In one word, Iraq. Also electability--plus he won already in the past but got SHAFTED and instead we got arguably the worst president in the history of the republic...Read more on why Al will defeat Hillary at www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
I think Edwards is great but I just don't know what has changed since 2004 except that he is two years older. The more I think about the Dems in 2008, the more I think the nomination is Al Gore's to lose: he was robbed in 2000, has been consistently right on Iraq (unlike Hillary), and will not have a problem with either cash or name recognition... I wrote a story on this at www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
Great post, thanks. Don't know if you've seen these three short videos from Iraq yet or not, but both show the US Military engaging in some very dubious actions. I have them up on my site at www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
Great post, thank you. I've written about a possible Bloomberg '08 candidacy on my blog at www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com. I think with his money and smarts--along with the country's yearning for another alternative to the two party system, it might just work for him.
The Dem nominee is going to be one of three people: Clinton, Gore, or Edwards. I think it will be Gore, as he's managed to redeem his image, didn't vote for the war, and let's not forget WON THE ELECTION IN 2000! All this other Obama/Bayh/Vilsak stuff is bluster, does anyone actually think any of them will be our next Pres? No way...VP, that's a different story, I think that'll either be Obama or Wes Clark. Hillary's got the cash, but she's also toxic.