the best thign she cna do is soften her candidacy from all those who hate her by choosing someone like Obama. Obama and Hillary can carry the black and women's vote. that, with the media fed "outrage" over the Iraq war is enough for them to win I'm afriad. I'm not too proud to admit we're going to get licked but take some sore console in knowing that in another 4 years, when the terrorists have been tragically emboldened by our Iraq withdrawel and are now better financed (thanks to the Iraqi oil fields they'll own too), only then will people wake up and realize how we should not have withdrawn from the middle east and Iraq, regardless of whether we shoudl ahve gone there in first palce or not. It's going to get a lot worse (for us here) before it gets better. Hillary and gang will put a nail in liberalism for a decade (at least) to come--maybe tehre's some confort in that--if we aren't all nuked by then or overun.

No, I most assuradly paid attention to your post. You can be a conservative and still be a Democrat. And with what you further expounded upon in that earlier post, you exemplify Liberal thought processes.

I dont know you personally, I can only respond to what you write on here.

Anyone can say they are Liberal/Conservative/Dem/Repub.... One may never know.

But in response to what you wrote, I'm in agreeance with what you wrote about the role that the govt should be taking here at the homeland. But, I disagree with your assessment on health care (Govt Controlled, as you put it)

"The only other thing that I believe there should be, in terms of government run departments, is health care". Your words, not mine....

And, I seriously dont believe you are looking at the overall "Global" picture of terrorism.

Let's take the health-care issue first.

The US Govt is here for one reason. That's to provide for the "Common Defense" and to enforce the "Laws" of this country. And that's according to the constitution.

I've been a participant of the socialized medicine practices of the US Military. It's not fun. You dont have a choice in the matter. You go where the govt says you go and then your stuck with the healthcare you have. Ask Canandians how they view their care. It's not a pretty scenario.

Now privatized medicine, on the other hand, has allowed these companies to charge a fair price to citizens, not only to make a profit, but to expend money, as well as resources, to advance research for modern cures that are above and beyond any other country in the world.

You cant do that with government controlled health care because the govt doesnt know how to control anything.

As far as Bin Laden goes, what would you say if the US just pulled out of the middle east, pulled out of Europe, hell, pulled out of everywhere. Would you think the world would be a safer place?

Surely you cant be serious.

Oh please, PLEASE choose haircut Edwards for your running mate Hillary. That is assuming you get the nomination. We all remember what happened to frontrunner Dean in '04 (losing the primary to Kerry BEFORE the scream). I'd love to see Hil' fall to somrthing like 3rd come the Iowa caucus.

I think he's saying he doesn't want people like representing his party. Just like I don't like the hippie conspiracy theorists representing mine.

Hillary and Edwards. Why don't we just rename the party the "New Democratic Party". Or the "DLC Party". The Republican party is at its weakest in three decades, and we're about to nominate institutional centrists?

Good lord. Maybe the Republicans deserve to win.

Well, let's observe. First of all, Saddam was given the key to the city of Detroit in 1981 for his Humanitarian work in the middle east. He asked for permission to attack Kuwait in return for protecting our oil tankers crossing his country and that set up the pretext to us invading in the early 90's. You want to use violations of UN resolutions as a basis for war? Fine, no disagreement. But if you're gonna play that card why are we funding Israel who is in violation of more UN resolutions than any other nation? Why aren't we attacking them? Oh right - Jesus, or Armageddon, or some crap like that. How about the "drone that could attack the united states" that was made of duct tape and a lawn mower engine? How about that "chemical weapons lab" that was nothing more than a traveling weather balloon station? And how about the mother of all lies, that Saddam and bin Laden were connected, later to be proven false by our own CIA? Not a shread of evidence - just more political posturing. Yes - he lied us into a war. Today he referred to all the insurgents in Iraq as al qaida - which again is patently false. Some may be, but alot are the iraqi's. As for the situation with Valerie Plame, it's pretty cut and dry. The law passed the House by a vote of 315–32, with all opposing votes coming from Democrats. The law passed the Senate 81–4, with the opponents being Democratic Senators Joseph Biden, Gary Hart, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Republican Senator Charles Mathias. So it was YOUR party that supported and enacted the legislation. And it's YOUR party that has strayed from it's principles. Her identity was disclosed as retaliation for Joseph Wilson's op-ed that completely shattered one of Bush's baseless lies to go to war. It was planned, it was dirty, and it was unamerican. If this was a war of neccessity, why did they try to discredit anyone who showed the flawed logic they were using? You remember that whole democracy thing? Why was there not a reasoned debate and evaluation of ALL of the facts and not just the convenient ones? So yeah, I hate this administration. I hate this administration for spending my tax dollars needlessly, for sending my military somewhere they didn't need to be, for not going after al qaida and destroying them, for having no respect for the laws and traditions of this country. I would hate any administration for these crimes - it's not a team sport and I don't really pick sides. I expect both sides to uphold the constitution. And yeah, I hated Clinton's administration too. Now what does that make me? But there you go again rationalizing poor actions off of prior actions, not defending the rationality (or lack thereof) of the basis of the decision. I'm not supporting Clinton's pardon's either. There you go with your broad assumptions again. I do know that Libby LIED to protect someone or everyone in this administration and it completely removes any sort of accountability from the judicial process when a president pardons an aide that lied for him. That alone is extremely suspicious. I supported the impeachment of Clinton, not because I disagreed with his conduct (bj's from a young girl), but because he committed a crime while in office(perjury). The same way I support the impeachment of the current president for his crimes in office as well as his refusal to carry out the will of the American people. Perjury is perjury, a crime is a crime, and the law is the law. It's about country before party, about accountability, honor, and integrity. And we as a people, regardless of affiliation or our differences, should uphold those principles to the death.

Ummmm...George Tennet said that there was no credible intelligence, but that the administration went ahead with it anyway. Read Bob Woodward's book - he'll point out that the administration was planning the war before they were even in office, and twisted the facts to justify the ends. And Valerie Wilson (Plame, her maiden name, was her cover surname) was a CIA officer with NOC status (non-official cover) for several years which means that she had a non-governmental "cover" identity, a cover which is protected by law (see: Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982).

And why is it that, after 1998, obstruction of justice is no longer a crime that deserves punishment? Your guys considered it an impeachable offense, though constitutional scholars and a vast majority of the American people clearly disagreed, and yet, in Libby's case, this was just "covering for a friend," and the law-proscribed punishment was overly severe.

I'm a Democrat. I disagree that the Dems have a walk in the park, we still have a lot of work to do, but I will say that Rudy is never, in a thousand years, going to convince the very-right-wing republican primary electorate that he deserves the nomination. PLEASE NOMINATE FLIP-FLOP ROMNEY AND FRED THOMPSON AS A TICKET - now THAT would be a walk in the park.

"The US Govt is here for one reason. That's to provide for the "Common Defense" and to enforce the "Laws" of this country."

Right. Exactly right. THIS country. Not other soverign nations, not people who have not attacked us on our own land, not people defending their land from our meddling. OUR country. I say tighten the borders, work on security. But if you look at our history majority of our wars have been to either protect or open up foreign markets(see "liberation of cuba and the platt amendment), not because of a direct imminent threat to our safety or soverignty.

Our laws are not other countries laws. And we have no business forcing our life onto other culture's. You agree the jihadists have an agenda to force the western culture's to be Islamic, no? Then what's any different about us forcing Western beliefs onto other culture's? And why do we have a right to fight back but they don't?

Hillary has Bill now she is after John hmmmmmmmmm. Story is she lost her first debate and she wants cover. Experience maybe wisdom lacking. She believes she's the one.

As for Democrats being "weak", who were the presidents during World War I and II, the last wars we actually declared and the last wars we won? And who had the wearwithall to stand up to them and end the wars? The republicans. And the country was grateful. And the country would be grateful if they continued a plicy of non-intervention.

Hell, look at what Bush campaigned with - a policy of no nation building, to stay out of other countries entanglements, and to worry about our own problems.

Either you're with us or against us, right?

Right at the end of the tape I hear Hillary saying something about how "they'll just keep throwing out the BS."

It's pretty clear that comments made about NAFTA and the war votes set her off.

I think the last seven years that we need more experience in a President. Obama, despite his political philosophy, reminds me of Bush in 2000, an empty slate. Can you name one thing of importance he has done in the Senate? I will never vote Republican in my lifetime and I used to be an independent, voting my concious. Never again. Not for anybody, ever from that party.

I voted for Al Gore and I appreciate what he's doing to educate the world about climate change, but has everyone forgotten he picked JOE LIBERMAN as his running mate? His judgment isn't always spot on!

Here's a direct quote from the Washington Post article about the forum: "After the forum, Fox News microphones picked up Clinton and Edwards discussing their desire to limit future joint appearances to exclude some rivals lower in the crowded field. "We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group," Edwards said. Clinton agreed. "We've got to cut the number. ... They're not serious," she said, then thanked Obama and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich as they walked by. Turning back to Edwards, she added that she thought their campaigns had already tried to limit the debates and 'we've gotta get back to it.'"

Fox news, huh, I guess we know what's going on here. Nice antics, Fox, you even had me going there.

John Edward did something that was smart he took Senator Clinton aside as mentioned limiting the number of democratic candidates that appear at the debates., he should have brought Senator Obama and Governor Richardson into the conversation and it should have taken place behind close doors, the debates are becoming trivial dealing with issues that congress should be addressing now, and instead of having large group of candidates debate issues many of these men should be back on the hill being the voice for their constituencies.

Hillary is right Gravel should not be included in the debates.
Before the debates started nobody heard of Mike Gravel. He last served as Senator in 1981. He has raised no money and does not register in the polls. At the debates he only attacks fellow democrats particularly Bill Clinton.
Many people run for president and yet they are not included in the debates. What are Gravel`s credentials that get him included in the debates. Just because someone says that they are running for president does not make them a legitimate candidate.
I think the media wants him there because he is hostile to demcorats.

Perhaps these debates should be trivialized, I believe most of us have no desire to see the presidential campaigns start up a year earlier than the historic norm. Also when Republican proprietary software is used for public elections, I believe this is all for show and is just enriching the corporations which provide the mechanics of these events.

I thought eavesdropping was bad manners. Am I wrong?

* Guiliani - do a Google search on 'Giuliani in drag'- he's an ugly 'woman'
* Obama - a few problems here... he's attractive and charismatic, but check his record. he asked for Lieberman to be his Senate mentor, voted with the religious extremists on Terri Schaivo, has said funding can't be cut for the occupation, and more.
* Hillary is a mixed bag. there are ways she is really good, and ways that she really is not good.
* John Edwards is intelligent, aware, conscious, and actually cares about the wellbeing of the people - he's not bought by the big corporations the way so many of them are. I like Edwards, Gore, Ron Paul, Russell Finegold (good VP choice) Kucinich is sincere and has the wellbeing of the people and country at heart as well.
* bush, cheney, gonzales - not easy to think of a time any of them has told the truth. I believe they are doing as much damage as they can.

How is this news? Because right-wing ABC thinks Democratic candidates can't talk to each other? Why don't they report the news about war criminals Bush and Cheney and quit trying to manufacture a scandal out of nothingness.

Guliani is an egomanical liar in drag, mafia-connected. His campaign supporters are proven Johns, racist, cocaine-sniffing hypocrits. And these are the folks you want in the White House. So what else is new?

Edwards rocked at the virtual town hall meeting on reversing climate change. There was so much detail included in those few minutes of his talk, I came away amazed. Some of the details included were how specific changes would be accomplished and how those changes would create jobs, reduce the power of the purse of terrorist nations, and help the poor. He even outlined how such changes would encourage Japan and Europe's investment in Africa to have the land it takes for solar and wind. Because you could see and hear the candidates side by side, it was an amazing contrast of substance. No wonder Edwards got 33% of the votes in contrast to the next candidates who hovered around 15%!

Yes, our political leaders shouldn't "talk" amongst themselves. How scandalous. Are we expecting any single candidate to run and operate the government without so much as a running mate? The irrelevant personal attacks need to be left out. I don't know who I would support at this point. Personally, I voted for Kerry/Edwards, and I would probably NOT vote for Hillary, even though I was generally content with the previous Clinton White House. Who cares? I like Obama the most so far, no matter how dark his complexion, and perhaps he'll win, or not, but we can't let the success of our personal vote outweigh the need to vote for the right leaders.

Hillary's candidacy isn't the lock the establishment press wants everyone to think it is. She's probly trying to woo Edwards to team up and run with her.

Makes sense. He's got a lot more support in the early primary states than you'll ever hear about in the MSM.

She/they will not get my vote if they wind up the Dem ticket. Hillary is yesterday, establishment candidate!

GORE/OBAMA (the real deal) will win in a landslide!

There will be no "CLINTON/EDWARDS" ticket, and anyone who even thinks such a thing is an idiot.

In response to: JoCr | Jul 13, 2007 7:46:03 AM

That's what happens when he gets 2 1/2 minutes per answer; when you have time to talk.

I have a question. Is there a way to have SMALLER forums without exluding people from forums? Yes, there is, but that doesn't mean that all candidates would be on the stage at the same time.

Either way, this is bad news for Edwards. The last thing he wants to look like at this point is another Clintons stooge.

My message to John Edwards...GET OVER IT. There are 8 candidates, make the most of the time that you have, and shut up complaining about it. Be mature and stop looking like a crybaby.

Dear John: Whatever happened to real Republicanism? Y'all sold your party to the corporations, and now you'll never get it back. Maybe you should start over. You could call yourselves the Conservative party. But if you don't expel ALL of the neocons, it's over for you.

It's OK to cheer for your team, it was entertaining to watch the look of stunned disbelief on Republicans faces as they lost the elections, I wouldn't mind seeing the look again and I am sure I will.

Why do we not have candidates like the poster "AtticusinPA" (7:14Pm, 7/12/07)? Why don't we have candidates like the poster "John" (9:02pm, 7/12/07). Though I don't agree with everything each said and I don't know their full position on everything, there is balance, knowledge, and thought in those two posts. Their words ring with truth and and give me hope. Why don't we have candidates who speak in this way? Instead our political discourse is dominated by pathetically immature dialogue filled with name calling and "Team" mentality (Republicans vs. Democrats). Where are the honorable candidates who remind us that we are one nation and one people striving for the same things? I ache for men and women who represent the welfare of our country and the return to the values and aspirations that once made us a force for more good than evil in the world.

Hillary was soooooooooooo right, enough with this Gravel, it is deemeeming to a campaign when the issue of Iraq, Health Care, Darfur ect, and to hear Gravel, Kucinich, and Richardson, all they talk about is the other candidates, and the PAST< the PAST is gone the Future is here, and Obama (on the job training ) we have had that for the PAST six yrs. lets get serious YES serious otherwise the GOP will once again Win because we have allowed people with no message to participate, you know I'am a Liberal, I'am a Democrate, I'am a women that finally sees a Women with experiance, and vision, and not a buch of flowery words that say nothing. So let Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, talk and please ask the other two to leave.Enough of the waste of time on cadidates that just don't belong on a stage where REAL answers should be given ENOUGH................

A previous question from "whatisthis" asks why there are no liberal Republicans. There are only they are known as Libertarians. Small government, low taxes, no politicians in your bedroom and follow what the Constitution says...no more, no less. No more making new rules to build another bureaucracy.

The Edwards/Clinton conversation was, while morally questionable, a blunt discussion that the media and voters have been pondering for months now. With 8 different candidates on the stage, each debate is more a forum for quick, witty lines and soundbites than it is for substance. For the most part, many of the candidates running for the nomination of the Democratic party are simply running to have a chance to place substantial ideas on the party platform in 2008, thus their lack broad proposals. For instance, Sen. Biden has an excellent plan for the Iraq situation but he has offered no detailed plan about virtually anything else. Fmr. Sen. Gravel has plenty to say about taxes and the war, but has said nothing about education, foreign policy, congressional spending, etc. While I am an ardent supporter of have choice when it comes to elections, the unpleasant truth is that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have a point: the field needs to narrow to the people who truly are running for President.

Barack Obama - 2008!

A candidate "with experience and vision, and not a bunch of flowery words that say nothing." That sounds like Senator Gravel, the national HERO who ended the draft, smuggled the Pentagon Papers into the public record, and so helped end the last great American military disaster. Gravel should be treated with honor by these other upstart liberals. They should honestly discuss the NEW IDEAS he is bringing to the debate -- they don't need to agree, just honestly refute them if they can.

If it comes out (as this story suggests) that the so-called "top tier" candidates are conniving to use their media-bestowed power to squelch Kucinich and Gravel, then they can count on LOSING many anti-Republican voters to third-party contenders again; they will deserve to lose the election AGAIN.

Now is the time for an honest "top tier" candidate to publicly and firmly act and demand that all candidates' messages are fairly presented for the PEOPLE to decide. WE are the Deciders. How about it Senator Obama?

Why does everyone seem so unwilling to say that you simply don't support Barack Obama for President. Every blog, comment, person I meet that is not an Obama supporter always says instead "Oh, a Clinton/Obama ticket would be great" or the idiot who suggested that Obama should be part of a Clinton/Edwards cabinet. Why not just say that you are not going to vote for him? Grant it, the man is charismatic and very much likeable, but don't sugar coat your non-vote.

The Democratic nomination will be the tell-all of whether Americans are ready for true change or comfort in the past. For most Democratic voters, and majority of general voters, Hillary Clinton (disagree if you want to) represents the '90s era that her husband presided over. Voters who are behind her are simply more comfortable to go BACK to what they already know is tried and satisfactory. However, a vote for Barack Obama is obviously a more radical change. Obama represents possibility and optimism about the future, not lamenting on the past. When each voter casts their ballot in 2008 (maybe late 2007 at the current rate), the ultimate question will be whether Americans are willing to take a risk (as we did in the 1960 election with JFK over Richard Nixon) or are we so disenchanted with the Bush administration that we will take a step back just to get away from the step we're on? While this may sound like an Obama rant, its the honest-to-God truth. Everyone who is supporting Hillary Clinton knows exactly what her presidency would generally consist of. I am not implying that she will be a replica of her husband's successful terms, but throughout the '90s, we all saw her ideas and iniatives. As powerful as they were then, it is 2007. Are we so disillusioned by President Bush that we can't imagine beyond what we already know?

So, on March 9 (Louisiana's primary date), I am going to cast my voted, unabashedly, for Barack Obama and will follow suit in the general election. I'm not going to hope that someone picks him to be the #2 when I know that he is exactly what this country needs right now and I would hope that even if you are committed to a candidate already, that you at least check out Obama's views and make sure you're voting for the right person on your primary date.

Obama has my vote. Normally I feel like I am voting against the lesser of two evils. With Obama I am voting FOR someone for a change. HRC is just more of the same...big business owns her. Edwards...well...he just seems like he is insincere.
If you REALLY love your country, read Obama's books, listen to his speeches, just investigate for yourself and don't let the media tell you what you think. If you still want to vote for someone else, fine...but at least know who the man is before you count him out.
I had the chance to meet him in person. He really cares and he is a true leader. One who brings out the best in people. He can work with both sides to find real solutions. He has proven that in his 25 year career as a community organizer, state senator and U.S. senator. We need an honest sincere president and I don't feel that HRC or Edwards would provide that kind of leadership. I don't hate either one of them, I just feel, after a lot of research, Obama is the best person to lead our country.

To John: There's just one problem with the idea of defending just THIS COUNTRY. The entire US economy would collapse without cheap imported oil. As long as that's true, protecting access to foreign oil will be in our "strategic national interest" and therefore part of defending this country. I wish it wasn't true, but that's the mess we're in.

I'm a Democrat myself. We may have our differences, but I think we both recognize the problems we face, and it's a start. At least we're not in denial, slapping a yellow ribbon on the SUV and thinking life will go on the same it always has.

The American people need Gravel to attend these forums. He reveals that the Emperor has no clothes on! He talks of the past because all these other "serious" folks with looong track records stand at the podium and lie!

If that's a distraction, I welcome it!

djo- Obama had my support, even read his book. I was fired up!! Until he started pandering to AIPAC-see His 3/2/2007 speech. Why was this speech necessary? Because the Jewish community had previously stated they could not trust him to Israels affairs. He had to prove himself to AIPAC. Up until that speech he had no political traction; you and I were excited, but the cabal was not. His foreign policy will be more of the same old-same old. AIPAC bought in!
This is no different than Fred Thompson's trip to Israel to prove that he is not too far right for their liking.
I want peace, I want my civil liberties put back, I want America respected again! I want a president that is America, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and last!!!
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are not bought and paid for candidates.
Ron Paul 2008!
My vote is going to America,

We are not in a mess with Iraq; we are completing the mission of which 60% of the Iraqi Middle East filth and gangs, munitions stashes, and corrupt leaders; have been eradicated.
The polls are clearly influenced by those who do not understand the enemy we face...And the broadcasts generated by insurgents...
And as far as Clinton's side comments to Edwards.... They are the result of a lawyer and a shark; trying to bail water out of the boat...

Any more questions?

It isn't too many candidates at once; the problem is the debate set-up. The questions are all over the map & the candidates keep going back to past questions that they have not been allowed to answer. Simplify it! Focus on one issue only (like healthcare) so we can see the plans & differences of all participants.
Forget e-mail & audience questions; that's just filler. Have a knowledgeable (on that subject) moderator/s. Deep-6 Blitzer/Matthews unfocused chatter & constant interruptions. Since Demos want universal healthcare, have M. Moore alone or with Gerberding, Surgeon general, Nadar for the Demo debate. W/the Republicans, have them moderated by economists, AMA, big pharma. so we can hear that side. But by no means drop the very candidates that give the debates energy and novel ideas.

Both Clinton and Edwards benefit from people forgetting or not knowing that they were for the war before they were against the war. Collaboration is in their best interests.
Obama was against voting to give George W carte blanche in 2002 and made a brilliant speech explaining why. He knew W wanted war and this would be a dumb war to start.
Clinton knows she is not in control of this primary election yet and if the election were between just her and Obama she might well lose. So, she wants to keep Edwards in the race to split the anti-Hillary vote, allowing her to win.
That is why the most important thing Edwards can do to help Hillary is to stay in the race.
Edwards may think he has an outside chance to become the anti-Hillary candidate but it is hard to see that as they both pulled a u-turn on the war and they have few meaningful differences.
The fact is that Edwards can't win and Gore isn't running.
If you don't want Hillary, the conservative Democrat who supported giving George W the power to go to war, so she wouldn't look weak on defense, then get behind Obama now!

It was hillary's microphone that was still sending sound, but who was in charge of this mic to be cut off?
Whose fault is this?

Does anyone know?

So if Obama is the real deal then why is Hillary leading him hardcore in all the national polls?

Who ever wins will be taken to a dark, smoke filled room and shown the Zapruder (sp)film. Then, they will tow whatever line they're told to!

Oh my, the amount of obamamites on the internet making countless blog comments are sickening. Clinton wasn't talking about getting Obama out of the debates stupids. She was talking about people like Gravel, and who isn't tired of Gravel. I am. I would like him out of the debate so I can listen to people who stand a chance of winning the presidency. So, I don't blame them for having the conversation. I think it is a good suggestion.

I watched and listened to the video. News organizations have taken a few seconds of conversation, taken out the snippets that they can understand, edited them together, and told American what it meant.
Since when to American's need to have a biased media entertainment organ tell them what to think?