I would be most happy to see the nomination be undecided as of the time of the convention, and that the convention mean something other than a coronation.  I know this is highly unlikely to happen, as the likely result of the first round of primaries will likely knock out one of the three leaders, and the second round decide it.  

That doesn't make it a good idea.  

So long as there is a real contest underway, the media and the Rethug message machine cannot concentrate on (a) destroying the Dem candidate and (b) rousing the Rethug base.  They have a multitude of targets presently, and an even wider spectrum of policy positions to examine (or not).  Once there is a clear leader, or winner, that simplifies matters for them.

We've seen (like in the post today on Mr. Hsu's problems) how the media will sell papers on mountains they've made of molehills.  They (and the Rethugs) would like nothing more than for HRC to lock up the nomination early - that would be just the activiation the Rethug base would need.  I mean, to them, she's the AntiChrist, Satan, and their third-grade teacher making them obey the rules all rolled into one.  With an early - like, February, lockup - the media and Rethugs (one and the same, largely) could (and will) then spend the next nine or so months on the usual slander.

So, the later the better.

No doubt, when the convention comes around, I will support the nominee in keeping with my long-standing political stance as a Popular Front Democrat. I can make peace with myself over any Democrat's foreign policy views vs. any Republican nominee's views. I don't believe in committing political suicide by endorsing a third-party candidate no matter how much we might agree on the issues.

The anti drug war candidates in the Democratic Party are not even listed as also rans by most party true believers.

The GOP's Ron Paul is not viable due to his very questionable interpretations of the constitution.

That, once again leaves me a protest vote for a third party or Independent. One who does reflect my civil liberties, human rights, social justice constitutional values.

Whoever gets my vote it will be because they declare thier ardent opposition to the terrorist funding, crime promoting, Jim Crow drug war.

Like this.
----
QUESTION TO ALL 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

Do you, as a candidate for the presidency of the United States of America, endorse or refute the following resolution of the U.S. Conference of Mayors?

"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the United States Conference of Mayors believes the war on drugs has failed.." Complete resolution:United States Conference of Mayors resolution July 2007.

"Hillary, Edwards and Obama."

"All will bring change. All three will appoint judges and an Attorney General we can count on not to eviscerate our constitutional rights and to uphold the rule of law."

I disagree.

Edwards announced on Saturday that he would create and international intelligence coordinating treaty organization. The start of a global police state? He is a liberal authoritarian.

Clinton promises to return America to the halcyon days of Hubby Bill's world record prison population. With the opium flooding out of Afghanistan that means a massive escalation of the Jim Crow drug war. A drug war police state advocate.

And Clinton has been taking support from Rupert Murdoch for years. Murdoch's Fox News has been at the forefront of anti judiciary and anti rule of law constitutional originalist mop incitement for years.

Obama proudly touts his cosponsorship of the 2005 Meth Act that the 2007 National Drug Threat Assessment admits gave the America meth market over to better organized and more ruthless Mexican cartel connected gangs. Another drug war police state advocate. In New Orleans Obama could have promised massive drug rehab to get the addicts, who commit most street economic crime, off the streets and so reduce crime in that poverty oppressed city. Instead he promises more DEA and police who will simply take the weaker gangsters off the street leaving the addict consumer demand intact for the smarter more powerful predators.

Edwards is no more than an eager beaver opportunist without much knowledge of the potential for the wild ideas he too easily spouts off to impress voters. An average American pol in the 21st century. Forgiveably mindless. A liberal George W. Bush.

At the risk of getting flamed mercilessly, I'd also like to see Biden shape the Iraq political strategery debate more.  Not the congressional debate on defunding (on which we can't agree) but on the overall Iraq strategy, or lack thereof actually.

I'm really gonna get flamed for the following:  On the Republican side, I would like a McCain-Powell ticket.  Sort of like Nixon going to China, I think, no one would question McCain and Powell eventually withdrawing from Iraq.

Do these IDIOTS in the dem party think I am so STUPID that my government would leave our troops stranded, it would be political suicide and death to any member in  Congress that did so.

So with that said I say CANCEL all FUNDING to the war for OIL till this SCUMBAG  in the WH. gives us a time line and ONLY the funds that are necessary for the troops and of discussion.

• You didn't decide yourself yet
  
• Yours is a group blog and you want to reach a consensus.

Early endorsement, however, helps the candidate, if only marginally, who can use you support.

90% of America will never get to vote on these people until they have already selected "the candidate".

Ask the people on the panel - the jurors. Stick to Iowa and New Hampshire. By the time South Carolina or the rest of the nation votes, it will all be over.

Will Hillary or Obama be left standing? (See? I used them in the same breath).

[ Reply to This ]
Latest Strategic Vision poll - Hillary LOSING (none / 0) (#9)
by NMvoiceofreason on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:19:32 AM EST
Democratic Polls

Strategic Vision
8/18/2007
N=600
John Edwards     23%
Barack Obama     22%
Hillary Clinton     21%
Bill Richardson     14%
Joe Biden     5%
Chris Dodd     1%
Dennis Kucinich     1%
Unsure     13%

"All three will appoint judges and an Attorney General we can count on not to eviscerate our constitutional rights and to uphold the rule of law."

Actually, NONE of them will do that. Those rights are gone forever. Look at the example of how well our democratic congress has restored habeas. Haven't even brought it up for a vote.

Power is much more popular with these folks than empowering anyone else. The Constitution passed to us with the blood of our forefather's lives has been shredded and will never return. Even if it did, the Supreme Court of the Republican Party (SCOTRP) would never enforce it. You wouldn't have any standing to enforce such historical prerogatives. Balancing tests would take away the broad scope, narrow it to the same as today, where corporations have First Amendment rights that the people do not share. Homes can be confiscated if it is good for the corporation. Government of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation, shall not perish from this earth.

Besides, you can't even get a AUSA to sign a warrant for multiple felonies if it doesn't pass the aparatchik. And they'll get demoted or forced out if they do.

Worse comes to worse, they will use "national security evidence", which you cannot contest, because only the government can file motions in the only court of competent jurisdiction (the FISC).

There is more than one that most of us could enthusiastically support.