illumined horizon

The Republicans are actually doing something smart. Instead of a very conservative candidate like a Fred Thompson or Mike Huckabee, it looks like the nominee is either going to be McCain or Romney. Two candidates that have moderate positions on a number of issues. In a 'Democratic' year a more moderate presidential candidate will be much more competitive than a down the line conservative.

With Edwards completely and utterly out of the running at this point, on the Dem side it seems to be down to Hillary and Obama. I think I'm pushing for Obama at this point (even though I don't really like either one of them), because I don't think the Bush dynasty should be replaced by the Clinton dynasty. It's time to give some other clan/person an opportunity to run the country.

Many politicians will say anything, in order to get elected. You've got to go to websites such as On the Issues, to look at politicians' stands; to figure out if they jive with what they say. Sometimes the MSM also brings up if a candidate is actually talking for something that s/he voted against, or speaking against something s/he voted for. A lot of resources on the web can tell you where a candidate really stands, instead of just trusting what a candidate says.

I think the tension/infighting between Hillary and Obama is a good test run for what the Republicans will eventually role out. We'll see if anything that has come out now will come back to bite Hillary or Obama. But if nothing does, than I think all the bickering will have been for the good. It will make either a better campaigner.

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, kind of logic...

To me it seems like it's already over. On the Democratic side it's a battle between two corporate Dems. We can expect very little in the way of change, under the new Democratic president in '09. Too bad Edwards was defeated, he could have been a great president. I'm left wondering what are the progressive forthcoming policies of an Obama or Hillary Clinton administration? Because all I hear in their speeches is a bunch of hot air filled with sweet nothings...

I can't explain why, but Republicans appear to believe in the ends justifies the means, more so than Democrats. I think this has something to do with all the messes they get themselves into (all the scandals we've seen in the last few years). Thank God, though that Republicans do this, or otherwise the country would be even more right-wing than it already is...

I would say he's more than likely running. If Edwards had won I think he would have been torn about running. But I don't think he has much love for Hillary or Obama, I'd pencil him in on the Presidential ballot. Obviously I'm aware that a lot of people blame Nader for Bush 'winning' in 2000 (we know the Supreme Court selected him), but I like him running because I think progressives who don't find the Democratic nominee progressive enough, need some place to go with their vote.

Unfortunately the media won't cover Dennis Kucinich unless he runs for President (he's one of the most progressive people in the congress). He's a congressmen and thus a major candidate, and should be in the debates. Joe Blow who runs for President won't be in the debates, but congresspeople, Senators, and Governors should all be in the debates. Kucinich has been left out of too many debates, yet the substance and conviction of his message should have planted him firmly in all of them.

It's too early to celebrate and say that a Democrat is a shoo in for the presidency. Democrats are better at governing, and Republicans are far better at campaigning. Republicans basically run a potted plant every time, and they win a good deal of the time as well. I can remember the disgraceful Harold Ford ads, this is recent history. We as a country may be beyond certain types of racism and sexism, but unfortunately the Republican party's propaganda machine doesn't seem to be. The proof will be in the pudding, my prediction, the race or gender card (depending upon if the nominee is Obama or Clinton) will be used either overtly (by the RNC) or covertly (by some 527 group) in the run up to the 2008 election.

I caught the video of Romney getting pissed off at a reporter the other day. The question in my mind is, is it ok for a reporter to interrupt a candidate during a stump speech? It seems like maybe, if a candidate is spouting falsehood that it should be done. I just don't know that I've seen a journalist do it before, so maybe some other journalists would consider this to be unprofessional.

I'm scratching my head as to why John Edwards message has not catapulted him to the nomination. All I can think of is that he's being branded an 'outsider' or 'anti-establishment' because of his message. Also some of the wind has been taken out of Edwards' sails with the change message of Obama. Hillary is the establishment, Obama is change, and Edwards seems to be falling into the category of also ran... It's a mindboggler that more folks aren't getting behind Edwards. Apparently he's close in Nevada, so maybe he can win there; although I think it's a longshot.

I think conspiracy theories have somehow gotten a bad rap. If one believes in conspiracy theories, then s/he has his/her tinfoil hat on or something. As they say one bad apple spoils the bunch; there are a lot of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Conspiracy theories have been sullied by all the zany ones, and thus a lot of people don't want to touch or entertain a conspiracy theory about nearly any historical event.

I was thinking now that Dodd, Biden and Richardson are gone, would this raise Kucinich's numbers at all (if he was allowed into the debate)? Presumably their votes would go to the front runners, but Kucinich would have to pick up at least a couple of percentage points I'd think.

I can remember a debate from '04 that consisted of Al Sharpton, Kucinich, Edwards and Kerry. This seems to be a new thing that they're doing this year. Kicking the low polling candidates out of the debates. In my opinion, Kucinich is running to raise issues and attempt to move the Democratic Party to the left, so it's really hurting Dennis to keep him out of the debate...

The tax cuts were supply side economics/Reaganomics the idea is that the wealthy will take the money and put it into things that are good for the economy. Business activity, the purchase of goods and services, etc... What the tax cuts did was increase the national debt, and if I'm not mistaken government has grown under Bush, so Bush didn't make the needed cuts in government spending that should go along with tax cuts. If we continue the Bush tax cuts, unless there are significant cuts in government spending the national debt will continue to balloon... Foreign countries will continue to buy up our debt, and we will be more and more beholden to them.

Additionally, I think Bush is the only, or one of the only Presidents to cut taxes during a war. Moreover, they were supposed to stimulate an economic boom. But what we had during the Bush years was nothing like the Reagan boom, or the Clinton boom. They not only saddled us in debt, they didn't create the much ballyhooed stimulus there were suppose to create.

This article has pretty much the same information, but here's my pet theory on what I think the anthrax attacks were all about: The anthrax attacks occurred prior to the passing of the Patriot Act. Anthrax was sent to Tom Daschle, who was then Senate majority leader, and Pat Leahy, who was then chairman of the Judiciary Committee. A Dr. Francis Boyle believes it was an FBI coverup. It's interesting it was Democrats that received the anthrax. Seems to have been a threat to go along with the Bush agenda or else.

Dennis Kucinich says he'd choose Ron Paul as his veep. Well, you have to know Dennis is into a lot of New Agey religious crap... I think this choice is more of a ying/yang balance thing than anything else. I really don't think Paul as VP would have a huge effect on a Kucinich administration's policies. Although we'll probably have to wait for the next life to see a Kucinich administration anyway.

In my opinion the libertarian/free market view of capitalism doesn't work. America is the most capitalist developed nation... Why so many people want to go even more laissez faire, boggles my mind. Most of Europe has a higher standard of living than the U.S. We should go in that direction, not towards freer market capitalism.

I've heard some people say Huckabee will be easy for the Dems to take. But can't Republicans make the case Obama is not ready for primetime, and will do far to much learning on the job? I personally didn't consider Obama seriously, and I don't understand what he's done to allow him to be president. All along, I hoped it would be Edwards, and I thought Hillary was going to win... Now that it looks like Obama, I'm wondering if he will be an easy kill for the Republicans.

As a Kucinich supporter I'm embarrassed to say it, but I'm kind of getting excited about Edwards. He's the most dyed in the wool liberal (I can't even of think of when was the last time probably Mondale or Dukakis) to have a real chance to win the nomination in quite some time (Dean was of course the front runner early on, but he didn't end up faring so well).

I was really disappointed in Edwards when he said (in one of the debates) that he couldn't guarantee the troops would be out of Iraq by 2012. To see him beat Hillary, though, was pretty cool! I actually believe that John Edwards would do some things differently than any other major candidate running. I think if any progressive is going to vote for a 'major' candidate that he is the only choice; until he has no statistical chance remaining to win the nomination.

The question of whether or not Obama has enough experience to be president is a serious one, but I think part of Obama's appeal has been how little time he's spent in Washington. As the pundits say, is anyone really experienced for the job of U.S. president? In fact, I believe that the reason governors get elected to the presidency more than senators at least partially explains why Obama is doing so well. The voters don't want someone who's a puppet of the Washington establishment, they want some one to take on Washington and drain the swamp.

No doubt, beating Hillary is something for Edwards. But being the least monied candidate, and also the most reviled by the media, I think Edwards needed the win in Iowa the most in order to get the nomination. I guess we'll see what occurs in New Hampshire. If he can win there, he can certainly take it all...

I know the right loves to go on about how this country is a republic and not a democracy. But I just find this to be a bunch of hogwash. There's certainly been a trend toward greater democratization in the country, pretty much since the ink dried on the document (the Constitution). I've even heard that James Madision said that the difference between Republic and Democracy is semantic (I think he used Republic when he was trying to sell the Constitution to all the states). So they're for all intensive purposes the same thing.

Some progressives aren't comfortable with voting for DLC and/or non-progressive Democrats. I personally believe Greens or other third party progressives should challenge the mainstream/DLC Democrat when this is the case. This can also occur within a Democratic Primary (a progressive Democrats challenges a non-progressive one). So, I'm just suggesting supporting progressive candidates against non-progressives regardless of what party is next to their name...

p.s. Of course a progressive should not siphon votes from a non-progressive and get a Republican elected. One reason I don't buy the Nader spoiler argument is that he simply didn't get a very high percentage of the vote. If he had gotten even 5%, perhaps you could blame him for Gore's loss. I don't think he's responsible with the 1-2% he got, or whatever it was.

We'll see what the Dems are made for sure when they get a Democratic President and Congress. We'll see what the excuse is if they can't move a liberal agenda forward then... I mean they are pretty much disappointing everyone now, but if I'm to give them the benefit of the doubt they'll really be tested if/when they have the majorities of both houses and the presidency.