I could settle for Obama.

I could possibly settle for Gore but I'm not sure if I see that happening.

Edwards never did anything for me although my friends insists he's a great populist.

You forget Clark who has excellent international experience; that's what bothered me about Obama but he needs to get in there to find out. If anything, he'll be nominated veep for sure.

Clark has a book due out next year.

I have to ask you though, like last time when you asked me about Clark. Are any of these guys really "progressive"? See what I'm saying.

I guess what sums up my feelings right now is anybody but Hillary if the Dems want to win. If she runs, Democrats will surely lose up and down the ticket. She's not Bill.

Clark/Obama all the way.

I do think that Obama is a "progressive." I think he uses moderate rhetoric to achieve progressive policy. Granted...he has not achieved much of any policy and the national level, but he also didn't have much opportunity.

As for Gore? He has definitely become more outspoken about progressive policies since he ran in 2000. It would be interesting to see where he would fall.

Edwards is a good populist. He has been outspoken for a while against the war and places a strong emphasis on addressing poverty through progressive policy.

None of them are perfect, but I would say that any of the three would be decent.

With that said, we won't get a true progressive president, at least not any time soon, though Kucinich is saying he may run again. But he wouldn't win.

My only beef with Gore, really, is the Buddhist temple thing with the "no controlling legal authority"...

I don't want two party government, and I don't want single party rule. With Democrats in control of the senate and house, I wonder if it is time to get serious about breaking the two party monopoly and giving someone outside the power structure a turn in the white house. I love Gore & all... And Obama from what I know about him, he's cool, too. But I don't want any more politicos given the power to self-police instead of being policed. I don't think it's good for Democracy.

I thought I read somewhere that Kucinich *was going to run* for president. He states the Dems have a weak war stance and that the troops needs to come home now. Ahem, that sounds familiar... I do like him and too bad folk don't take him seriously enough.

Would/could you support a Clark/Obama ticket? Why no mention of Clark? I've gathered you don't like him.

All I can say is, don't misunderestimated him. He's an anxious and eager bunch of followers so we'll see what happens. I'm certain he'll run.

Not sure how I feel about it all yet but I could support either of these candidates excluding Hillary of course.

Thoughts on Hillary?

You know, been doing some thinking here and I'm going to call you out (in a friendly way). You're just as biased towards Obama as I am to Clark.

Clark appeals to moderates and independents; that's a strong selling point and especially so in 2008. Look who the Republican front runners will likely be: Guliani and McCain.

And I'm actually pretty ignorant of his voting record, my friend says he votes conservatively. I wouldn't know but I'll do a little poking around as I should.

So, point being... I think you're biased towards Obama (just as I am to Clark) but I really don't think Obama is as progressive as you like to make him out to be. In fact, dare I say you're jumping on the bandwagon just as a lot of folk are. That's not badmouthing him, not at all as I stated I might support him. My bone of contention is substance and Clark has it.

Take a read at this link:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9242.html#more-9242

All this said, I don't fall for hype and the popularity contests. I think Obama falls into that category. There I said it.

Clark has substance, experience and a solid record. We're in a war right now and that is at the very top of most Americans' minds. We need a progressive leader who knows what he's talking about and has been there, done that.

Take a read at the comments on the link provided, good sense there.

Clark will run and he has my support.

Obama is to the left of Kennedy when it comes to voting:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2006/Info/senator-ratings.html

There's nothing "moderate" about him at all, much less "conservative". No offense intended but your friend is either thinking of someone else or is, well, off his rocker. Obama is a full-fledged liberal, NTTAWWT. That it's hardly ever mentioned is part in parcel why so many on the right have noted the bias in the MSM....here you have one of (if not THE) most liberal members of the senate who gets better press than Jesus and there are actually people who think he votes conservatively.

In the case of "the press is heavily tilted to the left", the prosecution can now rest.

I do think that Obama is a "progressive.

That's not debatable, if one accepts "progressive" to mean "among the furthest left in the senate, according to their voting record". I understand that "progressive" is supposed to be a more acceptable term for "liberal", so whatever......he's as far from the center as Tom Delay. The difference is that Tom Delay doesn't run from the designation and the press has no compunctions in labeling him as such.

I do admit that I am biased to Obama. But I wouldn't call me a bandwagon guy, at least not as much as others. I have been following him since the Democratic primary for his Senate run, so it begins earlier than most.

But you are wrong about Obama's voting record, as RW pointed out. Obama is very solidly progressive. He tones down his rhetoric in order to appeal to moderates, but his voting record is most definitely progressive.

As for Clark, I have never been a huge fan, but I am not completely sure why. I do know that I part of it is that that I do not want a military guy as president, but that is my pacifist bias coming into play. But I do admit that I know less about Clark than the others, and that he has never really appealed to me.

All this said, I don't fall for hype and the popularity contests. I think Obama falls into that category. There I said it.

Sure...he has a lot of hype and popularity right now. But i is warranted. The guy is passionate and talented, and draws people (i.e. voters) in. But along with that he is solidly progressive and always has been.

he's as far from the center as Tom Delay.

I think that really depends on the definition of "center". The center of Congress? Perhaps. The center of political opinion in this country? Probably not. The center of the political spectrum in the developed world? Not even vaguely close.

Saying it's warranted is just like saying the hype around Hillary is warranted. I'm not convinced. I'm lazy and have yet to take a look at Obama's voting record, I'm looking for core votes.. not how he scores with interest groups although it is a good indicator. Convince me is what I'm saying I guess. I'm skeptical.

I have to be brutally honest, when you say you don't care for military as politicians... that irks me. What makes you say this? What of vets who actually know, have been there etc? You seem to discount their experience and Clark's all together. He is progressive, if you can roam around his old Clark04 site I encourage you to. I'm not trying to convince you, but lest you forget that I am open minded enough to strongly consider Obama and have even openly stated I would support him; I'm simply asking you to do the same thing. Would you support Clark if he won the primaries?

The core advantage with a man like Clark is that he's "progressive", outside of the beltway, has excellent international experience, is a solid veteran, and no voting record to be reckoned with. He absolutely can tear away those moderates, independents, left leaning Republicans... meaning he can *win*. I like winning as we all do. The repubs will undoubtedly put up a more moderate candidate this time, we need to compete and we need to win. Make sense?

Obama, very possible the dems would win. Hillary? Not a chance in hell and dems would lose *up and down* the ticket.

Clark? Yes, definitely. Obama as a veep? I'm having a wet dream about that one.

Saying it's warranted is just like saying the hype around Hillary is warranted.No, not really. They are two very different people with different ideologies and different backgrounds, etc. But I also think that they Hillary hype is warranted, at least as a politician. I think that she will run a dynamic campaign and have a great team helping her. And it helps to have an incredibly loved ex-president campaigning for you. But I don't like her ideology.

I know enough about Obama to say that the hype is warranted. I really, really like him. It is not just celebrity hype for me. While part of it is his phenomenal charisma and speaking ability, it is also his policy views and ideologies.

You seem to discount their experience and Clark's all together.

I never said that. Come on. Don't get defensive on this one, please. I am a pacifist. It is hard for me to support a military guy to run the country. I also don't like the fact that Clark was in charge of the mess in Bosnia.

But I will tell you this - I will look more into Clark at some point (meaning not this week).

Would I support Clark if he won the primary? Probably. But that wouldn't mean that I would vote for him (remember...I vote Green most of the time).

Dude, it's not getting "defensive" on it. It's purely what I've gathered from you. Like it or not, you have or do come off sometimes as having a particular disdain for the military. Clark was *appointed* the mess in Bosnia - genocide - *appointed* by Pres. Clinton.

I just don't see how people can reconcile their pacifist beliefs. This is going a bit off topic now but will eventually come around I think... or hope... or whatever. If a loved one you know is being bludgeoned to death, what would you do? If someone attempts to kill you at knife point while you're minding your own business? I must be failing to see something here. A Chaplain at Meadville/Lombard stated he was a militant pacifist and I think I could mostly agree. War/attacking/offense/whatever only only as a last resort.

Clark was *the most requested surrogate* for candidates this past go around and that's because he is a strong Democratic "progressive" veteran.

So which is it? You vote green most of the time but you'd support Obama but if it were someone else (like Clark!) you wouldn't although they're similar in many ways.

Like it or not, you have or do come off sometimes as having a particular disdain for the military.

I do not have a disdain for the military. I have a disdain for violence and the industrial military complex.Clark was *appointed* the mess in Bosnia - genocide - *appointed* by Pres. Clinton.I could care less that he was appointed, nor who he was appointed by. I do not like how it was done, and he was in charge.

So which is it? You vote green most of the time but you'd support Obama but if it were someone else (like Clark!) you wouldn't although they're similar in many ways.

I already told you that I would look more into Clark. What else do you want me to say?

I also don't know if I would vote for Obama in a national election, if it makes you feel better. But Obama excites me. Obama's passionate talk about health care and poverty really excite me - those are my priorities (but not the only things that I vote on). I have not seen the same thing from other possible candidates (other than Edwards).

Been doing some mulling...

http://runobama.com/blog/comments.cfm?entry_id=75