This is my first post, so please excuse me if I do not adhere to any posting protocols, (I am sure you will let me know)
I must agree with Kos on this issue: Senators just get attached to the lead weight anchors of thier votes, and are too easily drowned by them.
This is exactly why Obama, (as much as I would personally love for him to get the nomination) and any other current US senator, doesn't stand a chance in the post-primary race, and a good reason why no US senator has been elected pres. since Kennedy. At least former senators, (READ: Edwards) can back away and apologize for thier votes, but not current senators, who are caught firmly in the "support for our troops" quicksand.
So, yes, Obama has been against the war from the beginning as a state senator--but the fact is, this is not where it counts. NOW is where it counts. This statement is like telling a sociopathic murderer "I wish you would stop killing people, but if you can't, then, we understand."
Lets be clear what we're talking about here: the continued murder of both Iraqis and US troops. Just because it's war doesn't mean it's not murder.
I often read on this site about a candidate's electability, and I see honest and thoughtful debates about on this topic. It is unfortunate that senators will inevitably be trapped by trying to explain nuanced votes on complicated legislation, (which requires both more complex language more concentration than reading bumper sticker mottos) but THEY WILL BE SO TRAPPED TIME AND TIME AGAIN.
Therefore, in order to win, a viable candidate must be a governor, or former member of congress, who either never had to vote on these complicated issues, or can apologize for making mistakes and move on without the issue coming up over and over again. This leaves us at a disadvantage: the Republicans have 2 to our 1, with the very distinct possibility of 3 to 1 (with the introduction of Thomson) or worse.
This community has the power to sway minds, which equates to swaying election outcomes. There can be no doubt that our republic is under attack from enemies both foreign and domestic. As such, the outcome of this next election could determine whether we, as a "free" nation, will survive.
What will it take to unite around a candidate who can win?
Edwards is the choice.