While they berate Dems in Congress for not doing more to end the war, are the netroots doing enough to make sure the next WH occupant will?

Just what can the netroots really do to affect who is the nominee besides vote? And at that we are a small fraction of the vote.

John Edward's leads the Straw Poll at dkos which I think is pretty representative of the netroots as a whole. But he only carried 39% in the last poll. Obama carried 24%. So total between the two they carry 63%. I'm sure as time moves on they will carry and split all but the 6% that Clinton has.

Which brings me to the point I have made over and over at dkos. If the netroots can do anything for their candidate to win then they must pick between either Obama or Edwards. Because if they don't then the netroots vote is split in the primaries and Clinton runs away with it. The only chance the netroots has is to consolidate their vote behind one or the other. Will that happen? Probably not because most netrooters are not sharp enough to figure out that is what they have to do - even when it is explained to them. As I said the netroots represents a small fraction of the Dem vote. so the only way to have an impact is through the consolidation of our vote.

Howard Dean is a good example. He practically had the entire netroots vote - but still lost. So this cycle electing a netroots candidate is even going to be tougher with two netroots candidates. Yes one or both (Edwards & Obama) will get non-netroots votes. But so did Dean. The fact is that we are a minority vote in the Party. With one candidate we stand a chance. With two candidates we drastically reduce our chances.

So the relevance of the current goings on in the Presidential race relate not much to the horse race, but a whole lot on the issues, particularly Iraq.

Well it is good to see Armando come around to what I said weeks ago. This race is about more than Iraq and does include a whole lot of issues. He disagreed with that before. But given that the candidates are pretty close on their Iraq policies and that Clinton has done a good job of 'blurring' the minor differences the other issues have become more important.

And in addition to the other issues what is as important in the minds of the voters, if not more important, is the quality of leadership and experience. And so far Clinton is blowing away both Edwards and Obama in that department. Take Edwards for example. His Iraq rhetoric in this race to get out of Iraq is the most aggressive of all three. But yet he is running a distant third in all but the Iowa poll. Same for Obama - he is behind also. Why? When asked in polls who they think has the most experience and leadership qualities Clinton's lead in those departments are even greater than her overall lead which shows that it is those qualities that are for the most part giving her her lead. Can either Obama or Edwards make that gap up on experience and leadership in the eyes of the non-netroots public? Put it this way - I wouldn't put money on it.

Any one who discounts the national polls this election cycle with over half of the primaries taking place in a matter of a month is not paying attention to the very different dynamics at work because of those compressed primaries.

Six months into a Hillary Clinton administration, about how many U.S. military personnel do you envision being in Iraq to handle what you've referred to in the past as "vital national security interests" -- from helping the Kurds to preventing Iran from crossing the border?

I cannot give you a figure because I will not become president until January 2009 and there is no way to predict what will occur between now and then. I have said repeatedly that I am committed to taking our combat troops out of the midst of this sectarian civil war. And there may well be vital national security interests that require a continuing presence, although I do not support permanent bases or a permanent occupation. When I'm elected -- and between the time that I am elected and the time I become president -- I will focus to a great extent (and nearly to the exclusion of a lot of other important matters) on being ready to make those decisions once I become president.

But it is just impossible to make any kind of credible predictions at this point. I am still hoping that the president will decide to follow the Iraq Study Group's recommendations and begin to alter the makeup and mission of our force before he leaves office. I think it is his responsibility to do that. So that's my principal emphasis during this time -- to try to persuade or require him to take the steps that I would have to do initially if he has not...

We would certainly like to begin withdrawing troops as soon as we can. It is complicated and dangerous to withdraw troops. That's one of the reasons why a few weeks ago I wrote to Secretary [of Defense] Gates asking that he ensure that there is a serious planning process under way right now -- not just the usual contingency plans on the shelf, but operational planning -- to begin to be prepared to withdraw troops.