Based on (1) their primary campaign and (2) your sense of their toughness,

[T Wolf]

which Democratic candidate will run the most aggressive general election campaign against the repugs?

With so little separating the "top-tier" Democrats and the only progressive (DK) in the field not accepted by the party, I would at least like to see a nominee who is willing to get down in the trenches with the pukes and really fight them.

The repugs are such a sorry gang of cretins that the Democrat should be able to run countless attack ads without having to "alienate" any possible supporter by taking a position that would turn a voter off.

To hell with trying to build support by articulating a position with reasoned, logical language. That just does not work here in bumper-sticker Amerika. Hit them early, hard, and constantly.

If I hear another word about "building concensus" or "reaching across the aisle" or "reducing the partisanship", I'm going to throw up. It is IMPOSSIBLE to deal with any puke in an honest fashion because they do not abide by the same rules that civilized people adhere to.

So, who will do the best job of grinding the enemy underfoot?

[rucky]

1. Biden has been laser-focused on attacking the repubs...

he makes a crack about Rudy every chance he gets. he scored a big one on Huckabee this week. He hasn't really been attacking the other Dems, or drawn any fire himself. He could really unify our party, pick up some independents along the way, and tear the GOP a new one.

[gateley]

3. "Rucky is Right!" Biden. nt

[JohnnyLib2]

2. Hillary--been doing that for 20 years, IMO.

No, I haven't forgotten IWR. That is not the question in the OP.

:kick:

[cali]

4. I think they'd all run tough as nails campaigns. In fact,

I have no doubt about that.

[bluerum]

5. Another approach -

Although I don't trust the repukes and really feel the same way, when I consider the long term realities I can't avoid thinking that there should be an open door for those repukes that may want to cross the aisle on votes and policy. Some kind of olive branch with a carrot attached should be there.

If I hear another word about "building consensus" or "reaching across the aisle" or "reducing the partisanship", I'm going to throw up. It is IMPOSSIBLE to deal with any puke in an honest fashion because they do not abide by the same rules that civilized people adhere to.

As far as campaign rhetoric, the issue is trust. How many times have democrats trusted the pukes? How many times have they been stabbed in the back? How many times have the poor repukian policy decisions hurt the US and the rest of the world?

How many times have the people of the US and the world been lied to by the mis-administration? How many times have their words been shown to be false? How many times have the repukes said one thing and done another?

How many rights are we willing to surrender? How much corporate control of government are we willing to endure? How many of us are willing to let our system of justice become a tool for political and corporate control?

These are all very strong campaign issues. If and when the repukes demonstrate that they are trustworthy then we can extend a hand.

[Carrieyazel]

6. Richardson. Hillary and Obama have been too weak and accomodating in the Senate.

They are part of a body (Congress) that has a dreadful approval rating. Almost as low as Shrub's. Hard to run an aggressive campaign in the general, when you're part of the problem in DC.

[Tashca]

7. No question it is Biden

Biden has attacked the repugs at every opportunity. He is relentless. He is on them all.....but mostly *. He calls him Houdini. He claims he says this to his face. I don't doubt him for a minute.
He calls him Houdini in reference to disaster he has achieved with the budget deficits.
I have had the opportunity to hear Joe a few times. I have personally thanked him for taking the high road in this campaign. I love it when they attack the repud's.....hate it when they attack each other...

[The Traveler]

8. There are only two

Who have correctly named the disease and attached appropriate priority to dealing with it, and those two are Edwards and Kucinich. The disease, of course, is excessive and improper corporate influence over the conduct of public affairs.

Regrettably, Kucinich is not going to win the nomination, and he would be slaughtered in a general election. That sucks really hard ... over the years, I have noticed that almost every time Dennis takes an unpopular stand the passage of time shows he took the right one. He really has this annoying habit of being right a lot of the time. But for whatever reason (and don't ask me to explain what I don't understand), Dennis cannot rally enough people to his cause.

The only other person in this campaign who takes this on directly is John Edwards, who does seem to possess the ability to rally people to his cause. Further, his 2008 campaign seems to be a logical progression from his 2004 campaign themes. Edwards has bellied up to this bar gradually but consistently, and so it is likely he truly speaks from a place of personal conviction.

Obama seems to believe that reason and grace will be enough to push these genies back into their bottle. I don't buy that. I think these guys will show up at the negotiating table with knives ready, and Obama will get one in the back at the earliest opportunity.

A valid consensus can be constructed only after the swamp has been drained, truth has been exposed, and the corporate elite has been called to account for their savage greed and myriad misdeeds. This won't happen unless the American people are convinced it must happen, unless the general population is rallied to the cause. I don't see Obama going there, and I certainly don't think is at all consistent with the Clintonian world view. I think Edwards is the only one who has a shot of pulling that off, because I think he is the only one (besides Dennis) who would really try.

[Demeter]

9. Edwards

It's his training and profession.