He wants the troops out of Iraq, he wants fair trade, he wants universal health care, he wants public financing of elections, he wants an end to poverty, he wants to restore fairness to taxation. And he's Southern.

Would I have liked Feingold a little bit better? Certainly. But I've decided to forget about the fact that Edwards is coming to the party late, and celebrate the fact that he's the only major candidate to come at all.

We'll That's the point Clinton is going around behind the scene and strong-arming people out of the race.

I'm sorry I was not impressed with Edwards either in 2004. We really learned nothing about him and the only thing he seemed to be in the 2004 was a personality tutor for John Kerry and he didn't do a very good job of it.

I'm waiting for General Wes Clark. If he runs, it will be either Clark or Edwards for me.

You say you couldn't work for Obama and then you say, "This country is greatly in need of a Highly motivating unifying figure. That transcends party labels."

I really do not get it. At all.

Waste of diary space.  "I can't stand anyone, from Clinton to Bayh to Kucinich..."  You've been asked at least once, who would you like to see run?  Who fits your epic qualifications?

I wonder which one meets the bill, Richardson, maybe Bredesen?

No for me I will take John Edwards anyday, he has been working hard than any of the rest of them for minimum wage, unions, poverty.

Voting for the war wasn't really the issue, how the war was run is the issue. How Bush and his crew completely made it a mess and destroyed the image of America.  They are the ones who are responsible for the disaster the war has become, Not John Edwards.

You say you want better candidates, but then you only list three, and one of them Kucinich!  Edwards is announcing within the week; we'll almost certainly get Bill Richardson - who has both governing and foreign policy experience, and could wind up being our come-from-nowhere success story.  Gore's eternally waiting in the wings...

If Warner and Feingold hadn't dropped out early, this would be the strongest Democratic field I can remember.

That's the point of the diary not that I know of someone or that there is someone out there that I know. The point is none of these people are a JFK(Kennedy not kerry), Jimmy Carter(1976) or Bill Clinton. Each of those Candidates is missing something. I take offsense to you claim that this is a waste of Diary space I'm sure I am not the only person that finds these candidates lacking.

Why don't you run?

It'll just take a huge commitment of time, toughness  - both mental and physical, a thorough knowledge of the intricacies of governing (well, okay, dubya is a quite spectacular exception to this one), and a real belief that you can make a difference (okay, again, dubya was just looking to enrich his cronies). Just a few examples among many more. As for the rupublicans, they ain't got nothin'.

See how it works, grasshopper?

This diary reminds me of the whiny tone that The Economist used in it's 2005 endorsement of Tony Blair:

If the Conservatives, or indeed the Liberal Democrats, were offering an alternative government likely to combine superior fiscal management, fewer burdens on business, liberal policies on immigration and civil liberties, and a foreign policy geared toward further progress in the Middle East and a constructively critical approach to the European Union, The Economist would switch its endorsement.

In a perfect world I'd have a candidate I agreed with 100% of the time and who inspired me every day to do great things. But for those of us living in reality, we'll do our best to affect change as best we can and continue to hold candidates from the democratic party to the highest standard and help them live up to it, instead of whining about unicorns and other mythical creatures like "perfect candidates."