either one is better than what the GOP has

[jpwhite]

It doesn't matter if it's Obama, Hillary, or John Edwards.....they are better than any candidate that the GOP has. All 3 of them are good speakers, and have new ideas on how to fix the problems we have in America (health care, Iraq, immigration, etc.) We as dems have to stop fighting. Let this process carry itself out, go to your state primary, and vote by your gut feeling. If I had to make a bet, I would say that if Hillary wins she will take either Obama or Edwards as VP. I think Obama and Edwards would take Hillary as a VP candidate. Either way, it's a great ticket.

James - [e-mail]

[TwilightGardener]

1. Agreed.

[dave_p]

2. There's better

Not one of them's ruled out repeating the Iraq atrocity, this time against Iran: all options are "on the table".

Democrats have better. Kucinich has opposed funding this war since day one. And he's against repeating it. Gravel's shown similar courage, despite his odd tax beliefs.

There aren't three candidates. Democrats shouldn't limit themselves to second-best when there's better.

[one more state]

3. Ron Paul?

Have you seen this Ron Paul guy? He's the only republican that voted against the war. Why is he a republican and not a Democrat? I think he's against the world bank too.

[Jimmy Hoops]

4. I've seen him on the debates

and on Bill Maher's show. He really impressed me and seemed to do pretty well in the New Hampshire debate. He's the only Republican who makes sense and can admit that we need to get out of Iraq. Fortunately (for us) he will never get the nod since he's not hawkish, conservative, and anti-Mexican enough:)

[NoodleBoy]

5. he's an out and out extremist

Ask him what he'd like to do with the Departments of Energy, Education, Veteran's Affairs, Interior, Health & Human Services, Commerce, Labor, Homeland Security, Transportation, Agriculture, and Housing & Urban Development, and prepare to be completely mortified.

He's basically against everything Democratic Presidents fought for for most of the last century. God help us all if he should ever become President, because you could turn the clock back about a century to the time of robber barons, massive urban squalor, no public education to speak of and government of, for, and by the wealthy few.

[lies and propaganda]

7. You summed him up accurately..

Liberatarians, even more than your average joe repug, want to take apart everything that is great about this country, social programs will be the first to go and its a downward spiral from there.

[lies and propaganda]

6. He identifies Liberatarian but Texas doesnt accept that

So he is an R.

[ronleslie]

8. Tried of the same, stale talk from the candidates? YouTube video takes a fresh look

Tired of the same, stale talk from the candidates?   For a
fresh look at what the Democratic Party should stand for, how
it should present itself to the American people, what
principles should govern its domestic and foreign policies,
and how it should differentiate itself from the Republicans,
look at the new video, “What Do Democrats Stand For?” on
YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6JX-W4iIkw

[inna]

9. agreed

i couldn't agree with you more.

either one will make a fine President.

my personal choice would probably be Edwards, but my prediction is that Clinton/Edwards will be the winning ticket.

[TeenageDemocrat]

10. So true

:thumbsup: