|
We have a remarkably strong field of candidates (would've been a hell of a lot stronger if Big Al had jumped in, but still). All of three front-runners would be infinitely better presidents than any of the Republican field, or anyone the Republicans *could* field. All three would be very competitive in the general against anyone in the Republican field. And, given the Iowa outcome and the current NH polling that puts Obama firmly in the lead there, the other really good news is that maybe, just maybe, registered Democrats and indies aren't going to let the corporate media pick their candidate for them before the damn votes are cast. I think Hillary's loss in Iowa is a huge kick in the slats for the DLC and the Republican-Lite "Democrat" party it represents. Edwards might be the truer progressive, I don't know—he's talking the talk these days, but his voting record as a red-state Democratic senator certainly doesn't reflect a consistently progressive politics on his part. I don't hate Hillary, and I think we could ultimately do a hell of a lot worse as potential presidents go (see: the last eight years). But I think Obama's Iowa victory is really a victory for the Democratic party, and I like our chances in '08, and our chances for pulling the country back from the brink of neo-fascism going forward. Go. Bam. A. Or Edwards. Or Hillary, because she wouldn't suck nearly as much as Hucklefundie would.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
