Katrina vanden Heuvel just said on Hardball that the names Edwards and

Obama are being tossed around a lot at "The Nation", but they haven't arrived at endorsing anyone yet. She admires Kucinich a lot as well.

Maher both have said he has the best chance of winning.

I'm starting to notice more mentions of Edwards in MSM, and that's gotta be good. I even saw Pat Bucan-a-piece-a-crap say there was no way JRE would get the nomination.

So I figure we're a shoe in.

I subscribe to The Nation, and most of the articles speak to me, so I think they'll probably pick Edwards. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

I wish the country was enlightened enough to vote in either of the other two. I will not chance all that is at stake.

We have many wonderful candidates to choose from, but if we want to win this, with all that's at stake, Edwards is THE man.:dem:

:hi:

I know your statement is right on too. MSM is at least becoming transparent in their complicity, lol.

i would hope "The Nation" would go with who has the best voting record and creds over who has the best looks and Campaign Machine.

I'm still distressed over Gore not coming in...but figure "Nation" will pick the same stuff that's been put forward before and then criticize them. After all...why would they go with a REAL CANDIDATE that they know won't get the support of the "MACHINE" that runs the Dems and Repugs. But...one would wonder how they could support Clinton II knowing what will go up against them in the M$M WHORE MACHINE! Could it be WORSE for Kucinich than for the CLINTON II? If it's bad for both then I'd go with the "wild card" because I've see others go in and get trashed like Carter by the "MACHINE!" It's what happens to Dems and until we keep putting in and DEFENDING our lesser candidates we will always get "Compromisers" who are TRASHED by the "Powers that BE" anyway. So why shouldn't we vote our conscience since...the outcome is always the same, anyway? :shrug: