to vote?  He basically lauds his followers for having the intelligence to vote for him but are too damn dumb to make an alternate choice.  What this proves to me is that Richardson and Kucinich are not grassroots candidates but DLC toadies.

came with his carpetbag.  I have never been impressed with his ability despite his success in several diplomatic situations.  His attempt to accuse Obama and Edwards, by name, of dirty pool seems to indicate that he is doing likewise.  There was no need to call them out by name; somewhat hypocritical.

dominated the reponse time during the first period.  The fact that she was unable to communicate her positions is her fault.  I thought that Richardson and Kucinich should have left the stage and joined the audience after the first 10 minutes when they had had no opportunity to respond.  I'm sure it would have brought the house down for them to make the point that since they were not being included, they would like to see the debate from a better viewpoint.

If she does that, she better have an egg to show for it.

What was even more disgraceful was the fact that Democratic congressional leaders did not force him to resign.  The same weak-kneed morally challenged people are still there refusing to fight the dishonesty of the Bush Administration.

The Democratic Party is a far cry from the days of FDR but we would all be a hell of alot better off if Clinton had been forced out or impeached and Gore had succeeded to the Oval Office.  Just think, Iraq would never have happened and George W Bush would be selling pencils in Austin.

We need to start cleaning our own house and get better representation in Washington.

The Hillary/DLC folks have been trying to get rid of Dean and put in their lackey ever since Dean was elected by the rank and file of the Party.  I doubt that many of them make donations to the DNC and instead criticize Dean for his inability to raise money.  I don't think the DNC is not trying because I get emails and calls for funds on a regular basis.

As far as Edwards' supporters betting on Howard Dean bailing him out, I don't think that is the case at all.  Most Edwards' supporters I know give money to his campaign but he doesn't have the big dollar corporate interest money that HRC is going after.  Fortunately for her, she has access to a lot of Republican backing since the field of candidates over there is less than scintillating.

just like George W did.  She is now getting the folks who want to get on the band wagon but from now on, substance and positions are going to matter.  It appears from some of the polling that she has at least a 25% negative rating within the party.  This means that if she wins the nomination, she is going to have to get more Republican votes than a Democratic candidate normally gets.  I believe that is why she has courted Murdoch and corporate donors and is why Obama and Edwards have criticized her.  Whether her being all things to all people pays off or not, we'll have to see.

in philosophy and the only thing that kept Dean from being our President today was the power of the DLC democrats that would rather lose the Presidency than their power in the party.  If we want to really effect change in the party that was started with the 50-state strategy, we need to support Edwards.

I do understand your point that HRC is the front runner but I doubt she will have the dirty tricks launched against her that Dean had to counter (and didn't).

interest groups unless the grassroots turn out.  Vilsack represents the DLC and the fact that Harkin's wife is supporting the HRC candidacy tells you that Tom is hedging his bets, even if he doesn't endorse her.  It will be difficult for Obama or Edwards to win Iowa unless the campaign becomes confrontational instead of a beauty contest.  You have to give the ordinary people a reason to get out in the cold to support a candidate.

I don't care if Bill Clinton had an affair or not but I do think it was inappropriate to do what he did in the Oval Office.  His treatment of Monica Lewinsky was unforgiveable but we learned that he was without conscience.

As it turned out, Hillary had to be aware that he was a serial philanderer and it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was indeed, "a little Tammy Wynette, stand by your man kind of woman".  The fact that Al Gore, correctly, did not rush to defend Bill Clinton against the charges, was held against him by those who supported Clinton on technicalities.  That wing of the Party sat on their hands and an overwhelming Gore win was prevented, leading to the disaster that has befallen us, the election of George W. Boob.

Likewise, I think it is pretty well established that the DLC/Clinton wing was behind the dirty tricks campaign in Iowa that resurrected Kerry's campaign and knee-capped Howard Dean.  

So, I agree that a Bill Clinton resignation would have been good for the Democratic Party and the nation as well.  Our legislators lacked the courage to boot Clinton out then and the same crowd continues to lack the courage to impeach the incompetent whose election they abetted.

Her strength and resolve were tempered as the daughter of a career naval officer.  Most people can not comprehend the necessity for parental absence over many birthdays, Christmases and other important life events.  It's the sacrifice that military families make for their loved one and their country and the reason that they bond together.  Similarly, it is the sacrifice that she is now willing to make for what she feels is best for her country.

bill to impeach Cheney, he will have my financial support.  Until that time, I will support other candidates such as Franken in MN, Allen in ME and Edwards in MD.

I generally don't like to respond to phonecall requests so didn't contribute.  After reading this diary and Kos' comments doubting Edwards' ability to raise funds, even though many think he is the best candidate to reflect the views of the grassroots, I ponied up $1000.  If he doesn't win, at least I voted my conscience which Markos seems reluctant to do.

for revealing it to lessen the slime attack from the HRC kool-aid drinkers.  I was troubled by the obvious cooperation of the media for her being able to pull off the "full Ginsberg" but doubt any of them will showcase her "canned" performance.  They have already annointed her.

I don't disagree with your conclusion but think it is important to support your beliefs rather than voting to be on the winning side.  There are many who seem to support HRC only for the reason that they think she will win and they want to be on the winning side.  For those who honestly believe in her, I have no quarrel.  Personally, I'd rather lose than compromise my core beliefs.  For the SEIU to refuse to commit to Edwards although he is clearly their choice is cowardly.  Having been born during FDR's first term, I see Edwards as the closest to FDR's governmental philosophy and the leader we will need for the times ahead.  I favor the Edwards-Obama ticket and believe that we would all benefit from government of the people, by the people and for the people; enough of the trickle down BS.