Dennis Kucinich is the only Democratic presidential candidate who can beat a Republican in 2008.

I strongly disagree. While I don't think Hilary Clinton stands as strong of a chance, I firmly believe that Obama, if elected the Democratic candidate, could sweep the election and become the next president of the United States. I think this debate will most likely be clearing up facts, because I am actually working (minimally) for his campaign, and you are incorrect in some of the things you said during your opening argument. Obama voted AGAINST the war from the beginning. Edwards and Clinton both voted FOR the war. The Democratic candidate will most likely be one of those three, and Obama is the only one who can say he opposed the war from THE BEGINNING. When the debates come around, no Republican can say, "It's easy to oppose the war now, but you were in favor of it after 9/11" because he was NOT. Obama speaks out often about the illegality of the Iraq war, and while he does not focus as much of his attention on impeachment as Kucinich does, I think it is because he is more future-oriented, rather than dwelling on the past Bush mistakes. He wants to make this nation a better place for TOMORROW rather than dwelling on all of the Bush administration mistakes. NOT to say he doesn't disapprove, he often speaks out about Scooter Libby, Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the like. But Obama is not playing it safe. Watch his speeches if you doubt what I'm saying!!! Also, Obama (and Edwards) are getting all of their campaigning funded for by Americans like you and me. No PAC groups, no federal lobbyists. Clinton is being backed by these groups, and I agree WITH YOU that she is not as strong of a candidate, because her actions and words don't match up. If you are "for the people" you should be funded "by the people." Also, Obama was not present for the voting of sanctions in Iran, and Clinton voted FOR them. This is absurd!!!! Everyone should know that SHE IS STILL GIVING GEORGE BUSH MONEY FOR HIS TRIVIAL WARS! However, Obama was out campaigning, but he did state that his vote would be cast AGAINST this. So you were incorrect in stating that he is funding the war by his vote. He is not. And with the "he voted for the war before he voted against it" line, that simply will not ring true with Obama. He voted against the war from DAY ONE. So this line cannot be used against him. I think you just had either assumed he voted for the war, or were misinformed. His record shows that he never voted for this war. Also, one of Obama's strong points that he consistently states during debates, is that he wants to talk not just with our allies (which are few and far between these days!) but also our enemies. This defeats what you were saying about "go it alone" strategy; Obama wants to show the world that "America is back and ready to lead" -one of his quotes. Obama has been against the war from the start and does not vote to fund it. He wants to bring our troops HOME safely and promptly. I want to make clear that I think we both agree on a lot of things, so I hope this debate does not become hostile!!! We both apparently don't think Hilary has a good chance! And for the record, I really like and admire Kucinich. IF he were to be the elected Democrat candidate, I would vote for him, and be proud of my vote. He's a wonderful candidate, and I admire his passion AND voting record. However, Obama is the forerunner (by a long shot) AND with his recent endorsement from Oprah Winfrey, he is pulling ahead of even Hilary Clinton in some recent polls! Obama offers uniting the nation in a way no other candidate does. Him being black, in my opinion, works FOR him rather than AGAINST him (as many ignorant people think). He can be a symbolic representation that America is truly not a racist nation anymore. He is not as EXTREME of a liberal as Kucinich (he is not for the legalization of drugs, for example) so he will be more of a uniter than Kucinich would. Republicans and Democrats need to come together during the next administration, because right now our nation is so polarized, it is causing a lot of internal problems and bringing down the morale of the nation. Obama is the man to do this. Clinton is far more inconsistent in her voting record, and Republicans absolutely despise her already, so she certainly would not be as effective of a "uniter." (I believe we both agree on that!) With Obama having never voted for the war, being an advocate of Universal Health Care (that would be in effect by the end of his first term, he promised), and wanting to regain respect and allies in the world, I think he is the perfect candidate. He offers "Change We Can Believe In."