Democrats only-Who do you endorse?

[Senator Ben]

Richardson

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

Obama.

I like Edwards too but I'm not sure he has a shot at this point.

[Frodo]

The likely winner -Hillary Clinton.

Barack Obama undoubtably has a bright future ahead of him, but winning the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 is not likely to be a part of that.  I could be wrong, of course, but I fully expect Hillary Clinton to be our nominee by this time next year. 

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

The likely winner -Hillary Clinton.

Barack Obama undoubtably has a bright future ahead of him, but getting elected president in 2008 is not one of them. 

One of what?

[Smash255]

Obama.

I like Edwards too but I'm not sure he has a shot at this point.

[Nym90]

Edwards.

But I'll definitely support the Dem nominee in the general no matter who it is.

[RRB]

Edwards.

But I'll definitely support the Dem nominee in the general no matter who it is.

Same for me

[gorkay]

I haven't decided yet.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Edwards

[BushKenya]

Edwards

The other 4 in this order:

Richardson
Guiliani
Clinton
Obama

[Lief]

Edwards

Followed by:
2) Richardson
3) Dodd
4) Obama
5) Paul

I doubt I'll vote for Clinton in the general.

[Pictor Ignotus]

So Bloomberg really isn't running?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Obama

[MarkWarner08]

1. Chris Dodd (Carbon tax warms my heart; cools the planet)

2. Joe Biden (Yes, he's grandiloquent, but can't the same be said of the other 99 Senators?)

3. John Edwards (The Horatio Alger of the Democratic Presidential field: Did I mention he's the son of a mill worker? Seriously, his substantive stands on the issues deserve more attention from the media).

4. Barack Obama (Is it too audacious to hope that he can beat Hillary?)

5. Bill Richardson (A Southwestern Latino with foreign policy and executive experience, sounds perfect on paper. Alas, Richardson's frequent gaffes have overshadowed his impressive credentials, proving once again that elections aren't won in one dimension.)

6. Hillary Clinton (Her health care plan was a carefully devised attempt to solve a problem to irrevocably tied to her political legacy. No points for creativity: Her plan is nearly identical to that of her two top rivals.)

7. Dennis Kucinich (He's now being challenged by the  Mayor of Parma, the ninth most populated city in Ohio, and faces vocal opposition from the patron saint of the Democratic netroots, Paul Hackett. Time for this itinerant soul to head back home!).

8. Mike Gravel (I'll never forgive you for defeating the father of modern-day Alaska and one of the two Senators to oppose the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, Ernest Gruening.)

[gorkay]

One of the problems I'm having with deciding who to support is that some of the candidates who have the most to offer are the same ones who seem to have little, if any, chance to win the nomination. I could still support one of them, but what's the use? By the time I get to vote in my state's primary, they'll all be out of the race in all probability. It points to the fact that the selection process is terrible, and getting worse all the time... a classic case of how the indiscriminate, unthinking use of "democratic" process actually makes things less democratic. I mean, look at Biden: he has tons of experience and probably more policy knowledge than anyone else in the race. He's also the only one who has any ideas about Iraq that are concrete and sensible enough to call a "plan." Sure, he has flaws too, but no worse than some of the other candidates. But it doesn't look as if he has a chance in hell. The same goes for Richardson and Dodd: they are both highly qualified, serious candidates who deserve a lot more consideration, but they've been relegated to the back bench along with the risible likes of Gravel and Kucinich. Dodd, Biden, and Richardson probably each have more political and governmental experience than the top three candidates put together. But Clinton has a name, Edwards has bucks, and Obama has "charisma" (or so I'm told; I've seen little evidence of it myself). So it's going to be one of those three, each of whom leaves me cold.

At least I can console myself with the fact that the situation isn't any better for the Republicans. Of their three front-runners, one has never held statewide or national elective office, and the other two have a grand total of one term as governor of a mid-sized state and one term in the Senate during which he distinguished himself for nothing besides lazy work habits.

[Governor PiT]

Gravel

[CultureKing]

Richardson

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

Gravel

Democrats Only

[© Tweed the Younger]

voted Gravel.  probably will vote for either him or Kucinich in the NY primary barring a late Gore entry, of course.

[Platypus]

Richardson or Obama, but Obama is closer to me politically.

[NDN]

Richardson or Obama

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Richardson or Obama

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

voted Gravel.  probably will vote for either him or Kucinich in the NY primary barring a late Gore entry, of course.

You better not if its still competetive at the time!

[Ebowed]

Kucinich, but my "first-tier" choice is Obama.

[I left.]

Edwards