I ended up behind Barack Obama by default.  I was an Edwards guy and then a Hillary supporter before I got on the train and backed the ticket.  In November I thought that perhaps this was all for the best. Edwards was gambling with disaster by hiding his affair / love child and Hillary proved she couldn't pick decent strategists.  So maybe this was the only way to win.

Yet...  My fear about Obama was always that he would push for consensus to the detriment of real progress-- that he would try to be "reasonable" (read concessionary) with the right wing.  That fear subsided somewhat during the debates and during his victory and inaugural speeches.  Now those fears are being tragically realized.  

The problem with electing milquetoast democrats is they don't accomplish what they could if were willing to fight, and afterward the public thinks the left is discredited, even if the policies of the left never get enacted.

Delegates, pay attention.

You have a 48-47-4 Scenario.  No candidate has a total majority of votes.  As is being said on CNN, by Jeffrey Toobin, this is the worst of all possible worlds for the Democratic Party.  Obama is revealed as having real flaws. while Hilary doesn't seem to have a path to the nomination without potentially ripping apart the party.  Clinton captures the Reagan Democrat demographic.

Either candidate stands to only win a close election at best.

Why not go for the landslide?  Take a compromise candidate-- one whom captures Clinton's blue collar strengths, and one who espouses the Optimism of Obama.   Make the convention matter.  Show that we thrive with a representative vote.  We discuss issues in our party.  Why should we sacrifice the opportunity for maximum exposure that an Open Convention would bring?  This could show the Democratic Party at its best-- with senators and governors having equal footing with ordinary citizens.

Why not take the sure thing?  

Think about it.

I'm fighting for Brand Democrat and actual proposals with teeth.  

Hmmm.  What happens if you store gasoline next to the ashtray?

My proposition is that Iraq is a neutral issue among the Democrats.  Did you notice that at the (AFL-CIO) debate that everyone on stage was a leader on said issue, with a definite plan?

I'm gonna say I think it's pretty much all jive in the details.  The main difference between us and the Republicans is that we actually plan on starting withdrawal.  We acknowledge it's over.

How many troops out, how soon and how the country is going to be partitioned will be determined more by what is possible than any politically willed plan.  I think Iraq is a complete wash among all eight candidates.

Here's why:

Obama-- If you had listened to me we wouldn't be in this mess.  Thus I have the best plan.

Edwards-- I was wrong on going, but I admit it, and I'm most willing to fight about it.  Thus I have the best plan.

Hilary-- I wouldn't have done things the way they were done, and I would be more thoughtful about it.  Thus I have the best plan.

Dodd/Biden -- I/I've been in the Senate 18/30 years and I/I know that you have to have the experience to get people moving.  Thus I/I have the best plan.

Richardson-- I negotiated in Bosnia and spoke with foreign leaders AND I'm an executive.  Thus I have the best plan.

Gavel-- These other guys betrayed you.  Thus I have the best plan.

Kucinich-- I was against this war more than any of you and have been more outspoken about it both now and then (I'm looking at you Obama, and Edwards) than anyone.  Did I mention I want a Department of Peace?  Thus I have the best plan.

Call me cynincal...

From the great folks at TPM

Leading the way again.  Can we officially say Edwards leading the way is a trend?