You have a strange idea of timid. Kucinich boldly stood alone in seeking impeachment, and he defended his position very well I thought. He was also the only one wouldn't keep using the term 'global war on terror", and again he was able to articulate a needed change in strategy. I was impressed enough to go to kucinich.us and make a donation. I don't care if major media, or even Mother Jones, has decided there are only three candidates.

Eric wrote: I don't care if major media, or even Mother Jones, has decided there are only three candidates.

Well said Eric. It bears repeating that there are 18 months to go until Election Day. IMHO, it's far too early to say who is a viable candidate or not. We might as well try to predict who will win the baseball World Series in 2008.

Dennis Kucinich is the only one with progressive ideas. The others are con artists.

Where are the two candidates who consistently outscore the rest when open polling takes place. Gore keeps saying he is not there, and would not show up if invited, but would easily be number one if he did.

Wes Clark also scores in the top three in open polling. People don't even talk about Gary Hart or Howard Dean, but I would prefer them to any of the eight as well.

If any of those four are at the top of the ticket I will get out and work at whatever I am capable to help them win, though I think they could win easily, if they kept being as real and straightforward as presently.

If not, I will vote for whatever Democrat, but not with enthusiasm and not any extra effort on their behalf. Bush is bad enough but the Democratic response to the challenge has been terrible.

Eric,
I wish I could have watched the debate with you! I watched it alone, and wondered why I had never paid much attention to Kucinich in the past. He and Gravel were the only two candidates who had the "balls" to speak the naked truth about the war and criminal acts of our "leaders".
I felt that Clinton and Obama
seemed too politically correct, and would "play along to get along" if elected.
I look forward to future debates and hope that more people will watch them, as opposed to watching "Idol".

I know it's really early, but is it possible that we might actually have a (reasonably) civilized Democratic Nomination battle? Next thing you know, I'll start believing that the "Big 3" will stay close enough to each other in the delegate count that we will actually witness the mythical "brokered convention".

I can dream, can't I?

Would anyone please explain why environmental concerns and global warming were an afterthought in this debate?

We have a very real potential to go extinct here. There is a high probability of global civilizational collapse.

All but one of these candidates are all embracing nuclear technology at a time when the fundamental problems with nukes are unsolved. Further, nuclear power takes way too long to come online to be useful in preventing us from crossing any of the 13 tipping points.

The only candidate against nukes is Edwards, and he's pro-coal. There is nothing worse than coal for causing global warming. There is no such thing as clean coal.

I would vote Gore again in a heartbeat over any of these candidates just due to this most important of issues. I'd really love to see him win again. I'd hope he'd be able to actually keep the office this time.

Still though, Obama has the best environmental record of the bunch and made only a weak statement about nuclear power. I temporarily went Edwards until I heard him endorse coal.

Kucinich and Gravel were the only two to show a path to the future where the world could be a place without war. _IF_ mankind survives, we'll see who the 'crazy ones' were, by way of the history books.

Neither has a chance: they are both unprofessional, but they both offer vision that none of the other candidates seem to even begin to grasp.

I tire quickly of these pundits with their summary judgments of who is 'crazy' and who is not.

Speaking as a non-Democrat, I think that Richardson would have the best chance of winning the presidency (if he somehow won the Democratic nomination). A few reasons why:

1. He is a governor, not a senator. Historically, governors have done much better than senators in presidential elections.

2. His fiscal conservatism and strong gun-rights stance would play well with the center and maybe snag him a few alienated conservatives' votes.

3. He doesn't have the high "negatives" that Clinton and Edwards draw in poll results, which again makes him a better candidate to snag the center/moderate/independent votes than Clinton or Edwards.

4. He would do well with Hispanic voters, many of whom went for Bush in the last two elections just because he spoke a little Spanish and payed some attention to them. Richardson, being half-Mexican and having lived in Mexico city as a child, would likely get big support from Hispanic voters.

5. He has tremendous foreign policy experience.

6. He doesn't have to be great at mobilizing the Democratic base because, let's face it, 8 years of Bush and two bitter election defeats will give the Democratic base plenty of motivation to turn out.

7. That whole "four time Nobel Peace Prize Nominee" thing can't hurt.

That's my two cents as an outsider looking in. I think he would beat the pants off any Republican candidate.

sort of a funny post. you complain that nothing happens and everyone was very PC, then you complain about Obama and Kucinich "bickering" about bombing people. So which is it anyway?
I for one would have liked to see a little more "bickering" about bombing people.

I was dumb enough to get caught up and watch the debates despite there being playoff basketball on. Despite the opinion of Mr. Stein, I thought I learned somethings about some of the non-front runner canidates. I was surprised about Biden- he seemed so on point that night- each answer was well spoken. I thought Obama was vague and choked a little- as marketable as he seems, he doesn't have much depth. I do think Richardson is a likely frontrunner- someone else mentioned some key points on him and I couldn't agree more. I don't see how Edwards is in the top three- he lives in a huge mansion yet somehow always talks about his poor mill worker daddy- if I had a dime for each time he said that. Hillary was assertive and very on point. I don't think she choked at all- you can tell she is seasoned. Her biggest issue seems to be her stupid southern twang impersonations she is doing- Hillary, if you are reading- shut up already. Kuchinich is in la-la land- he talks about concepts and nothing realistic. He would be way to soft on defense if he were elected. I would be scared with him in charge. Chris Dodd had some intelligent things to say but he is too no-name to be seriously considered. That is my spin on the debates. I'm not a huge Obama or Hillary fan. I'd like to see Biden and Richardson pull ahead in the polls. Richardson definitely has the depth in terms of diplomacy and seems Republican enough to get votes from the masses.