Which candidate, from the top 3, is most likely to investigate the psycho-in-chief's

[in_cog_ni_to]

administration for all the crimes they have committed while in power? Please tell me why you choose who you choose. Has any candidate, besides Kucinich, said they will investigate the thugs? I haven't heard anyone but Dennis even hint at it. Are they waiting for the GE? Will they then talk about all the crimes or will they shy away from the issue then too because of fear of losing votes?

Edwards is taking on the Insurance companies, the Pharmaceutical companies and the Corporations, but has he said anything about investigating the people who actually gave the Pharmaceutical companies, Insurance companies and Corporations all their power?

Obama hasn't even come close to the subject. He wants to play nice with the thugs. Bring the country together. Yes, we will continue taking that damn knife to the repuke's gunfight.

Clinton....I won't even go through the DLC's Sensible Center agenda.

Tell me who is the most likely to make the thugs, now in power, pay for their crimes.

[flvegan]

1. Not a damn one of them, and it's shameful.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Yup.

0% chance.

[MADem]

7. None of the above. We'll have to live a few decades longer to get at some of that information... nt

[salin]

3. Dodd. But of course he isn't in the top three.

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. Has Chris actually SAID he will have them investigated? n/t

[salin]

6. He is the only one who has made the constant violations of the constitution

by bushco, a center piece of his campaign. I think he would act on it - as it sort of is the raison de etre of the campaign.

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. I keep vacillating between Dodd and Edwards.

It doesn't look like Chris is going anywhere though...which is very sad for our country. The same thing goes for Dennis. I may just make my vote on principle on Feb. 5. I'm figuring by that time though the candidate will be chosen.:( I'm in Illinois, so my vote really won't matter anyway. Obama owns the state in the polls. The last one I saw had him at 50%.

I may still vote for Dodd just on principle.

[salin]

21. Based on his liberal track record, and his principled stands

against the extraconstitutional behavior of this administration, Dodd is my choice - but he doesn't have a chance. Our primaries are not until LONG after we will have a single candidate (not until May - goodness, probably already have a running mate/ticket by then) so my vote isn't worth much for his efforts. However, perhaps this will give him more visibility and strength in the Senate - where we need the good fight, fought!

Right now I lean Edwards - but again when you live in a late-late primary state it doesn't really matter who one backs. :(

[mike_c]

5. this is one of my main issues....

As unrealistic as it might be to hope for accountability in American government, I simply cannot support any candidate-- dem or otherwise-- who is unwilling to confront the crimes of the Bush administration. There isn't any rug big enough to sweep that mess under-- it will fester and continue to consume the soul of the American experiment in democracy until it is lanced and exposed to sunlight.

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. That's why I STILL haven't decided who to vote for!

These people MUST BE investigated, Indicted, TRIED and sent to prison or their criminal behavior will never stop.

[EFerrari]

14. It just became obvious to me that it's mine, too.

Nobody paid for the Kennedys or for Martin. Nobody paid for Laos or Cambodia. Only low level people paid for Iran Contra. We're just about out of rug here.

[fascisthunter]

9. Edwards might.... (nt)

[demnan]

10. I'd have to say Edwards

but its based on the fact that I know someone who is connected with the campaign who is very for impeachment and is a friend of mine and was supportive of our impeachment group. This person might be perusasive.

Of all the candidates I must say having working for impeachment I have found universal support for impeachment among the supporters, yes even Hillary's supporters, for impeachment.

[whatdoyouthink]

15. To be Fair

I would not want one to "De-clair" it right now - by putting Big RED target on your back (at this time)

But out of the three - Edwards would - much more Experience at taking on Big Corporations

[panzerfaust]

12. None of the above.

Just ain't gonna happen.

This is Amerika folks ... get used to it.

[H2O Man]

13. It will not happen.

I think that it is far more likely that the next administration and/or congress will investigate Watergate than they will make any serious examinations of the crimes and abuses of power of the current administration.

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. Coming from you, H2O Man.....

my heart just dropped from my chest. Why do you say that? Because they're all a part of the problem? As in....CORRUPT?

[H2O Man]

17. No, not because

they are corrupt. It has to do with the old story of the Iroquois boy and the path. The boy knew he was supposed to walk down the path, but he put it off. It was never "the right time," he thought, to follow the path. He often walked near it, talked about following it, and even put his front foot on it. But in time the path became overgrown, and it was impossible for him to follow it anymore.

When the democrats became the majority in both houses of congress, they had 24 months to follow the path. They have walked near it, talked about it, convinced themselves and others who are of a cowardly nature that this is not "the right time," and a few have set foot on the path. But in another year's time, that path will be overgrown.

[in_cog_ni_to]

19. Couldn't a huge win in Congress and taking the WH allow for

them to clear a NEW path? If they have a filibuster-proof Senate, a even larger Majority in the House AND the WH, couldn't they then clear a new path and do the right thing? Do you think that would make a difference?....owning Congress and the WH, that is.

[H2O Man]

22. It could.

But I do not think that there is any real chance of it happening. It would require new people, who were in the mold of a brave, young John Conyers (for example), rather than the older, cautious John Conyers. Those from his generation came from the civil rights/ anti-war campaigns, and were given strength by the Watergate investigations. We have not had the same type of social movements, and the failure of the democratic leadership to take a stance has weakened our position for the future.

[Dawgs]

18. None of them.

Edwards and Hillary supported Bush's illegal war and Obama wants to work on fixing the problems, not concentrating on the past.

[sojourner]

20. Because if elected he WILL fight for American people.

There's no way Hillary will do so. The crooks will walk happily into sunset with their millions.

Ditto Obama, the "unity" candidate.

Edwards may not have said so out loud, and to be frank I don't think ANYONE running should do so (for their personal welfare), but he's the only one of the three who is not displaying any fear of taking on giants. So if asked, hell yes I believe he would investigate and make them pay.

[KG]

23. none.

and if you think otherwise, you're just fooling yourself.