i'm with you.

Steve,
I'm truly surprised at your decision. Somehow I thought you would endorse either Edwards or Obama. Anyhow, it's a well thought out post and you certainly have a record of being able to pick those who will make it through the nomination process. It seems that everyone thinks that it will be Hillary but I have to wonder with Edwards leading in IA, if that won't change some of the dynamics of the race later on.

I haven't seen Hillary debate but I understand that she is now way better than she was in the past and apparently has been able to change the minds of many of her detractors which is a credit to her political talents.

I'm still undecided and probably will stay that way for a long while. GA votes so late that last time there were only 2 candidates to choose from. It might be only 1 the next time.

·Most capably deal with the biases of the corporate media;
·Most capably fight the right wing smear machine;
·Most ruthlessly battle the GOP’s likely 2008 campaign tactics;
·Obtain the nomination and,
·Most importantly, step into the job in January 2009.

Interesting that none of your criteria even address the policies, philosophies or integrity needed to put us back on track. The only possible exception is being ready to step into the job in January 2009. Hillary meets this test since she is part and parcel of the policies that brought us to where we are today. She can take over an we will never notice a difference.

While you're willing to forgive her vote for this unjust and illegal war I will not. That vote revealed poor judgement and a total lack of foresight. She blew a wonderful chance to demonstrate real leadership. Instead she opted for political expediency.

I can't support her.

I'm surprised you made a choice at this point Steve, but I can't say that I disagree with your reasoning. I'm still on the fence myself but I agree that Hillary Clinton presents the best all around package amongst the Dems currently in the race.

And I think it's clear that Gore will not be in it at this point.

As a life long democrat and the mother of 3 women attorneys, I have diligently argued with my daughters against Hillary as our nominee.
My reasons are varied, her unfavorability among many women my age was a factor(I myself did not dislike her) I mostly feel we should as a nation move on with younger fresher ideas(this from an old lady!)Hillery wasn't cutting it for me. Edwards was.
I am a political junkie and always have been, I campaigned for Adali Stevenson as my first vote for President.
All the above reasons have led me to conclude and agree with your statements, Hillary can beat those old fossils who are out of step with the American people. She is battle scarred, and can stand her ground, perhaps even attack BEFORE the thugs do!
Sure they'll dig up all the old stories, but thats all they've got they have been writing about her so long no stone has been left unturned LOL.

We progressives might just enjoy the fight, whoever gets the Republican nomination is an old wingbag anyway. Might be fun to watch the holes form in their sales.
Don't forget Bill !

brave move Steve, especially this far out. I have repeatedly expressed my opinion that Hillary can't win the general election. Same for Obama. Maybe I am wrong. Are we at a point in the country's history that the population as a whole is so disgusted with the path we are on - which I might opine is 100% the result of the Republican Party -that we,as a nation, are willing to make monumental history by electing a woman as president. A woman that will be the subject of the most vicious, unrelenting attacks that the GOP and Media can devise, both before and after her election. Well, maybe we are. But if we are not, the result will be beyond disaster. Quite a gamble. But at this point, with the candidates on the table and Gore out, I believe you have chosen safely. As for the outcome of the general election, let's hope your candidate has better judgement on a VP selection than Gore did.

I agree with snark.
It is pretty early and she does present the best all around package.

However, I still find myself rooting for Edwards.

If Gore does jump in the fray, it won't be hard to support him.

As I said over at my place a couple of months ago I think Hillary is inevitable even though there is a lot not to like.

I have felt Ms. Clinton's shift into the position of actual electability.
But my reason for posting is to commend you for stating your position at this time; knowing you are doing so in the face of an all too often pointedly snarky environment.
Ms. Clinton is not my preferred choice, by the way. I do not have one. However, at this time, if Ms. Clinton were the Dems choice, I would vote aye without hesitation.
Now, how about going out on another limb and choose her running mate.
Smiles.

Brave move, Steve! I lean towards Edwards, as always, and I think he may surge forward as time goes on. Still, if it's Hillary, I'll vote for her and be happy for a woman president. And if anyone can sweet talk the rest of the world back into our good graces, it'd be Bill.

I wish none of them had voted for the authorization, but even though we all had an inkling of what assholes this admin would be, I don't think it really sank in how completely they would attempt to discard our democracy altogether. Now we know. It's not a dealbreaker for me, though.

I will keep reading but there's no way in hell i will vote for hillary! cleve

I value your opinion, Steve, but I do not share your optimism for Hillary's ability to prevail in the general election. I fear that triangulation and polarization (which will definitely happen if she is the nominee) could spell big trouble for the progressive movement. Also, I think a third party ticket would hurt Hillary more than the rest of the field.

But if she is the nominee, I will do everything in my power as a blogger and as a citizen to help her win.

Steve,

Underlying your arguments, I sense a fear. In paraphrase it goes as follows:

The Republicans have so much more built-in advantage - from media coverage all the way to the design of the Electoral College - that a Democrat can't win unless they are the toughest, meanest SOB in the valley. A Democrat will have to execute their campaign flawlessly, and even then will have a hard time. Therefore, winning is both everything and the only thing.

Maybe I am mischaracterizing the spirit of your point of view. If so, I apologize.

But I disagree with that viewpoint. I think the Democratic nominee will have a huge advantage this time, for a number of reasons - Bush fatigue, Iraq, the bankruptcy of fear as a political weapon.

From my point of view, what matters then is what the candidate will do once elected (rather than the electability itself). And so I ask myself, will Hillary be willing to get all our soldiers out of Iraq, will she stand up to the corporations on health care and the environment and globalization's excesses? Or will all those high-dollar advisors cause her to be oh-so cautious? That's what worries me about her.

Thanks,

Excellent points Greg, and by all of you who disagree with me.

As I said, I value your perspectives and hope you keep reading and making those points.

Bravo!

Clinton will certainly get a lot of love from corporate interests. The base may go missing on her, though. She's dead last on my preferences.

Just out of curiosity, if you went below the "top three", would you choose someone else? Are you only looking at the top three because they are the only ones who have a chance? Are there any from the lower tiers you would choose if they were sure to get the nomination (in which case they would have a decent chance of beating any of the republicans). I'm just wondering if you would consider any of the others if they broke into the top tier.

Obama's turned out to be a real wet noodle, IMO, and Edwards just doesn't convince me. He says a lot of the right things, but I don't trust him (yet) and I'm not convinced of his personal strength. The debate fiasco still hangs over me---there was Edwards, serene, almost preening, hardly challenging Cheney's lies.
The VP debate that year was probably the most important we've ever had, and Edwards failed to get anything from it.

I like Edwards, but I don't want him as the candidate.
That leaves Hillary as the main choice. I think Dodd would be acceptable, but he's not going anywhere. Richardson is interesting, and has the potential to become a frontrunner.

Tim is correct. Most of the reasons that we are in the state that we are in, such as an unjustified war with no bid contracts to favored elements and the flawed theory of unitary executive being use to cover up Cheney's energy task fore meetings is because of the guilded age level of corporate wealth and influence in our society.

It troubles me that Hillary is so closely tied to the scorce of the problem. America desperatly needs a new progressive era to re-humanize the system. Can Hillary fill the bill?

Clearly, in the short run any Democrat is going to be better than any Republican. But I fear that Hillary, being the one Democrat that is most closely tied to the beneficaries of our current mis-government will not be able to rally the peope and limit such forces dispite occasionally making noises that indicate that she understands the problem. The Republicans are not going to reform themselves and become a responsable party again as long as our current flawed template remains in place. Soon or later these corrupt witches will come back into power and be smarter and wrse than now. is has happened everytime in that Watergate lead to Iran-contra which has led us here. The next time, the dulge.

Because of the above I have and continue to support Edwards. He understands the true danger that concentrated wealth is to our country.

I knew Hillary would be the next president when Wall Street got behind her. The decision was made and there's no looking back.

As much as I dislike her, the good thing is, she will bring her husband's intelligence and experience to the table as an advisor. He knows every world leader and is on a first-name basis with most of them. We need to repair what will be 8 years of burning bridges with the rest of the planet.

It will also be a hoot watching the radical, rightwinger in the country turn themselves inside out the day she's sworn in. That alone will be worth the price of admission.

there was Edwards, serene, almost preening

I guess you really have to hand it to the Rove machine, when the right wing talking points seep into the perceptions of people on the left as if they were true. Edwards has been totally Gore-d by the media to the point that silly-ass memes are now common wisdom. The GOP doesn't use over 50% of their budget on marketing for nothing - this shit works.

.....oh YUCK Steve....she will get Rudy the vote...IMO...you're right tho'...Gore isn't coming to the party...but Richardson has a shot but I'd lean to Edwards...

I've never posted here before and I don't really consider myself all that politically astute. However, I'll throw this out. It seems to me that the dedicated republican voters HATE the Clintons so much that she'll have to more-or-less run a campaign that merely seeks to eek out one more vote than the Republican candidate. It's not exactly the same strategy as Rove, but it's close. In other words, if she gets the nomination and wins the presidency, the nation will be just as divided as after each of Bush 43's so-called "wins". Maybe more so.

I'd love to be wrong about that. Am I way off base?

I fear Steve may be right though. She may be the only one who can survive the post-nomination race through 2008. She's certainly not my preference, but at the end of the day she might be the only one who has the team that can overcome the onslaught.

can't resist a snark at cleve,

WHY?????????? err no way will you vote for her again WHY?????

I'll go out on a limb and say there are a certain group of "men" who would vote for a tiger in the jungle BEFORE they would vote for a woman! and I know WHY?????

LOL

Incredibly sorry to hear that Steve. I can't forget her vote for the AUMF nor can I forgive her inability to admit it was a mistake. Her tentative "redeployment" proposal for Iraq, as opposed to a complete withdrawal, is a just too much political triangulation for my taste.
If, indeed, Al Gore doesn't enter the race, I consider Edwards to be the best candidate currently running. He shows a concern for the American people, he can admit a mistake, his strategy statements point in the directions I generally approve, and as the cherry on the sundae it was his withdrawal that catalyzed all the other candidates to kill the Fox sponsored Democratic debate. Hell, I even like that he made his fortune by going after recompense for people injured by large corporations.
Having said all that I'll be voting for whoever the Democratic party nominates. Not one of them has denied a belief in the theory of evolution or professed one that government is an a priori problem.

Horrible decision. Absolutely horrible. Your reasoning, I'm sorry to say, is specious. You really need to read "The Political Brain" by Drew Westen.

As a degreed political scientist, I can assure you that the GOP prays for a Hillary nomination. Her vaunted "rapid response team" will do nothing to allay the ill feelings Hillary engenders amongst moderate independents. People don't like the woman, and it's visceral. She'll barely eek out a victory in 2008, if she does at all, that ought to be a landslide.

Ask yourself this: If Hillary were not married to Bill, would she be anywhere near this race? The obvious answer is "no." In a general election, she will not receive the luxury of her Bill-ness that she receives from Democrats.

You're just wrong.

But in America, that's OK.

i've been reading you for years. i'm shocked you would actually come out in support of clinton. i can understand supporting the dem nominee. but coming out in support of clinton at this stage and for the reasons given? very odd.

bill clinton hobnobs with GHWB and hillary clinton is supported by rupert murdoch. her judgment on the 'war on terra' can only be described as pathetically poor or opportunistic. gee. which is worse? what real basis is there for expecting better judgment when given greater authority?

·Most capably deal with the biases of the corporate media

bill supported media consolidation which is one of the reasons americans are so poorly informed and duped into invading iraq. why expect hillary to make any changes? has she spoken out during her campaign against media concentration and it's role in dumbing down americans?

·Most capably fight the right wing smear machine

i expect her to be well treated by the right wing smear machine because she will not, in fact, be a material threat. they need the democrats to take the fall. clean up the mess they made just like the dems did after reagan/bush. (see kevin phillips) but they don't want any of those fences (unitary executive, reduced regulations, etc.) moved back.

·Most ruthlessly battle the GOP’s likely 2008 campaign tactics

ibid.

·Obtain the nomination

for the same reason john kerry won the nomination? just because. that's not a basis for supporting a campaign at this stage. at this stage you should be supporting the person that best matches your progressive agenda.

the 2008 elections may well see big pickups in both houses. many of those coming in will have a progressive bent. now is the time to push for a progressive candidate to support a progressive congress in opposition to a conservative judiciary. clinton may change her stripes. i just have no reason be believe that and no basis for supporting her at this stage.

in my view, you just threw in the towel. that makes no sense.

iamcoyote, would you like me to be more specific?
As I recall, every time that Cheney spoke, Edwards remained expressionless and calm, hardly even moving from his perfect posture. While that may be good courtroom strategy, I think that eye-rolling has its place in these debates. But the question of whether he was preening is a side point. The main thing is that Edwards' debate performance with Cheney should be considered an abject failure. And what states did he win for the ticket in the end? Any? Edwards has a track record on the national level, so I suggest looking at it before choosing him as nominee.

Marky,

You have an "interesting" perspective. That's as nicely as I know how to put it.

Edwards won the debate against Cheney according to post-debate polling, and it is the fault of the Kerry campaign that they failed to capitalize on the numerous lies Edwards exposed. Also, Kerry pulled all resources out of North Carolina even though they were within striking distance. Again, Kerry's mistake. Finally, the Kerry campaign relegated Edwards to rural areas, where, to his credit, he increased by ten percentage points the ticket's performance over Gore/Voldemort.

If you're going to baselessly deride Edwards, you might want to employ Google and save yourself the embarrassment.

The Republican machine is not what it once was. The coalition of religious evangelicals and corporatists and authoritarians that gave Bush his 49% and 51% so-called victories is tearing apart badly. People can only be cowed by the Al-Qaida boogeyman just so many times. Doesn't Bush's latest rant at the Air Force base in Charleston, where he mentioned "Al-Qaida" over 50 times in 17 minutes, give a clue as to how hollow it all is?

We won the Senate and the House. No Democratic incumbent lost in 2006. Folks, the Republicans are not 10 feet tall. Ask Senator Tester or Senator Webb. And the world is a lot different than it was in 2004. The Republicans spent last year convincing the most rapidly growing voting segment (Hispanics) that they are not welcome, even if legal and even if native-born American. In the polls this early - which, granted, are not so important - most head-to-head matchups break our way.

We've got to stop this thinking like losers.

We've got to start projecting the idea that when we win next year, what do we want the mandate for change to be? When confidence is expressed, confidence is generated. It's contagious. Reasoned and sensible optimism about our chances next year is warranted. So start thinking about what you want President Clinton, or President Obama, or President Edwards, or President Richardson, or President Dodd, Biden, etc. to be doing in 2009.

I think one of the dangers of a Clinton candidacy, echoing Jay at 11:46 am, is what happens in the down ticket races for Congress. There is a huge opportunity for a large pickup in both houses for Dems, progressive and otherwise. I wonder how big Hillary's coattails are...how long that is.

Having said that, I can both agree with Steve's analysis to date and also agree with what God of War is saying. Both are right. To date, Hillary has responded and articulated better than anyone, goals, command of facts, etc...I am supporting Edwards at this point; mostly because of his populist rhetoric, but also because I believe him. I don't particularly believe Hillary.

I have been a Gore supporter for years, but it looks like he is not getting in the race.
Hillary was very good in the YouTube debate the other night. So was Edwards. When Obama gets on a roll, he can be quite inspiring as well.

The good news is that we have 3-4 very capable candidates, and the GOP has a bunch of losers. But I never thought in a million years that W had a chance in 2000...and to this day I do not think he won then or later in 2004. But the GOP machine and the media advantage is a huge obstacle to overcome.

We are loving in dangerous and interesting times.

"The main thing is that Edwards' debate performance with Cheney should be considered an abject failure."

Yeah, so he wasn't melodramatic enough for you, so that constitutes "failure"? That's the best you can come up with? Jesus, please point me to some remarkable examples of competence on Hillary's part outside of debates and elections, and I will point you to Hillary's miserable failure at chairing a miserable effort at coming up with a miserable failure of a healthcare plan during her husband's administration, one that was waaaay too complicated for the public to understand and get behind. Where the fuck does she come by this reputation for competence? And why do you think Murdock is supporting her? She's a goddamned wolf in sheep's clothing is why. She is not going to get us out of Iraq--she owe's AIPAC to much to do that. She will keep us in Iraq to protect Israel, period. Ally though Israel is, it's not enough reason to stay in that quagmire.

I won't vote for her. but I'm beginning to see the logic of the Republicans' support, weak though it might be, for Giuliani, a "liberal" Repuglican. Very Rovian of them.

Here's why I don't believe Hillary Clinton should be president: she has no real vision for this nation. During her six years in the Senate, she has not proposed one stinking bill that hints at a broad, progressive agenda, and has pandered to the right wing over nonsensical issues such as flag burning. While she has been a great senator for New York state, she has not demonstrated a real propensity to lead, re: her vote on Iraq. I also believe the only reason she wants to be president is...to be president.

That's not good. Frankly, Gore probably wanted to be president for the sake of it...but now, I think if he ran, he would show a real vision for this nation for the 21st century.

But beyond that, I'm leaning towards either Edwards or Biden -- both of them really did a fantastic job in Monday's debate.

Here's the funny thing about Hilary winning--Bill would then ascend the Cheney throne, and gain all that Executive power Cheney has been amassing...

Now *that's* a prospect that will keep wingnuts up at night!

After Cheney's dictatorship, (Bush is irrelevant), ANYONE would be a 1000% improvement. My dog, who's been dead for 14 years would be far better....

I think the GOP heirarchy would love to run against Hillary or Obama. Their problem is that their list of candiates is horrid. Obama would guarantee their "base" would turn out in huge numbers regardless of their disappointment with Bush. Ditto for the Hated Clinton Name. If Hillary is nominated, and at this point would seem a shoe-in (making Steve's announcement more a bandwagon hop than a leap of faith) her running mate will be the key to getting the Independent vote needed to outpoint the hate-filled GOP. A White Guy like Edwards would inspire far less hate vote on the right, but also likely far less votes period (reading the latest polls). As you can tell, I'm much less enthusiastic about the Dem choices than many. But for me, it will be the total Ticket that give the Dems the presidency. Who could Hillary run with that would add strength among Indys? Feingold?

It won't be Feingold...no freaking way. She hates Feingold.

I could see Richardson, a western congressman, an Hispanic, etc...

Edwards for Attorney General, (or Fitz...)

As Bill Maher and many others have said, an Edwards/Obama ticket is unbeatable.

And it is.

It seems to me that Steve is making his selection from a place of fear. That is no way to choose, man.

Regarding poll numbers: Most people, even in Iowa, are really not tuned in yet, or have tuned out until the contests draw closer. Most are "soft" in their "support."

Things are probably, if history is any indicator, going to change quite a bit over the next several months.

My judgement on the 2002 Authorization resoultion was that preemptive war was not justified, and given the experience the Soviets had in Afghanistan (1979-89), I feared getting into a quagmire in that part of the world. So, Hillary's support for the resolution has been problematic for me. One has to factor in the fact that Hillary is a Senator from New York, a prime target in the 911 attack. On the one hand, what did we expect her to do? Her current statements on the war are appropriate and satisfactory. She is the best choice of a strong Democratic field. Good points Steve!

But the question of whether he was preening is a side point.

Actually, the word "preening" was my main point. It's reminiscent of what Greenwald and Digby have been writing about recently re: the Gore-ing of Edwards. You know, the hair thing? However you feel about Edwards' credentials, which God of War ably addresses, the use of right wing, and by extension, the punditry's terminology is galling. I was pointing out how effective the smear campaign is when those on our side are using the same loaded words.

A realistic choice Steve.

I'm just wondering how strong the underlying national desire for "new blood" runs. If Hillary gets the nomination, I'll vote for her...just like I've voted for Kerry, Mondale, etc...holding my nose. If the new blood meme is stronger than we currently think, then Obama or Edwards would have my vote.

Coyote, if you're going to viciously attack me for saying I don't like your candidate, and giving reasons, I don't see any point talking with you.
I didn't care for Edwards' debate performance when I saw it in 2004, for the reasons I gave. He was not aggressive enough, in my opinion. I don't recall the post-debate polling, but my recollection is that it wasn't lopsided in one direction. If you want to discuss polling, I'd like to see some polling which shows that Edwards won votes for Kerry. I didn't see any evidence of that.
Look, I LIKE Edwards, and I like some of things he says, but I don't like his track record in the Senate, and I think he was a failure as a running mate in 2004. Shouldn't I be anxious about having him as a nominee?

I could never vote for Hillary Clinton. She is, no doubt, another corporate and AIPAC toadie. Isn't it obvous that she is the choice of the corporate media? She is just another piece of the matrix, a false choice for change.

She wants to continue the militarization of the Middle East. There is nothing from her about leaving Iraq, just redeploynment of combat brigades. She supports the stealing of Iraqi resources to the advantage of US multinational corporations under the guise of "protecting US national security interests."

It will be more of the same with Hillary, if she can get elected in a general election.

Maybe I'm just in the habit of supporting losers, but I'm with Ron Paul, the only constitutionalist in the race.

Ya'll saw the debates, did you see any other President up there besides Hillary? I respect all of them for various reasons, but honestly when I look at Edwards, I just don't see a President. He's a good man, I value his service, believe in some of his ideas, but he just doesn't seem to have the bearing of a President.

Barack Obama has all the charisma, charm and good looks of a modern day JFK, but he seems to lack substance. I don't know what he stands for. When, if ever, has he had to make a vote on something of real substance? It seems to me he needs more seasoning. All in all, a good man, albeit one who seems a bit unfinished.

I daresay there has never in the history of this nation been anyone more investigated than HRC, except, perhaps her husband. At some point she will begin to elicit sympathy from the American people when the Republican attack machine goes into high gear. Do not buy the hype the Republicans want her to win the nomination, it is a nightmare scenario. It seems to me that HRC is certainly a uniter of Left wing wackos and Right Wing nut jobs, each, for different reasons full of unjustified hatred.

Is she my first choice? No, but Gore will not run.

Her AUMF vote was a tragedy, but Kerry voted for it also, and I voted for him. It's important to remember that a Democratic senate approved the AUMF. Hey I aint proud of it either, but it happened.

Way to go Steve. It seems we both arrive at the same conclusion.

The "God of War" needs to chill out. I am a Biden supporter (as well as a degreed political scientist), but I see a very easy road to victory for Sen. Clinton. Currently, she polls ahead of all Republican and Democratic candidates. This is remarkable at this early stage in the campaign and given the likelihood that her opponents' negatives are only going to rise as people get to know them more. Before people lash out at Hillary, they have to realize that she has the largest base of support of any candidate. There's a reason for that, and it doesn't come from that fact that she's married to Bill or the mere fact that she's well-known. People often ask would she be where she is if Bill hadn't been president. It's becoming increasingly obvious that Bill would not have been president -- nor as successful at it -- if it weren't for her.

Viciously attack, Marky? How does pointing out that the terminology you used was the same as that used by the people doing a smear campaign constitute viciousness? I'm sorry to upset you, it's a topic that interests me greatly; not because it's Edwards, per se, but because it's a tactic that all Dems need to be aware of. I'll try to find you the links to the discussions by Glenn and Digby, if you'd like.

The "God of War" needs to chill out.

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the name then? Just asking! *ducks* Boy, tough crowd today, huh?

GoW:

As a degreed political scientist, I can assure you that the GOP prays for a Hillary nomination. Her vaunted "rapid response team" will do nothing to allay the ill feelings Hillary engenders amongst moderate independents. People don't like the woman, and it's visceral. She'll barely eek out a victory in 2008, if she does at all, that ought to be a landslide.

In fact, the RRT she has gathered has shown little actual response on intense attacks - simply, there haven't been any yet. We don't know that Her, Obama's, Edwards' or even Gravel's response team is effective in a full-on campaign, primary or general. The same team that surrounded Kerry and promised to talk a positive game while effectively beating back attack had exactly the same promise in 2004. (though not the same players)

Given Steve's analysis, which can't be faulted too badly from the last campaign, I concede he's got a good case. HOWEVER - On the ground, here in Iowa, the emotions and politics aren't identical to 2004. In August of 2004, Dean was on the rise and continued until the holidays pre-caucus. There was a fantastic popularity in his support which was unheralded before in previous caucuses, but no one could accurately gauge it's solidity. And his financing was scaring the crap out of both state and national players. But when he collapsed, there was a bevy of candidates ready to pounce.

2008 doesn't have that same feeling. Hillary's numbers will probably go up to an approximation of national numbers, but I'm confident the Edwards' support is solid enough to weather gaffes and bandwagoning to whittle his support to hers. His people have been waiting 4 years for this and his support has been exceptionally solid throughout. I'm not sure if Hill's support will be hard or soft, and if it will draw from Obama (who's local campaign makes me think of Dean's arrogant staff). If anyone has a potential for a Dean-fall, its Obama. I'm not sure how it would happen; Obama is much less likely personally to have a character collapse, but I suspect his campaign will have a collapse around racial issues.

I think its obvious that Hillary is the favorite of political insiders - Yepsen at the Register basically trumpeted it yesterday in his column wrap-up of the CNN\YouTube debate. Hillary is poised to jump to the lead when one of the other candidates makes a terminal mistake. In this, the race looks reasonably similar to 2004.

Right now I'd call it either Hillary-Edwards or Edwards-Hillary with a margin of 3% either way, both in the mid-20's, Obama 3rd just ahead of Richardson 4th in high single numbers, and then the rest.

That's my prediction - not my support. Which Steve seems to have confused for himself.

Hillary! The best republi-con lite the corporations can give us. I was no fan of Bill Clinton, but voted for him. I am no fan of Hillary and I will not vote for her. I hope a good Independent comes along if she gets the nod.

The AUMF aside, Hillary has shown time and time again that she is concerned with one group of Americans and that group ain't us. Bancruptcy reform? She was against it during Bill's tenure yet for it once she could get some money from the corporations to support it. Healthcare reform? She has always supported super-corporate control over healthcare, her reported healthcare plan is so vague as to look republi-con (and it IS republi-con because she is no diffrent than a republi-con).

Hillary is a prescription for more of what you have right now. She is a voice for the oligarchs, not you.

Thanks Steve for this one. HC does seem to have built quite a machine with many thanks to her husband. She's going to be be formidable to campaign against. The gender will limit the lines of attack somewhat. She's going to be a great candidate for President. My wonder, Bill Clinton in 1991 was off the radar. In 1992 he developed momentum to victory in November. Why is it so important to pick your guy this early? Has things changed that dramatically since 1991? Is the money race that important over message? Isn't it a shame how message matters less now.

As far as Iowa goes, the acceleration of the primary season sure dilutes Iowa's effectiveness in determining a candidate. February 5 is the crucial date and she wins CA, NY, and Fl. The rest of the field gets dropped as also rans fairly quickly. Problem seem to be that your candidate is exposed an awful long time waiting for the DNC to happen. This frontloading of primaries will mean a lot of direct campaigning against the GOP opponent before the DNC. This will be new to some.

Hey Steve, again thanks for this one. Great choice for me. I believe it guarantees a Rudi Guliani Presidency which is what I want. We all longed for that confrontation back in 2000, but Rudi's health got in the way. Good for the country needed him there for September 11th. Just remember, your side will be the insiders here. Rudi's coming from outside DC. And he's already put your side on the defensive and will keep it there along the way.

Given the choice, Americans would like to have Bill Clinton president. That is the best thing Hillary has going for her. Absent that, does anyone think she'd be a front-running presidential candidate? Quick answer: no, she would not.
Bill had a 61% approval rating AFTER impeachment! Everyone wants Bill back, and this is the only way, due to the Constitution. Now, of course the Constitution has been taking a beating the last few years and it may not even exist by the 2008 election, but if it does, Dems will vote for Billary, and GOPers will demand a re-opening of Whitewater and the Foster murder case.

I believe it guarantees a Rudi Guliani Presidency which is what I want.

He certainly would be able to assemble a "crack" team!

Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton?, Clinton?

That's why I can't vote for Hillary. I just won't pull that trigger. I won't accede to a ruling aristocracy.

SoS, funny!

my goodness God of War....whats with this quote:"As Bill Maher and many others have said, an Edwards/Obama ticket is unbeatable." What!?...Is this the kind of insider knowledge we can get from a "credentialed political scientist"?....a ridiculous statement from a tv comic?...like Obama will dropout to join Edwards.....right....d

Ive worked for two decades in natl dem politics. once in the 90s i spoke at the assoc of pol scientists (or whatever) convention...It amazed me - these people knew NOTHING about real american day to day - door to door politics....nothing...as to Westin, his political work is veryyyyy flawed...but Im sure sounds good to amateurs and professors alike.

Hillary will be our nominee...book it.

Good choice Steve - Hillary IS the best candidate.

We know we have little to do with the shaping of the presidential race or the winnowing of candidates. These months, in fact, we are mostly a captive audience to the media primary -- and its finger-to-the wind "conventional wisdom."

If the media had granted viability to the Edwards campaign for its strength in Iowa, they are now moving in for the kill. The new meme, launched in this trap-laying article in last week's NYT is that, well:

"If Edwards doesn't do well here, he's dead, completely dead," said Dennis J. Goldford, a professor of political science at Drake University in Des Moines. "He can't survive a second or third place showing here.

Do you ever wonder exactly how the MSM lays these bricks? Well, in Example A, we have the designated Ph.D. bumping up "doing well" to "must win" in one mad, bar-raising sentence. (And if we subconsciously absorb this, doesn't that demonstrate how it's the constant slow drip of media-propagated "conventional wisdom" which makes it true?)

Which brings us to the curious photo that illustrated the write up, craftily titled: "A Candidate Tends His Field of Dreams."

What kind of story is the picture painting --especially in light of the words? How about this: John Edwards, the guy posing as the quixotic visionary, has got to be dreaming if he thinks he has any chance anymore. Clinton -- just coming into focus now in Iowa -- is showing up big, closing in, and she'd going to take him from behind.

Obvious, right?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shaw/reading-the-pictures-em_b_57731.html

"But Hillary Clinton will have my support in 2008." -(Steve Soto)

-"One should not act or speak as if he were asleep."

-(Heraclitus, Fragment #14)

You cannot step twice into the same river, for other waters are continually flowing on...

Your endorsement of Hillary disappoints me, Steve. You have seen the future, I guess; and the safest choice is the globalist, corporatist, military future, where the whole planet is our nation's battlefield. Clinton, the Clintons, are like a stake in the heart of our party. You can be sure that if the rank and file democrats are on board for Hillary, the party will just bend over for the same kind of corporate offering from now on.

I seems to me that in supporting Hillary, you are setting aside the importance of getting the military under control, ending the war, and demobilizing the perpetual war machine. What about the trends of consolidation of media?-- the monster of NAFTA?--the early anti-terrorist laws and twenty years of furious prison building? When did the country start down this path?

None of this surprises me. The Clintons are like republicans where the global economy and America's war economy are concerned. I never thought you would be willing to approve of the path of least resistance toward the "vital interests" agenda. The corpses will continue to pile up under such an administration. Our Senate leader on Face the Nation this last Sunday, claimed that we're good to go, to bomb Pakistan, since there's where you find the kind of evil we ought to stamp out.

Peace fundamentally depends on justice and atoning for crimes against humanity. What will we get with Hillary Clinton but another White House wired for death? There has to be better leadership than this.

Steve, if you used the "same criteria" you used in 2003, wouldn't it appear to you that there is a problem? Your criteria didn't work then, why should it work now? If people had stuck up for Howard Dean when he was being attacked by the MSM before the Iowa Primary instead of bailing because they thought Kerry was more "electable," we might not be in the fix we are in.

It is true, a lot of people thought as you did then. I have come to believe, however, that those in power really give us no choices (that is, they know absolutely how to manipulate us into doing what they want using advertising techniques and propaganda). If there is a populist candidate (like Edwards is now), they give him negative press until they convince people that he's not "electable." Then they "pick" for us either the candidate the corporations want or the candidate the Rethugs think is most beatable. This certainly describes Kerry in 2003. Before he so "miraculously" (with a big boost from the MSM - and the other Dems --ie.., the Howard Dean scream nonsense) won in Iowa, people talked about what a bad campaigner he was. Dean was being badmouthed by the press because he excited people and was a populist. That is the LAST thing that will be allowed in this country by the corporations and the wealthy -- they may like Hillary because she is a good corporatist and she and Bill are responsible for the free trade miseries t!hat have been brought on this country since they promoted the Free Trade Agreement in the 90s. Certainly, they have her as "in" and will make sure she gets in --at least in the Dem primaries. It may also be that they think she's the easiest to beat. I have my suspicions that that is true. Their supporters are rabidly anti-Hillary and so are many other people, so they don't have so far to go to beat her. Edwards beats the Rethugs better than any Dem, including Hillary, in the polls -so they are going after him now. Unfortunately, my "reasoning" tells me that we have very little choice in the matter of who gets nominated and who becomes President in this country anymore.

I've always had a lot of respect for you and read your site a lot , but providing as a reason for your decision to support
Hillary that you are using the same criteria hat spectacularly failed the last time you used it, doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

There has been many great points discussed on this subject. I'll make mine short. I tend to favor John Edwards. Everyone knows my stance. I will not vote for 28 years of two family rule. Roy Batty is right. Many of us want "new blood." I am also not convinced that Hillary can win.

Interesting you should say that, Derridog. I was told recently by a Republican neighbor that there was a campaign by them to infest Dem caucuses here in Iowa in order to vote for the candidate they had determined would be most likely to lose--Kerry, in this case. I will have to quizz him a bit more about this.

I will say that Dean lost in Iowa, in part, because of Joe Trippi's ads. They were horrible.

Peter,
You're supporting the pathetic pygmies aren't you? Thought so. Really, don't think your judgement is very good.

Run along. I hear Sonny calling for you. He wants you to start handing over your paycheck to the millionaires who want to develop Jekyll Island! LOL!

I've said all along that I wouldn't wish the presidency in 2009 to any Democrat. The country is poised to spiral downward in a NY minute and whoever occupies the WH will take the fall for 8 years of larceny.
That said, the plus I see in Hillary are (remember "vast right wing conspiracy" ??) - she knows where the bodies are and that scares the pants and skirts off of the Party of Hate.

Is there any indication who Howard Dean likes?
I know he won't endorse any candidate, but maybe there are clues?
Iamcoyote, you're right that I overreacted, but keep in mind that I like Edwards, and I wish I could be confident in him, but I'm not---and that predates the haircut nonsense. One reason in particular I'm leery of Edwards is that I don't see that he was effective at all in 2004 as Kerry's running mate. You can say he did well in the debate with Cheney, but I thought Edwards was not quick on his feet. He had more than one opportunity to show Cheney was lying, but didn't take even one. Do you think that having Edwards as VP benefited Kerry? Is there any polling to back this up?

After the last eight years of disappointment and a brand of policymaking that rejects science and evidence-based decision-making, I am ready to inaugurate a president who can start making positive change — decisively and effectively — from her first day in office. Senator Clinton understands our hunger for restoring the country’s standing in the world, for restoring our confidence in our own government, and for restoring our government’s commitment to social justice.

If you're interested in joining a grassroots effort to build's Hillary base among young professionals, visit Young Lawyers For Hillary!

I think the experience HRC has with the VRWC shouldn't be underestimated. We saw how poorly John Kerry, a veteran of decades in politics, did against right wing smear tactics in 2004. If he had been elected, you can bet there would have been calls for a Congressional Inquiry into his service record, with hints of impeachment of anything was amiss.
And that would have been his honeymoon!
HRC won't be fazed by the vile tactics of the GOP, and will be able to get to business right away.
I can't say that I'm confident that Biden, Richardson or Edwards are ready for full VRWC treatment. Obama looks almost eager to take them on, to me, and I think he would do fine.

Marky, not a problem! This has been such a great thread/discussion, I was hoping not to get bogged down with vitriol between allies.

I don't think Howard Dean is allowed to endorse anyone but the Democratic Party. His job is to promote and organize the Party, from what I understand, not any one person.

As far as the Edward/Cheney debate, I was disappointed as well. But I think he was playing by the rules Kerry dictated (as advised by stupid, stupid consultants), which was to run a non-negative campaign to offset the vitriol from the right. As we and (thank goodness) they now know, that was the wrong tack - they should have hit back hard. It may not have done a whole lot of good, because the GOP had still convinced the public that they were the protectors, but at least we wouldn't have felt so demoralized by Kerry's total capitulation of the narrative.

I think Edwards can do much better now that he's announced he's taking off the gloves - both Obama and Hillary have decided it's better to fight back quick and hard, too. Good sign, I think, for our candidates as a whole.

While I'll vote for whoever the Dem candidate is, I like Edwards for a number of reasons. In our celebrity-obsessed culture, I think his good looks are a boon, which is why I believe the GOP is trying so hard to make it a detriment by feminizing him for them with the haircut crap, and Breck Girl, and I Feel Pretty memes. On just looks, people tend to judge a pleasant face as positive and an ugly one as negative. Prolly why Mittster is polling so well right now. Put Edwards up against the hideous Thompson or cadaverous Guiliani, and the politically ignorant will choose John every time. As much as I'd like a woman president, and I think Hillary could do a fair job, I'd rather not have another Clinton in office. I like Edwards' spotlight of poverty as well. I think a lot of poor people don't vote at all because they don't hear anyone discussing their issues; I believe that's another reason why the GOP is so scared of him they're going full guns against him in particular right now. I think Edwards can handle it, if the "Hair" video was any indication. And Elizabeth is fantastic! I've seen her at town hall meetings, and she totally connects with the crowd.

Anyhow, I don't think he can be ruled out right now, I think he is electable - I feel like we're being railroaded by the press and pundits to believe it's just between Hillary and Obama. We'll see what happens, won't we?

What makes Hillary have such high numbers in the polls is the high number of low income women voters who support her. Both Edwards and Obama both offer a better overall economic plan for low income people, but many of these women are likely to vote symbolicaly for the one leading Democrat whose past priorities are corporate enough for 'the system'.

If either Edwards or Obama can reach through the vicarious sense of achievement such women feel in Hillary's run, it will make a difference. The one who does this effectively can beat the Clinton machine for the good government progressives who oppose Hillary for the above reason will rally to that candidate.

IAC,
I was going to mention that Edwards was probably a poor choice of running mate for Kerry, and that may have harmed his 2004 showing in a way that wasn't a reflection of his skills.

I really think he needs to show more aggression to succeed. A good looking man who displays a lot of fighting spirit makes a great candidate, but without that extra kick, I think the "pretty boy" charge will continue to have some sting.
On the other hand, he has this amazing ability to upend the conventional wisdom with a few words, in a way that is so understated it may succeed more than bombast. Besides the obvious example of Edwards bucking the "War on terror" terminology, there was the speech a few weeks ago where he said Americans should be able to feel patriotic about something besides going to war. That was a powerful message. Edwards and Obama are the two candidates who are trying to change the message of the party, but I think Edwards is the more inspiring of the two so far. If Obama would quit the unity talk I'd find him more interesting.

I still don't understand why I should support Obama, if I don't like Hillary. I don't find his call to move above partisan politics compelling, and he's not being effective on the war front (not that anyone is) so I won't give him credit for wanting to bring the troops home. As a Senator, he has the ability to make an impression now, not just promise right action later.

Marky, good points! I'm not all that enamoured of Obama, either; I think he's still green, and I get the impression that he's going for the appearance of being a good orator as opposed to actually being one.

You're right that the pretty boy meme is catching hold, how could it not, considering how hard it's being pushed? I think Digby did a search on the number of "haircut" articles there are out there, and it was almost as many as there were "Gore invented the internet." It's a concerted effort to neutralize him early in the race, and you're right, it is effective. But I don't think he's a winner just because of his looks, of course. The points you mentioned like dumping the War on Terror garbage, just changing the narrative, really are spot on! It's going to be an interesting next few months, that's for sure.

IAC,
I would like to see Edwards hone his chops by laying into some of the GOP frontrunners with some dripping ridicule. Imagine if Edwards could get press with some good putdowns of Rudy or Mitt, he could help himself, and help the Democratic field as a whole. This is one way he could fight the pretty boy image, IMO---and my god the Republican field is ripe for ridicule. I've never seen such a bunch of jokers in my life. They would all be 4th tier candidates in any previous year----McCain being so old and pathetic today that you can't compare him with McCain of 2000.

IAC, I think Obama has an enormous ego which is not quite hitched to his intellect in the most useful fashion. It's absolutely appropriate and necessary that a Presidential candidate have a large personal ego, but I want someone whose drive towards ego fulfillment doesn't seem oriented to short term goals, which is how I see Obama. Clinton is someone who, for all his faults, was able to direct his ego gratification towards legacy building quite well, in my opinion.

Anyone catch that Edwards "Hair, effective campaign video", freakin' great.
I got it at my site if anyone has missed it.
(Sorry for the blogwhoring)

late to the party. Too late to join the party but...

Hillary is just another corporatist. Will only support her (reluctantly) if she wins nomination.

Blogwhore away, SoS! That's the video I was talking about.

You're right, Marky, a side by side with the Mittster, whose hair is almost exactly like Edwards', except more helmet-like, would be hilarious. If there's a clip of Mitt primping before a tv appearance, it would be brilliant!

"I feel like we're being railroaded by the press and pundits to believe it's just between Hillary and Obama."

Iamcoyote, the reason it feels that way, is because it is that way. It's as though the press and pundits have already decided HRC will be the candidate and it's all over except for her endorsement by the Democratic Party.

We need to get smart and fast. This is the election that we cannot be wrong on, and we cannot afford for pundits or the press to decide for us through manipulation. This is the election that will either stop the downhill spiral into Fascism or it will aid in its entrenchment.

Ten thousand people are here in St. Louis this week for the Urban League Annual Convention. Democratic candidate will also be here to speak at the Urban League. The Republicans will not, by choice

Like it or not, the GOP has a major race problem. It is a problem of perception and not actual racism: many, if not most, black Americans see the GOP as just a bunch of rich white guys who don’t give a flip about blacks or their problems. Saying “it isn’t true!” doesn’t mean squat when you don’t show people something isn’t true. The only way to change such a perception is face to face.

Refusing to come to this moderate national organization’s annual conference—for whatever reason—only reinforces a stereotype that the GOP doesn’t care about blacks and that it doesn’t need/want the black vote.

http://hangrightpolitics.com/2007/07/16/will-gop-candidates-skip-st-louis-urban-league-confab/

.

What's the deadline for declaring candidacy? I'll make a choice after that.

Judith, I thought you were already smart. That Democrats were already smart. Y'all need to get smarter???? OK

Iowa, gave you Kerry then voted for Bush. Who won South Carolina? Didn't they go for Bush too? Now New Hampshire did go for Kerry just barely. Why do y'all listen to these people so much? Next years primaries will change all that I'm sure. Superdooper Tuesday will have CA and NY in the same day. Who wins those two hands down....HC. Add Florida, NJ, MI, and any other state to her column and everybodies an also ran. The other NY'er will also benefit from this new primary season.

Always enjoyed the Breck 'girl' Judith. Great hair looks so youthful. Worth every penny, too.

Thanks again Steve, this was like pitching a slow one right over the plate.

May I just say, as a Hillary supporter, that I'm very impressed by this endorsement -- very classy -- and also with most of the comments here.

I believe any Democrat will beat any Republican, and I will proudly support any Democrat. I don't mind having lively discussions among ourselves, and I don't even mind if Hillary doesn't win.

And I REALLY don't mind if she picks Obama VP and then Edwards AG and E. Edwards to the SC.
Et cetera. :)

But please don't say stuff like voters in a democracy can't vote for someone named Clinton because there's already been one (damn good President named) Clinton and two (jackasses named) Bush.
Or that Sean Hannity is going to call her really, really disgusting names. (The last one is actually one of the reasons I support her. Who he doesn't like isn't going to rule my life.)

There's no concern as our candidates try to distinquish themselves. No one's been dirty. No one's come close to "Max Cleland" filthy, like the GOP.

I thought Obama's diplomacy answer was great. Then I thought her answer was great. Then I thought Edwards' answer was great. And they all had a further chance to explain how different we ALL are from Bush and his Loyal Bushies in the days since.

I had a friend killed aboard the USS Cole and I was one of only 18-19% against the war in Iraq in those days. The numbers are nearly the mirror opposite as we speak today.
Let's not hold it against anyone for falling for Bush's bs, just because we (for whatever reasons) were right.
We already won that round by working our asses off for Doctor Dean.

Anyway, nice endorsement. I'm going to print it and pass it around my neighborhood. Thanks.

Gee, after months of drinking her bathwater and writing glowing prose about her, TLC endorses the sorority girl. Wow, what a progressive(?)suprise.

I think that your early endorsement of Sen. Clinton, before a single primary vote is cast, puts you right in league with Col. McCormick and Randolph Hearst.

You have lost all credibility with me. I won't be clicking on this page any further to get what certainly amounts to Sen. Clinton's, AKA, First Mistress' propaganda, with a non-progressive DLC (Duping the Lower Classes) perspective.

BTW, I don't seem to recall a reply to my question about Sen. Clinton's campaign donations from the health care industry. Isn't she the single biggest reciepient of that industry's donations?

Hasn't she been the largest single recipient of health industry campaign donations since her failure(?) to craft a passable universal health care bill while First Mistress? Great experience?Yeah, what exactly do they expect to gain from all that cash? Honorable Mention?

What was missing from your endorsement was the word "INTEGRITY" in association with Sen. Clinton.
Gee, can't defend "INTEGRITY" so just don't mention it. Of course, her possible Republican rivals will mention it using 5ft. headlines in the MSM. Bill Clinton is a boat anchor, not an 11th hour savior.

I'm really saddened by your decision. I've always enjoyed and respected your blog since discovering it a year ago while looking for progressive websites. But, it's your blog,...so....See Ya..!!

PS...Say it ain't so..!! First Mistress? LOL..!!

In Sympathy,

Domino49

I like the way Hillary said she wouldn't meet with leaders of rogue nations. That is so completety different from the Mad King, idiot son of George. She's a great choice to follow this guy.

She'll have to establish her "tough" cred early, so hold on tight if she is elected.

If you're interested in joining a grassroots effort to build's Hillary base among young professionals, visit Young Lawyers For Hillary!

I am not going to ask it...no, no, no....aaarrrggghhh...

Any of you guys from Regent University?

Bad phidipides! Bad! Bad! Bad!

It'll be like those kids working for Pelosi who used to be around here. All the sparkle and big overwhite teeth you can stand, and every word out of their mouths a lie repeated from their candidate. They'll be like some cult where everyone has those blank eyes and a big smile, just spoting the rhetoric of someone else, drinking the koolaid. I'm so looking forward to this, NOT!

We've got at least three corporate imperial oil-nazis on the Dem. side in the race (Obama, Hiliary and Joe Biden), and about 9 corporate imperial oil-nazis on the GOP side (all except Rep. Ron Paul) in the race (along with, believe it or not, Dick "I see an opening in 2008" Cheney, waiting in the wings... Imperial America, with troops in over one hundred nations around the planet, spending more on war prep. that all the other nations of the world put together. Puke.

Always enjoyed the Breck 'girl' Judith. Great hair looks so youthful. Worth every penny, too.

Peter, I have always had great hair. Natural curly and thick, thick, thick. Lucky me.

Young Lawyers For Hillary! We're sunk! Lawyer's always go for Clinton. We know she'll be President now in this false nation of plastic Tupperware politics.

Fascism continues.

Let's hope she'll pick a human being as her Veep.

Does anyone out there in LC land honestly think she'll be an improvement over what we have bow?

Does anyone out there in LC land honestly think she'll be an improvement over what we have bow?

I'm in complete agreement with tempus:

After Cheney's dictatorship, (Bush is irrelevant), ANYONE would be a 1000% improvement. My dog, who's been dead for 14 years would be far better....
Posted by tempus at July 25, 2007 12:26 PM

Thank you Steve for supporting Hillary. She is the only authentic candidate. It seems the pack quality of the media anoints yet another flash in the pan so that the Dems will get the weakest candidate in the general election. Perhaps this is the reason Obama has all this cash and is not moving in the polls. Thank God the Dems see through this. A Hillary presidency will scare the be-jesus out of these fat cats. So watch the fur fly.

still waiting for al..

I think I'm coming around to the same view as Steve. Obama is just too soft for Presidential politics. I like a lot of what Edwards is saying, but if he can't even inspire Democratic voters as indicated by his poor showing in primary and national polls, then there's not much point in nominating him. I don't trust Hillary's foreign policy instincts, but I expect the mess Bush made will prevent her from getting too frisky and invading Iran or North Korea even if she wants to. I do know she and Bill are up to the task of battling the conservative smear machine in the general election. Unless Gore jumps in, I'll likely hold my nose and back Clinton.

It's so sad that the top democrat for president is a communist. You think you hate George Bush and what he's done? You have NO IDEA what you're in for if Miss Rodham is elected. Higher taxes, welfare state, illegal aliens becoming legal, no war on terrorism, censoring of alternate views, inflation, stock market weakening, etc, etc. Will Hillary ignore terrorism like her husband did? Just think that is Bill had killed Bin Laden instead of listening to Janet Reno, there would still be two towers in NYC!! I can't believe that America would be dumb enough to elect such a weak individual. I pray it doesn't happen

She is not anywhere in the neighborhood of Progressive. She will not get my vote.

If Hillary gets the nod, I may just have to vote Republican.

Hillary Clinton is the sole candidate running today who has the role of President running through her blood. John Edwards, though strong on domestic issues, does not have the potential to be a great influence around the world. Barack Obama is becoming more of an embarrassment to the party than anything else.

Good choice Steve; and I know it wasn't easy for you to make it.