Oh wait, this is an Obama leaning site. Maybe you won't need your asbestos longjohns after all.

I caucused "Uncommitted" because:

Neither HRC nor BHO had much of a health plan until Edwards had one.

The war was a topic but it wasn't a front of the platform, in your face topic until Kucinich made it one by rightfully touting his anti war votes... Not just one vote against the start of the war, but voting against the funding again and again and again.... unlike either of the front runners.

My belief is that as soon as the "2nd tier" candidates along with their platform and stump speech points were gone, those topics' appearance in the political conversation disappeared too.

I did hear an echo of an Edwards talking point in Obama's speech on Friday in Seattle, but it wasn't more than a token mention of something that used to be a part of the debates because the points were brought up by the Edwards and the others were forced to respond.

Examples of coverage like Kucinich and his "I guess I'll ask myself a question" during one of the debates just so he could make a point and Edwards' "I think I represent the grown up wing of the Democratic party" shows that the media aren't interested in the REASONS we should elect someone to lead the free world [or what we can cajole into following us again], they are only interested in THEIR story... Black man vs white Woman - historic choices to be made....yadda yadda.

We must not lose sight of each candidate's stand on real life and death ISSUES that concern us intimately.
Things like:
Exactly WHAT is each one proposing to do to stem the recession and the housing bust & what do economists think about their plans? [anyone listening at MSNBC - Keith?? - chirp chirp]

Does anyone think that it would be a good thing to maybe drop some of the tax breaks that the oil companies enjoy along with their record quarterly profits? Maybe use the revenue to fund a replacement technology for petroleum? How do you propose to get that idea through the Congress Senator?

[Little, meaningless things like that]

Then there's Katrina reconstruction, Health care, oh and that thing that we used to hear about more often... something to do with sand and blood and - Oh yeah IRAQ[n].

When the current candidates had to come up with answers to other points of view, it was much more obvious about whether they had a clue or not about the topic [much less a plan of their own]. They were forced to address actual ISSUES that mattered. Now they can just "be themselves" and not do anything except repeat their stock talking points at various venues. What is NOT being talked about is at least as important as what is getting talked about.

[FISA anyone?] How's that filibuster going? If that got a few mentions in a few stump speeches and covered in the news, do you think it might cause some phone calls to be made to let the Senators who are on the fence or leaning towards immunity think twice about their vote? anyone hear any of that in the speeches lately?
< / rant >