I've always had Johnboy at the #2 position on my IRV ballots. I guess he's still going to stay there as long as Feingold is on the ballot, but it's definitely another boost for him.

Lets nominate a Presidential Candidate that does not have a paper trail.

Maybe I'm just overly critical, as it is good that Democrats are publicly admiting their vote was a mistake, but if the war suddenly became popular again tomorrow, say due to another terrorist attack, would these Dems then recant their admission for fear of looking weak?

Baby steps I guess. They are admitting the mistake. But it's also much easier to do now.

It seems to me the press wants to see him do well because they like him. And the media love to tear down what they irrationally build up.

I'm not saying that supporting him is irrational by the way. My observation is on the media.

Every serious candidate hits rough patches.

Clinton talked his way out of them, Bush strong-armed his way out (present situation still in flux).

But those two had a bad relationship with the press and had pretty much invented themselves. Edwards is kind of a media invention so far. That worries me.

New on EWM: "Rove out, Rover in."
Scaled down agenda includes a "war on gingivitis" and plans to occupy Aruba.

After all, HRC will undoubtedly be a major contender during the primaries and could win the nomination (though I doubt it), and she is still trying to "triangulate" this thing.

However, this does make Edwards look a lot better. I still think he doesn't have what it takes to be a serious presidential contender in a general, but I think he should be holding some high office, or perhaps a cabinet position.

I'm still very high on Edwards but Warner is atop my list due to the electoral realities. Edwards cannot win North Carolina, at least not in a 50/50 race. If he wins his home state then it's irrelevant because he's sweeping everything by popular vote semi-rout. 2008 becomes 2000 and 2004 all over again if Edwards tops the ticket, needing Ohio or Florida or the unlikely straight flush sweep of smaller states. Elections with the party in charge for exactly two terms are historically virtual coin flips, an armageddon power struggle and among the closest decisions in American history. Any notion we have a decided edge in 2008 is wacko. Just look at 1960, 1968, 1976 and 2000. All changes in power but photo finishes. The other example post WW II is 1988, a simple hold of serve for the party in charge. So I almost completely discount any idea we can win big. The idea is finding the candidate most likely to win the electoral college in a 50/50 popular vote atmosphere.

Warner flings open the margin for error aspect via big chance to win Virginia and its 13 electoral votes and that's huge. I'm sick of playing from behind. When we need Ohio or Florida or bust it's like a PGA golfer dependent on catching Tiger Woods from 3 back starting the final round of a major. Yeah, you can root and pretend all you want but not going to happen. I want the lead and that's Warner.  

Well its great he can admit it before Hillary did. THat just means he is not as mediocre as we thought he was. He is just a little mediocre.

You want someone who doesn't want to take the trouble to face the truth. Watch him avoid a protestor in that Pelosi documentary on HBO. He has no answers for the guy and his eyes just glaze over.

Sorry, but I felt he was one of the worst candidates in last year's primary. All he talked about was the 2 americas crap.

Even his latest admission has many qualifiers "oh would could have guess it was lies." bullshit man. We did.  

I want a President that has good foresight, not hindsight. That leaves HRC, JK, JE, and JB on the outside looking in...

Say what you want about Hilliary, but at least with her and Bill, we know we have and attractive packaged couple to present to the media.

Sure some of getting really upset about now, but sorry, like it or not, a lot of running elections is about public image, and for whatever reasons, the Democrats in 2004 seemed bent on trotting dog after ugly dog out as our political pundits.  Can't we find a few folks to put in front of the camera's that have looks to go along with their ability to address the issues?  The Republicans trot out Jeanine Pirro and Ann Coulter (of super bitch fame), and we counter with two over the hill, middle aged fat chicks...it just does not look good.  May not be fair, but our message is lost, as most of the folks at home are sitting in their barko loungers guzzling a beer and making fat jokes instead of hearing our parties talking points.  Even Diane Feinstein (California Senator) who gets a lot of air time on CNN is getting more than a bit long of tooth, and Boxer is not bad looking, but is starting to get that rolling flesh look and English Bull Dog.

Someone mentioned this upthread from here, Warner has a huge advantage in not having cast a vote on the IWR or having staked out a major position. This will allow him to enter the Iraq debate(if he is the nominee) from an advanced position with hopefully a coherent strategy on moving forward that emphasizes how to get out. I am not sure what they have on public record but I think this advantage would also apply to Vilsack and Richardson. Personally, I am not crazy about those two but its something to think about.

I also give Edwards credit for this bold statement:

Looking back, it's easy to say that it was wrong and based on false information. Anybody who doesn't admit that isn't honest, and that's the truth.

That applies equally to Republicans and Democrats. Anyone who hasn't admitted they made a mistake, by the end of the year at the latest, is too ethically challenged to be President. It is time to  make it perfectly clear to everyone that there is absolutely no uncertainty about Iraq being an illegal and immoral war.

Anyone who talks smack about "values" in any context who hasn't admitted the truth about Iraq in no uncertain terms is a hypocrite and a liar. Anyone who is not capable of recognizing and speaking out against the immoral depravity of Bush's Iraq war has no conscience and is not fit to lead.

This doesn't qualify him for the nomination, it just removes a disqualification.

Was he wrong on the war?  Yes.  Was it clear that he was wrong at the time in 2002?  In my opinion, yes.  But I dont consider this a horrible "sin" on his part because Im sure there were all kinds of intelligence people telling the Senate that (1) Hussein had all kinds of WMDs and (2) that he would never let inspectors into the most vital areas to find out.  While these two facts would not have made me vote for the resolution because of my complete distrust of Bush even then, I can not blame a Democrat on moral grounds for going the other way.  In short, supporting the War resolution in 2002 was a mistake, a bad one, but not a moral flaw.

And for those of you who think Edward is a guy who only goes with the flow, how do you explain his consistent passion to eliminate poverty?  If you think Edwards is doing this because it is "good politics" then Edwards is either the greatest or the worst politician in history because NO ONE that makes up the "conventional wisdom" thinks that.  Clearly, Edwards is basing his whole career on fighting poverty because he believes in it passionatly, not out of political calculation.  Believe me, if supporting this issue was a political winner, the Clintons would be all over it.

To me, the great disgrace of the Democratic Party has been out total and utter failure to address issues of class and poverty since the late 1960s. Every year we try to get the votes of low income and hard working middle income Americans by being a little better on budget issues or taxation issues.  Edwards is the first national Democrat in 40 years who has made economic justice the centerpiece of his campaign, which is where the national party should have been this whole time.

Like you anti-warriors, I have a litmust test too.  But mine isnt just Iraq.  I am not going to support any "Democrat" who is not totally committed to fighting for the working poor and struggling lower portions of the middle class, I dont care how good he or she is on the war.  

What a crock.  I would respect him more if he stood by his initial wrong decision.  All this tells me is that Edwards blows with the wind.  When the war was popular he was for it, when the war is unpopular he is against it.  Classic.

Only Dean had the balls to show real leadership on an issue.  

Name me one interesting, thoughtful, even midly controversial position Edwards has.  Edwards is for whatever you are for.  He is a Focus Group Democrat, and I'm sick of them.  

All their decisions were based on lies from the most heinously corrupt administration of the 20th century. How can you judge someone on their decision when they were lied to? Who in their right mind wouldn't vote for war with the supposed knowledge that Iraq had nuclear and biological weapons???

Based on this, personally, I could care less how any of the Dems voted on this issue. The whole process was poisoned by lies.

When can we get over this and judge the potential candidates on their real merits? Not on whether or not they were duped by Bush.

I listened to Edwards a couple of times while in NM. I found him to be the most inspirational speaker I can remember listening to. He actually struck me as a politican who was not, in reality, a two-faced sleazebag...and that's saying alot!

I can't believe Hillary actually stated we should send in more troops. We created the perfect storm for civil war in Iraq and the situation is no more winnable that Lebanon was in the 80's. If she won the presidency, we wouldn't have a progressive in office. Hell, we wouldn't even have a Democrat in office, we'd simply have Hillary.

But most important, the Iraq war must be hung around the necks of the GOP and the neo-cons.  

To do that, Edwards and other Presidential hopefuls must say something like:  "I voted to use force.  I did not believe that President Bush would con the American people.  Now, we can see clearly that vital information was withheld from Democratic members of Congress.  That was wrong.  The American people should not reward the party that conned them.  And we can see clearly that this is exactly what happened.  America was not in imminent danger.  There was no threat of a mushroom cloud.  We were not misled, we were conned."

A weak stance on Iraq will lose.  And my fear is that everyone is just to weak to make a real fight.