I am a "number" person. When I want to know who placed second, I look at their score. What I see at
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3762588/ is:
DELEGATES WON TO DATE
Feb. 7 and 8 To date
Kerry 153 426
Dean 62 184
Edwards 6 116
Clark 0 82
Sharpton 7 12
Kucinich 0 2
Other 0 1
Gephardt 0 5
Lieberman 0 17
I thought that meant that Howard Dean was second behind Kerry, and in front of Edwards? So why would Bob Schieffer ask Dean why he is not dropping out, while Edwards is welcome as a possible contender who keeps the debate alive?
And why is everybody talking about Dean as if he had already been voted out? Even here!
He only has ~200 less delegates than Kerry. Okay, Kerry has momentum, but momentum can be lost! In particular, I would love to see Kerry answer Scott Ritter's questions.
Once again, being French and absolutely against this Iraq war, I remember my French friends who tried to make sense of the war, saying:
"Our intelligence does not support the war and the UN inspectors report does not seem to justify it either. Probably the Americans have some secret information that they cannot share and that prove to them without a doubt that the war is necessary. That must be why the Congress followed Bush in its vote for war"
And now, we know that they had nothing more! They saw exactly the same information we did. And we, old Europeans, knew better than to go to war! Bush and the congress had no justification for killing thousands of innocent people (who had already suffered enough because of Saddam and of sanctions), for destroying a whole country (in order to create a new market), and for damaging the UN credibility.
And Kerry and Edwards knew it as well as we (the rest of the world) and Howard Dean did. In my eyes, there is no way Kerry and Edwards can justify their vote in October 2002. They did not even try to stop an unjust war. They do not deserve to be president of the most powerful country on Earth.
I have to hope that more people will hear that fact before one of the senators gets more than 2000 delegates.