Which Democratic Presidential Candidate Has Demonstrated Most Commitment to Liberal Issues?

good chart francis, but it won't convince those who refuse to see things that clearly. For instance, you will never be able to convince Bouldin that Edwards is less experienced/qualified, or certainly not more experienced, than Barack Obama. Something just tells Bouldin that Barack is not ready. And of course Hillary could be the most qualified candidate in history to ever run for president and he still wouldn't support her. Good chart though.

I don't think experience is necessarily the biggest factor this year anyway. Because most democrats now realize that we need the candidate who can be the best messenger. We don't need Kerry or Dukakis, eminently qualified, more qualified than other candidates, but not the best messengers. Obama has experience relative to or better than Edwards, and he is a far better speaker, far more charismatic, and far more capable of leading a campaign that is also a movement. Hillary is a fine speaker and has huge stature not just in this country but worldwide. And she has Bill Clinton right next to her. Edwards cannot measure up to them. He is a midget next to them. Has good ideas though. Hillary and Obama should co-opt some of them, and they have.

The HillaryBots have finally found each other. I'm touched. Allow me to make the introductions.

Francis, Wallner is widely known as New York's stupidest blogger; other bloggers exchange emails lamenting his stupidity. He's also well known for being an opponent of black representation in Congress, affirmative action, and other concepts of that nature; that's how we "met".

Wallner, Francis, just like you, is such a complete douchebag, so bereft of good manners and reasonable discourse, that just like you he keeps on getting kicked off of blogs. Particularly charming is his assumption that anyone who's not on board with Senator PanderBot must be a white supremacist; oddly enough, many people don't like to start conversations on that premise. Francis remains startled that he seems not to be making any friends with that argument; no converts, either, but that's another story.

And of course, both of you have absolutely no idea how to behave online, a particular fondness for rightwing talking points, a martyr's complex, and the crown jewel, the obstinate belief that anyone who disagrees with you and your towering inaninity just can't stand hearing the bold truths you feel compelled to share.

Astonishingly, both of you, without much in the way of supporting evidence for this outlandish conclusion, have an absolutely mystifying belief in your own relevance. One day, perhaps soon, both of you will look into the metaphorical chasm that is the idea that maybe, just maybe, nobody gives a fuck what you think.

Alrighty. Carry on, HillaryBots. I'm loving the graph.

is some kind of vetted position now, for the resume? Huh.

Biased though it is, I like the presentation of data. Much better than some of what you have posted here. It focuses on the positive achievement of each candidate.

Doesn't change my opinion because I knew much of it already, but I like posts that advocate based on the positives rather than demean with right-wing style talking points.

see now bouldin is libeling me, but he only seems to care when he thinks HE is being libeled. I have never said even once that I am opposed to black representation in congress. That is a lie, a libel, and bouldin you should zap your own post. I simply did not think that David Yassky should be considered more on his race than on his merits, which is what you do if you disqualify one based on his skin color. Also I never said I oppose affirmative action, that is another lie. I said that affirmative action is not perfect. It was not some moral code sent down by the gods, it was part of legislation passed by imperfect politicians who could not possibly have anticipated all the consequences. Some parts of affirmative action have been very good. I was opposed to Michigan's recent referendum to ban affirmative action and I said so on here. Daily Gotham is also the only board I have ever been banned before, and I didn't agree with the reasons. Also a moderator who libels people and calls other posters "douchebags" is not one who should be lecturing on proper behaviour or etiquette

I request that the moderators delete bouldin's previous post, as he has explicitly violated the rules of this board by libeling and outright lying about me. Or is it only when the mods are libeled that it even matters?

Mole, he just recently deleted two of my posts on the libelous accusation that I called him a racist, which I absolutely did not. This is a matter of consistency in *blog* policy. Do the same rules of this blog apply to the administrators of this board as they do to the users? Michael Bouldin made factual claims about me in his first post in this item that are lies, that he cannot back up. They are libel, and so I have requested the item be removed just as he removed the text of my original responses in the item about the Edwards meeting. Also, you are the managing editor, you have taken that responsibility, so if you tell me to take it up with Liza does that mean you have resigned the position? If not, I'd suggest you wield your responsibility and attempt to enforce a uniform code of conduct around here that applies to everyone, you, me, bouldin, all other users, everyone. You cannot have credibility telling other users not to call people profane names (douchebag?) and not to libel other people, if you will not enforce such rules universally.

See original post about Democratic candidates. I wonder if any of you saw the live presentation from UNLV, sponsored by SEIU, on the 24th. It was about universal health care. It would be interesting to compare presentations, if you did.