I'm not completely sold on the idea of a Democratic President in 2008. I want a Democratic House and Senate starting in 2006, but do we really need the Presidency?
The Congress can investigate all the things this administration has done and all the things the next administration might do. They can force the President - whoever it is - to be more open about Iraq and other areas that have been closed. They can do that with investigations, the budget or other measures.
The Presidency will always be associated with the war in Iraq. Not Congress. If the primaries in 2007/2008 lead to a Democrat who isn't offering anything sensible on Iraq, I don't see why we should support them.
I briefly saw Geraldine Ferraro on FOX and she said she had a soft spot for Hillary Clinton. When Cavuto said that "far left dems" wanted to withdraw from Iraq, Ferraro poo-pooed that and said those dems would fall in line behind Clinton in spite of her position on the war in Iraq.
I won't. Not without some more clarity on what exactly she'd do in Iraq. And the same applies to Gore, Clark and all the others. I'll do my bit to help Dems get elected to Congress, but I won't vote for just any Democrat for President.
To take America back we need Congress. Even with the Presidency, we need Congress. And with a good enough majority and good media skills we can make do with just Congress.
Thoughts?