Whomever takes Wesley Clark as his VP nom.

(But I like Obama for now. Most electable.)

(1) Given the divorce rate in this nation, yeah, I'd say that that's pretty much par for the course and not that shady any more.

(2) It's still FAR less shady than things like illegally selling arms to Iran to fund terrorists/insurgents in Central America, wiretapping without warrants, shipping crates of cash to Iraq to mysteriously disappear, letting lobbyists rewrite scientific reports, basing environmental policy off of energy corporation lobbyists, violating the Hatch Act, outing covert CIA agents for political purposes (and obstructing justice by refusing to testify about it), deliberately misrepresenting evidence to justify invasions of sovereign nations, failing to include war spending in the national budget to 'balance' it and repeatedly requesting hundreds of billions in 'emergency appropriations' (worst accounting ever), piles of no-bid contracts to defense companies, torturing, revoking habeus corpus, and alleged vote suppression.

Besides, Hillary isn't the one who committed perjury.

You're right; Clinton's infidelities weren't any of Congress' business. However, they were the business of a court case in which he was a party. Pursuant to that court case, Clinton testified under oath, and during that testimony, committed perjury.

That was Congress' business.

No, but she seems to draw people who have to her, doesn't she?

Looks like you're getting into http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-tinfoil.gif territory.

To be fair, you have no idea (and I, I'm sure, have only a vague notion) of the absolute, undiluted hatred and fear that Republican staffers and officeholders have of Clinton and Obama (and Edwards, if you care). The Republican behemoth would expand, fine-tune, and execute like never before if any combination of the 3 get the ticket.

Would they? The religious bloc is already pissed at them and fragmenting, the war nuts are few and far between, and the libertarians aren't at all pleased with them either. We'll see what happens when it happens.

I also don't think that Republican hatred for Obama and Edwards comes anywhere close to the general contempt for Hillary.

I picked Dennis Kucinich because he says some funny things that I can sometimes agree with (even if he goes overboard). In reality, I have no idea who really deserves the nomination. Obama interested me initially, but he's be really fucking slow coming out of the gate. Barely anything he said has been fresh and exciting, and I was promised there would be a lot of it. >:(

Who should get the nom? Well, I agree with a lot more political viewpoints held by Richardson and Edwards than any of the other candidates, and I admire that they both campaign rather than congregate at pseudo-celebrity rock-rallies, relying less on fame and money and more on political know-how. For those that are so down on John Edwards just for having "lost" in 2004, I think you're probably placing that blame on the wrong guy (or state, if you're a conspiracy theorist). Kerry lost the White House, Edwards was just along for the ride.

Neither Richardson nor Edwards really have a shot, because they rely less on fame and money and more on political know-how.

So, of the big two who even legitimately have a chance, I think I'd like to see Obama take the nom, just because I think he can and will do more for this country than Hills would. But I honestly think either of them have the potential to be a great President, so long as their terms aren't completely muddled with cleaning Bush's shitty diapers. We need a President that is going to pay attention to the people here, in this country -- not on the other side of the globe.

Edwards made it painfully clear in the latest CNN democratic debate that he wants someone's VP nomination. He was almost tripping over himself to flatter the other candidates every time they opened their mouths.

Didn't he come out for blood with Hillary and Obama?

People like Edwards, they didn't like Kerry (and I don't really blame them). I think Edwards is the reason Kerry even mustered 50% of the vote. Imagine if Kerry had picked some joe-schmoe boring Dem activist that nobody cared about? Bush may have actually legitimately re-won the White House. Scary.

I don't think Obama or Clinton would pick him up for a VP though. I'd say either is more likely to pick up the other after Iowa/New Hampshire. Obama/Clinton 2008! Make every racist, sexist, crotchety conservative die of a coronary.

I'm for Richardson at the momment - his foreign policy experience and financial know-how could be crucial. Furthermore, he's taken a huge bump in the polls in New Jersey (now at 10%), so I wouldn't discount him just yet. He's more likely a VP than President however.

That said, since Richardson probably won't win President, my second pick is Obama. He's just likeable, and pretty sensible.

My ideal would be an Obama/Richardson ticket, although that may be one minority too many to win the general.

I saw his lips planted on Obama's rear end more than once, and Hilary's more than once as well. I'm not saying he never attacked their ideas, but I never once saw a single other Democratic nominee go on about how their opponent made a good point and had good ideas. Maybe I'm giving Edwards too much credit and he's simply more incompetent than I suspected?

He might not have been specifically arsekissing, perhaps Edwards jsut doesn't fulfill the requirment that politicians have to be dickheads. Edwards just comes across as a nice guy.

By profession, Edwards is a trial lawyer; this in itself puts him into dickhead territory.

Maybe he saw Primary Colors recently.

I was really impressed by the way John Edwards handled himself in the CNN/YouTube debates (and h.e didn't look too bad either, those expensive haircuts sure do the trick), and was especially interested in what he had to say in regards to healthcare for the country, since I am going into the health-related professions myself.

That is the biggest issue deciding factor for me this next election. There are too many people without healthcare and the way Edwards is going to universalize healthcare and step up to fight against special interests and big insurance companies seems like the right thing to me and exactly what this country needs. America doesn't need to be spending millions of dollars abroad on a war when there's already turmoil at home, too many sick, poor, homeless, and insuranceless people. That's where all the money should be going, helping out our own citizens first.

My vote for the nomination goes to John Edwards.

The thing about John Edwards is how realistic his plans are with regards to getting them through Congress. I still like Obama slightly more because he seems to be a little more down-to-Earth.

But I'd take either one over any one else on either side.

It's not as if Edwards is the only one promoting Universal Healthcare, either. The Youtube debate practically turned into a pissing match of whose plan was the MOST universal.

I'm also wary of any kind of populist message. The implication always seems to be, "We're taking away the power of these corporations, and giving it to us."

I also can't stand that twang. =/

Obama/Edwards 2008. Mark it.

Gingrich just came out yesterday or the day before saying that the ticket'll be Clinton/Obama.

Good lord please no!

IF Hillary can take Iowa. And, really... there's a lot of women-haters here. So... I don't know if she can get the nod or not.

As far as the media is concerned she already is president. When polled, Democrats liked Obama's answer for foreign policy more than Clinton's by a significant margin, but you wouldn't know it watching the talking heads yak on about how every time she brings up the "meeting with leaders" question, she wins.

Who's to say Obama would even want to be Vice President? Wouldn't that destroy his career?