For me it always comes back to Edwards, none of the other candidates come close.  Here are my top 10 reasons for supporting him (in no particular order):

1.  He is out front and strongly prolabor.  He mentions the need to strengthen unions in every speech at every stop.  Bonior, a great friend of labor, is his campaign manager. Who a candidate surrounds him or herself with shows who they are.

2.  He is out front and strongly against corporate power.  He doesn't tiptoe around the issue by talking about how we have to tweak the rules, he calls it like it is.

[The system is] controlled by big corporations, the lobbyists they hire to protect their bottom line and the politicians who curry their favor and carry their water. And it's perpetuated by a media that too often fawns over the establishment, but fails to seriously cover the challenges we face or the solutions being proposed. This is the game of American politics and in this game, the interests of regular Americans don't stand a chance.

In 2000 the corporate media didn't widely report stories about Bush's past encounters with the law and drunken driving convictions.  Then they virtually ignored all of the evidence that he lied to get us into the Iraq War.  In other words, there is a long history of them giving Bush a free pass.

My question is: Will they give the next Republican Presidential candidate a pass as well?  For example, if Giuliani is the candidate will they fail to expose the fraud that is his role in 9/11?  Will they not report the stories of corruption?  If Huckabee is the candidate will his ethical lapses and religious wingnuttery be reported?

I've been arguing this with a friend of mine. I've been taking the position that the time for free passes is over.  My friend expects more of the same.  

In an excellent recent article in The Nation, William Greider laid out the views of Ralph Gomory, a former vice president of IBM, on how the US needs to radically change its' economic policies or the American people will watch their standard of living plummet.  http://www.thenation.com/...  The article outlines how multinationals will always try to maximize profit and how current U.S. trade policies mean that companies maximizing their profit costs U.S. workers jobs.  But, a change in policy can turn that around.  We just have to make it pay for them to keep good jobs in the U.S.  Make them pay, not by subsidizing them, but by making them follow laws that help U.S. workers.

Poor communities in the US don't have the doctors they need.  And many students who would practise in those areas can't get into medical school or can't afford to go there.  Cuba has stepped up to help.

The Baltimore Sun reports that Cuba is now training doctors for the US free of charge. http://www.baltimoresun.com/...  

Wyoming has the smallest population of any state.  509,294 as of July, 2005 (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html).  But, they have 2 Senate seats.  In 2006 the Republican won a Senate seat by 77,503 votes. If we can get 80,000 Democrats to move to Wyoming, we’ve got ourselves 2 more Senate seats! Retirees are already moving.  About 318,645 per year are moving to Florida alone.  We only need about a quarter of them in one year to move to Wyoming to make this happen.

I'm thinking of the retirees too.  They may own a house in an expensive urban area.  Moving to a less expensive place, like Wyoming, would allow them to cash in the equity of their house and live off of it.  It would be a good financial move.  Wyoming also boasts low taxes, great for the budgeting retiree.  http://www.newsweekshowcase.com/...  Also, there are some beautiful natural areas that anyone would love.

So let's start a progressive retirement community in Wyoming. Let's move the retiring hippies, anti-war activists and assorted Democratic boomers to Cheney's backyard and grab 2 more Senate seats.

Let's face it we have an embarrassment of riches on the Rupublican side.  Guiliani in drag with 3 marriages under his belt.  Romney the Mormon with a pro-choice past.  Gingrich, who is well known and hated.  McCain who is trying on new politics and still saying he is a man of integrity.  

People are looking for a leader to bring us out of the hell that has been the Bush years.  But, politicians don't lead, they follow. We must make them do the right thing.

The Congressional Democrats did not lead on their own.  Most of them cowered, until they knew public opinion had firmly turned against the current path, before speaking out.  With a few exceptions, such as Feingold,they wouldn't do anything until we organized, screamed, ran our own winning campaigns and made them listen.  

I look at the crop of Presidential candidates and don't expect any of them to lead us.  

Given that, some politicans are more prone to listen to us than others.  With Bush, there is no amount of force that would budge him.  With Kucinich all we would need to do is ask (but, no amount of effort could get him into the White House). For the other candidates my question is not who has the best positions on all of the issues, but, if they were in the White House how hard would we have to push them to do the right thing?

From Raw Story:  In 2002 the US released $95 million to North Korea so it could replace the Soviet era nuclear program.  Clinton had negotiated a requirement that that N. Korea allow inspectors to ensure that weapons-grade plutonium was not hidden.  But, Bush waived this requirement.

Original BBC news story at:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/...

So do you think the media will publicize this angle?  I'm not holding my breath.  But, this is a new climate, so who knows.

Rove's strategies brought the Republicans unprecedented successes.  But, now the weaknesses in his strategies are causing the Republicans' coalition to shatter.  

The National Organization for Women (NOW) has endorsed Kweisi Mfume for Senate in the Maryland Democratic primary.  

The Baltimore Sun reports "Women's rights are being challenged in every arena, from equal pay at work to the right to use contraception at home," Kim Gandy, the president of NOW, said in a statement distributed by the Mfume campaign. "We are endorsing Kweisi Mfume because he is a passionate, articulate and effective advocate for change, and this Congress is in desperate need of change." http://www.baltimoresun.com/...

Mfume has earned this endorsement with his stellar support for women and his ability to fight effectively for progressive causes.  NOW understands women issues and who stands with women.