Reply #3: One interesting [View All]

thing is the 1960 race. It may provide more information that is of value to us than people assume.

I'm not happy with the responses of Clinton, Obama, or Edwards to the questions about getting us out of Iraq. But I do understand that they do not want to answer that they will get them out immediately, and have the republicans use it against them in the general election. I view Senator Clinton as more conservative, in many ways, but she has Gen Clark picked for VP, and he absolutely understands that to resolve the problems Bush/Cheney caused, the US has to end the military conflict, and deal with Iran. The neocons hate the thought of that, because their PNAC philosophy is to keep Iran from being a regional power. And the OSPers have tried to advance a shift in power within Iran, to help the Chalabites.

If I thought for a second that Senator Clinton was advancing the Cheney agenda, I would say that no one should vote for her. But I know that is not the case. I am interested in thoughts, however, about her ability to be elected -- not based on national polls, which mean something but not everything -- but rather on the state-to-state breakdown. Maybe she would win. Maybe not. There is simply no sure answer.

Edwards appears to be the most interested of these three in making major domestic changes. He is very serious. There's no question in my mind that he is sincere. But, could he win the election? Let's look state-by-state.

Obama has talent that has not been tapped yet. Can he be elected? It needs to be considered, state by state.

I like the second tier candidates, as well.