I was warned by pointing this out. LOL.

6.3% (netroots) vs. 39%(real poll).

Hillary's 6.3% support on this site vs. her real # of around 30-40% just shows you how far off netroots are in terms of representing the mainstream democratic voters.

If this trend continues, it's hard to give any credence to 'netroots'. Although both dailykos and mydd vehemently denied in the past, sadly many bloggers on these sites are naderites.

Thanks, Obama supporters.

It's shocking that you think Gore will be your ideal 'progressive' candidate on Iraq war if he jumps in.

Al Gore is actually much more cautious than most candidates including Edwards/Obama etc when asked about the troop pullout. He repeated his position recently on Larry King that a premature withdrawl may cause disastrous consequence.

If he sticks to his position, he may shock you to be the most 'right wing' candidate, even more so than a slightly 'evovled' Hillary.

He's insane. The only reason I'm still rooting for him is to wish him to bump Edwards off the first tier.

His plan is even less credible than Edwards'

Edwards' plan may be dumb, but less deceptive. Richardson is playing ultr liberals as fools.

Read an early NY Times article. She detailed her plan.

As far as U.S. troops don't get involved in a civil war, that will be the end of this war.

U.S. has military presence in South Korea, but the Korea war was ended long time ago. To maintain a military presence is a must in that area to protect U.S. interest.

I know peaceniks like you hate military, but reality is still reality.

10,000 peace corps.

Frankly, Edwards has become an embarrassment of democratic party. He's exactly why democratic party were ridiculed in the past.

Whether Rudy said it or, don't you think it's a dumb idea to send 10,000 to combat terror?

Are you living in vacuum?? Do you have any sense of basic history and natinonal security?

If U.S. troops pull out of Iraq, do you really believe the mobs will leave U.S. embassy intact if there's a dozen of marines?

The most likely senario is the quick fall of Iraqi government and chaos, the embassy will be set on fire. There will be no central govenrment any more. All staff in the embassy will likely leave Baghdad.

No wonder most so-called 'netroots' are completely naive on national security.

No. I don't think it's a good idea to have a big embassy. If U.S. decides to pull out of Baghdad, they have to be prepared the fall of Iraq government.

To protect embassy is a silly idea. U.S. needs an agile strike force in Kurdish or other relatively 'safe' area to strike terriorists, not being a sitting duck.

Laughable...

How can you mount a credible challenge to a sitting democratic president even the 'only'  'progressive' candidate gets crushed in an open primary?

BTW, Edwards' idea of sending 10,000 peace corp to combat terror world wide is really a 'smart' idea.

If a democrat gets elected, there's no way he/she will follow netroots' scripts on national security unless she/he wants to be one-time Carter.

Why is it a bad idea to have 'residual' forces?
U.S. has critical national security interest in that area. Of course you have a formidable force to strike your enemy at your choice, not at their choice.

It's laughable to hear Edwards' proposal to protect embassy only. Does he really believe several hundred troops can protect embassy? If there's a civil war, the Iraqi government will be thrown out in no time, and the U.S. embassy will likely be set on fire by either terrorists or sectorial forces.

As long as U.S. troops will not be involved in a civil war, it's no brainer to maintain some sort of existence in Iraq or neighbouring areas.

Where's the whining when there's a daily hit piece on Hillary?

If you can't take it, don't dump it.