I'm very saddened and conflicted today.

I have long supported and defended Dennis Kucinich and expect I will always appreciate his steadfast courage and actions speaking truth to power. His recognition of the need to stop our Congress from backing the neo-con conspiracy to force the "benchmark", corporate-friendly hydrocarbon law on the Iraqi parliament and his call to impeach Cheney for his massive crimes against the Constitution are singularly crucial to supporting the very concept of justice. We all owe Dennis our gratitude. He is a leader with integrity standing high above his opportunistic colleagues.

But circumstances have converged to undermine my confidence. I just finished reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine", and it has had a profound effect on me, illuminating a wider arena of our political circumstance than I knew existed and confirming many of my greatest fears. Some of those fears, ironically, had been brought to my attention by Dennis Kucinich. Free-market corporate control through forced privatization is the essence of both the proposed "Iraq oil and gas law" which Dennis exposed on the floor of the House in a historic hour last May, and the decades-long disaster capitalist conspiracy detailed in Naomi's stunning compilation.

I guess I must have been in denial ever since Dennis proposed a cross-party ticket with himself and Ron Paul about a month ago, a slip I couldn't let interfere with my appreciative loyalty to one who carries the banner for progressivism. I was aware of Paul's Libertarian position and often tried to wake up his zombie-like followers, who appear ready to follow him blindly into ridding our society of any vestige of social justice as a side-effect of their honest zeal to quit our involvements in Iraq and disastrous free-market agreements. Maybe he was mis-quoted, or I didn't really read that. After all, they're diametrically opposed on health-care and tax reform. Can't be.

I didn't even rationalize it. I just denied it.

Now this. Throw support to Obama over Edwards? To say Edwards has a flawed record is an understatement. But to compare Obama's regrets for his faults to Edwards' honest contrition on Iraq and the bankruptcy bill, well, Obama seems to have no regrets for comparison, yet his short record certainly shows enough flaws for regret. There is no single issue on which Obama is more progressive than Edwards. Yes, both are flawed candidates, but now, clearly, so is Dennis Kucinich.

This could have left me at quite an impasse, but I was really awakened by Norman Solomon's comments today, and one in particular, "Presidential candidates have to be considered in the context of the current historical crossroads."

Edwards is challenging power. He recognizes the dangers of oil dependence and global climate change. Edwards is pointing to excessive corporate influence as he appeals for economic justice. He is openly challenging the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. He is alarmed over the economic destruction of the middle class. If he hasn't read "The Shock Doctrine", he is channeling it's warnings.

Thank you Naomi, thank you Norman, and thank you Dennis. I won't forget you, but it's that crossroads where I must re-assess which road I should take. More than one has promise for real progress, but I can't afford another breakdown on this journey.

I HAVE MY VIEWS ON WHO I THINK SHOULD GET IT BUT LETS FACE IT, SHREK WOULD BE A BETTER PRESIDENT AT THIS POINT. LETS JUST STAND FOR WHAT WE BELIEVE IN AND MAKE OUR PARTY PROUD AND HEARD!!

John Edwards is my first choice.

If you're looking for a candidate to support, look closely.
Don't overlook Joe Biden.
He has the experience, the know-how, the conviction, an achievable plan and true leadership abilities.
Republicans are praying Hilary gets the nomination because she'll lose the election, Obama doesn't have the experience and Edwards isn't strong enough.
I'm sincerely hoping to see Biden come into the forefront.

The Wall Street Journal today ran a piece on Edwards being a populist, for opposing a business and corporate agenda. At a time when Edwards is challenging the system, Kucinich endorses Obama?!? This when Obama expressed hawkish views in his article in Foreign Affairs? I have always supported Kucinich, but I find his recent decision inexplicable and inexcusable in terms of advancing a progressive agenda. Bravo to Norman Solomon who echos sentiments I expressed to others when I heard about what Dennis did.
I view candidates as a means to advance a social movement. I am now registering my concern about Kucinich by voting for Edwards in this poll. Progressives should be uniting, not making political deals. Final point: the official poll of Progressive Democrats found Kucinich with 41%, Edwards 26% and Obama 13%. Kucinich is violating accountability to his political base which clearly favored Edwards over Obama. I now view Kucinich, for the first time, as having the same flaws as his rivals. Edwards, however, is changing for the better while Kucinich is not.

First, Hilary has no choice but to be promilitary; as a woman, she cannot be elected as a dove. Second, she has a way too much sense to ever lead us into war, and enough sense to get us out of it.  Third, as the first woman president, she will enact plenty of change--more than any other candidate. Fourth, what is Edwards going to do about corporate power when he gets into office (he says he won't negotiate with corporations); will he take them to court? Fifth, besides being young, good looking, mixed race, and intelligent, what does Obama have to offer in the way of change? His policies are non-existent and his message vague.

Come on, progressive demos, screw your head on right and back the strongest candidate. Don't allow yourself to be blinded by the sexist media, which constantly uses the word "strident" (even when they say "she didn't sound strident) about her when they would never use it toward a male.

Hilary is smart, capable, has a vision of domestic policy, has a vision of foreign policy, and CAN BE ELECTED! Get behind her.

Kucinich is my first choice, my second has been John Edwards.

In my book Dennis Kucinich is the best candidate who has been totally overlooked. Why in the world the media zeroed in on Clinton, Obama, Edwards only? All the other candidates are as excellent as the other three. The media should not be choosing the candidate they favor. The editorial page is the place for expressing favor or disfavor but, when entire sections of the media (including TV, radio and newpapers) write only about the ones they think are viable candidates, the media influence many people who might otherwise take a closer look at ALL the candidates. Dennis Kucinich is knowledgeable, conversive, knows the issues and knows his own positions. He does not vary his positions. He has a plan for getting out of Iraq, for universal healthcare,etc. which he has enumerated WHEN he is given the chance. Unfortunately, most of the time he is never called upon to speak. Shameful, I think.

I am so thankful that Senator Edwards did so good in Iowa tonight. I have supported Senator Edwards since the beginning of his political career. First as our senator then in 2004 in his run for the Presidency. He grew up in a small town near me called Robbins,NC. He has good family values. He is our best choice for change here and abroad. His wife Elizabeth is an inspiration, not only for myself, but all women who are fighting breast cancer. To anyone undecided please listen to John, he really means what he says. I would not have been such a dedicated supporter for the past 12+ years if I did not believe in him. I am 60 years old and have had breast cancer. He understands
so much more than the other candidates. He understands the importance of affordable health care, immigration changes, Home land security, a strong educational system, etc. He spoke of 2 Americas before Katrina, and look what happened in New Orleans. He understands and he will make a difference for the better for all. Thank You.

What a speech tonight! And a second place finish to Obama who spent 3 times as much on media as Edwards. Not a bad night, but it's time to kick things up a notch.

This weekend, put on your Edwards T-Shirt, print some flyers from the national website, and walk around the parking lot at your local grocery store and hand them out. You don't have to convince anyone on the spot. The fact someone is doing this in their neighborhood will sow the seeds of victory in people's minds.

Have you noticed that Edwards gets less coverage in the corporate media than Fred Thompson? They do not want his progressive message to get out because every time someone hears Edwards speak they know he is speaking for them (unless they're from K-Street).

I saw this four years ago when the FCC slipped through media consolidation regulations during the congressional winter recess. Howard Dean said he would roll back the Republican media consolidation rules the first day he was in office. Within a week his 80% favorable coverage in the press dropped to 75% negative. The corporate media front office called the Iowa Caucus by slamming Dean, and then relentlessly playing the "YeeHaw speech" going into New Hampshire.

We live in a country where the corporate media owes their allegiance to Wall Street and the news we hear is biased to serve the rich. It is propaganda. So don't believe anything until it has been offically denied by the government.

To the end!!!

I can NOT support any candidate who is for the iraq war for any reason. People die horrendous deaths during war so there is no excuse politically or otherwise to constantly support this Bush war, especially from Democrats. Kucinich is the best choice for this reason in my book. I would rather have Al gore. If Hilary gets the nomination then I can not vote for her because of her pro-war stance.

I am sticking with John Edwards. He is for real, not just saying what he thinks you want to hear.

In that order. While Kucinich says all the things I want and believe, I do not think he is electable. I believe Edwards is the most progressive Candidate that can be elected. Clinton and Edwards are grossly abused by the press. I agree that Clinton has to run as a hawk because America is far too sexist to vote in a woman who does not come across as all macho male. Remember that the white U.S. males allowed male ex-slaves the vote before they allowed their mothers, sisters, daughters the vote. Neither one should have ever been denied the vote but it is telling who was feared more.

The press have given all of the coverage to Obama and Clinton simply because the first black or female president is a hot and sexy news story. Obama is just too "can't we all just get along" for me and I don't see the depth to him. He gives a wonderful speech but what does he stand for? I want someone elected that can wean us from our oil and military addiction. The fact that we are currently spending more on our military than the entire world while our people go without health care and a decent education system should just slam you in the face. Clinton has to run soft on the military just as Bill Clinton did. This is the only reason she does not have more of my support.

Keep in mind that we have many months to go. Bill Clinton was a dark horse that the press ignored early on. With all that said however, I would not have a problem with any of the Democrats who are running being President.

Hillary said she wants to bring the troops home...period!

Also putting aside their personal lives that had no impact on our country, the Clintons got us out of debt and did whatever they said they could do while in office.

I want experience and they are a great team.

Edwards would be great for a Vice President.

She is strong and determined!

As far as the rest, they don't even come close to qualifing to be President, too wet behind the ears!

Hillary, too cold.

Edward, too hot.

Barack, just right.

I notice there's a lot of people vote for Edwards here. Then I see the word 'aggressive' progressive.  I think I am progressive, but I don't think I am 'aggressive' progressive. Maybe that's why Edward turns me off. He is too aggressive, too angry. I wouldn't want someone like that in the White House.