I'm sick of supporting lovable losers for President.

[pnwmom]

And I don't want any idealists who can't win.

Or intellectuals who don't know how to talk to the average voter.

And, frankly, I don't really care whether this person is a moderate, a progressive, or somewhere in between. As long as s/he's a Democrat.

Please, this time around, may the primary elections yield up a cunning, calculating, tough-as-nails, indefatigable, well-funded street fighter, with the charm of John Kennedy, the intellect of Adlai Stevenson, and the oratorical skills of Mario Cuomo.

Or maybe we just need our own Karl Rove. Then we could run a chimp.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[YOY]

1. How bout a Karl Rove backing a proper candidate

They needed a Rove for a chimp...we'd need one to topple a Rove.

[ClassWarrior]

2. Go Russ.

And before we get all obsessed with the '08 race, don't forget we have the people's house to win back in '06.

NGU.

[AtomicKitten]

5. agreed

And then we'll discuss Russ voting for the Clinton impeachment.

[ClassWarrior]

9. Senators don't vote for impeachment.

He voted to hear witnesses in Clinton's Senate trial. Very different.

This from the NYT web site...

Democratic US Sen Russell D Feingold, who broke party ranks at impeachment trial to oppose dismissing charges against Pres Clinton and to support calling of witnesses, says vote to contrary would be admission that House trial managers could not convince him or other senators that Clinton should be removed from office... says he has not yet reached such point of certainty...

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40B16FA3A5D0C7B8EDDA80894D1494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fF%2fFeingold%2c%20Russell%20D%2e

That strikes me as the kind of reasoned rationality that we are constantly demanding from our leaders.

NGU.

[pnwmom]

15. He voted to prolong the agony. Doesn't sound reasoned to me.

Given the circumstances -- and his latent Presidential aspirations -- I think it sounds opportunistic, actually.

[ClassWarrior]

23. ROFLMAO

"His latent Presidential aspirations??" Wow, that's a new one. Maybe you should know what you're talking about before you speak.

NGU.

[pnwmom]

30. The evidence is that he's already positioning himself for 2008.

People don't become contenders overnight. I'm sure he's been weighing the possibilities for years. And that's fine. As I said, I want a calculating, winning candidate.

But he doesn't seem like a modern day FDR or John Kennedy to me.

[AtomicKitten]

17. OK, to be specific (and accurate as it turns out)

he was the only Dem to vote against dismissing the Clinton impeachment charges. But, you know, that's not any better IMO.

From Counterpunch:
http://www.counterpunch.org/memon10132005.html

The Devil is in the Repackaging
The Curious Case of Russ Feingold

By ANIS MEMON

The recent Senate confirmation hearings on John Roberts once again, and with perhaps more urgency, brought attention to Russ Feingold's iconoclastic voting record. Feingold had previously voted to approve John Ashcroft as Attorney General in 2001. At that time, Feingold's liberal supporters, though somewhat perturbed, conceded that this singular manifestation of his independent spirit had to be accepted if they were going to praise his defiance of not only the Democratic leadership, but of the entire somnolent political scene following 9/11: for Feingold was also, courageously, the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act and he is someone who from the beginning has loudly denounced the war on Iraq.

The same sort of noise is now being made about his Roberts vote; and again his supporters point to his action as a sign of his independence from the Democrats, as proof of his sincerity, honesty and general upstanding character ­ qualities which are woefully lacking from politics. He is a man with integrity and moral fiber, an ardent foe of narrow ideology, a consensus-builder who however does not flinch from holding others to the same standard he holds himself to. He was the only Democrat not to vote against a bill that would have dismissed the Clinton impeachment charges; and he is the co-author ­ in conjunction with that noted lefty John McCain ­ of a lukewarm campaign finance reform bill.

I quite agree that in today's political situation it would be hard to overstate the importance of his opposition to the Patriot Act. Imagine the amount of heat he must have taken from the Democratic brass, since his lone no-vote not only broke the paranoid unity of the 9/11 terror machine, but it brought into people's consciousness the possibility of opposition, and with this possibility, the notion that perhaps the rest of the Democrats ­ not to speak of anyone who might claim to have a conscience ­ were frightened and spineless.

Moreover, Feingold's outspokenness on many other issues is a refreshing change to the repeated banalities of most politicians, American or otherwise. What makes the Roberts vote somewhat more disturbing, however, is the possibility that it was a tactical move to further his chances at a presidential run in 2008. The numerous pro-Feingold websites out there are already buzzing about his potential candidacy, and have been hotly discussing the meaning of his vote; the bit that draws most attention in his speech in support of Roberts is this:

This is taken to be a clear sign that if Feingold were to become president, with a liberal agenda and Congress behind him, he would wish his conservative colleagues to remember his back-scratching, bi-partisan ways.

Feingold has made a career out of being a sort of Regular Joe Boy Scout in the sinister world of American politics, earnestly leading us across the moral street, and upholding personal virtue. His impeachment vote on the Clinton issue displays this moral uptightness. I have no problem with anyone wanting to impeach Clinton, or every other president for that matter; in fact, I think impeachment, prosecution and jail time should be prerequisites of the job. But it should not be on a trumped up charge of perjury in a matter of no national or even municipal importance. If you're going to impeach Clinton for perjury in a ridiculous sex-scandal, then at least have the courage to impeach every single figure in every administration for perjury and worse! crimes. Bush could be tried in an international court for crimes against humanity ­ that's something worthy of impeachment.


*****

The puritanical sentimentality inherent in putting more importance on one's personal virtue than on the strength and reason of one's ideological commitment leads to a dangerous misunderstanding of the role of a public figure. I do not care, nor should anyone else, whether Bush is a coke-head, nor whether Clinton is a womanizer, nor whether either goes to church regularly. It is their statements and actions as political leaders that matter.

And this is the difference between the moral uprightness of Feingold and Ralph Nader, both of whom have something unpleasantly saintly about them. While Feingold cultivates a rhetoric that imputes great moral virtue to the political process, a moral virtue which he no doubt personally possesses, and which exposes the lack of virtue in others, Nader asks people to question their own motivations, and from this (naturally) to question the motivations of those who are meant to govern us.

The danger of Feingold's cult of humility and modesty is not that he will do anything particularly objectionable himself, but that he may enjoy a bit too much being thought of as a clean-cut ordinary guy, doing an ordinary job ; and if the Democratic Party latches on to that image as an antidote to the obviously sham intellectual front they've been trying to present, then he will become a despicable tool in the resurrection of a moribund liberalism. Bush's down-hominess was certainly the Republican antidote to Gore's standoffishness.

I'm all for Feingold and his iconoclasm as long as those anti-Patriot Act votes come as thick as the Roberts votes do ­ thicker preferably. I just think that people should keep an eye on the repackaging process.

[ClassWarrior]

Why is it bad for him to have wanted to hear witnesses...

...if he wasn't convinced?

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

27. By the way, who is Anis Memon? Accurate? More like sloppy.

"He was the only Democrat not to vote against a bill that would have dismissed the Clinton impeachment charges?"

Wouldn't that be, "He was the only Democrat TO vote against a bill that would have dismissed the Clinton impeachment charges?"

:rofl:

NGU.

[AtomicKitten]

32. No need to get snippy.

Considering that by the time it reached Congress for a vote, it was perfectly clear it was a partisan witch-hunt. That's why.

You apparently are a big time Russ Feingold supporter, but no need for you to immediately put on your game face and start attacking when questions are raised about him as a potential candidate.

There are some legitimate questions to be answered if he is a potential candidate whether you like it or not, and people are going to discuss it whether you like it or not. It's really lame to attack people for discussing issues, and it doesn't help your cause, in this case your candidate of choice, in the slightest bit.

[ClassWarrior]

37. Snippy? Because I asked some questions?

LOL

Yeah, whatever.

NGU.

[AtomicKitten]

41. you immediately resorted to attacking the source

but I specifically chose what is considered a far left website to provide you what I thought were legitimate questions being asked about him.

Relax, dude. Politics is a blood sport but the main event doesn't start for another year or so.

[ClassWarrior]

44. Relax? ROFL... Nice RW tactic...

You chose what you claimed was an accurate source... but the very sentence you highlighted was inaccurate. How does that amount to my "attacking" it?

NGU.

[AtomicKitten]

47. it was an opinion piece which can never be construed as "accurate"

It was food for thought. That's it. You attacked the legitimacy of the author. I never present opinion pieces here at DU as fact. Never. They are a jumping off point to illustrate that others have questions about Feingold too, something you seem to take offense at and take personally for some bizarre reason.

And, yes, you are overreacting.

[ClassWarrior]

49. Then why does your post #17 say, and I quote, "and accurate"...

..."as it turns out?"

:shrug:

NGU.

[AtomicKitten]

52. I was referring to my original post

... And then we'll discuss Russ voting for the Clinton impeachment, which you rightfully corrected and I admitted my post wasn't accurate.

[ClassWarrior]

57. Ahhh, so that's the story now?

Glad you cleared that up right away.

NGU.

[AtomicKitten]

58. You are just being silly now.

Here's my post:

AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Tue Jul-11-06 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. OK, to be specific (and accurate as it turns out)

... he was the only Dem to vote against dismissing the Clinton impeachment charges. But, you know, that's not any better IMO.

Nothing rewritten. Pretty damn clear IMO.

[ClassWarrior]

61. I don't doubt that in retrospect. But as I said, it might have been...

...helpful if you'd cleared that up right away.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

60. And you STILL haven't answered me. Who is this author, and why...

...is his/her opinion of any value to you or me? Sorry, I need to weigh a little more than "it's on a pretty far left web site."

NGU.

[AtomicKitten]

65. I answered you, but you aren't paying attention.

Kinda like people who just wait for the other person to stop talking, not listening to what they have to say, until it's their turn to talk again.

I already told you. I took it from a far left website, Counterpunch, to illustrate to you there are legitimate questions about his candidacy. I don't know the author. Doesn't really matter because they wouldn't have a piece on Counterpunch unless they shared that far left ideology, right?

I chose that website to show you all kinds of people have questions. It was food for thought, a launching pad for discussion.

Instead you immediately attacked the source (jeez, talk about RW tactics) and did not address the substance of the opinion piece.

It clearly is of no value to you because you obviously are incapable of having a normal, sane, adult conversation with people. Good luck with that.

[ClassWarrior]

71. How is asking the author's credentials "attacking" him/her?

And why are you so afraid of knowing what they are? Sorry, but I don't believe that just because it's a "pretty far left website," that means it's infallible and its writers aren't hacks.

NGU.

[pnwmom]

74. What sort of "credentials" do acceptable authors usually have?

[ClassWarrior]

77. Public, un-hidden ones.

NGU.

[pnwmom]

83. How do you know what is hidden? Anyone can have both

public and hidden credentials. By definition, what is hidden isn't public.

This author's public credential is that he is published by CounterPunch. That's all I know about him. Other authors may be published by the National Enquirer or the New York Times, or whatever.

While I would look askance at an article published in the National Enquirer, I would take more seriously something published in CounterPunch. But the final judgment would be mine, AFTER reading the article and deciding whether it is logically consistent and accords with the facts as I know them.

[pnwmom]

73. How do you determine whether the author's opinion is of any value?

You judge the opinions of that author by reading the whole article
and analyzing it both for internal consistency
and consistency with the facts as you know them.

You don't need to know anything about the author to do that.
But AtomicKitten is right that Counterpunch is a well respected progressive website.

[ClassWarrior]

75. Why are you so afraid of the truth?

NGU.

[pnwmom]

84. What truth are you saying that I'm afraid of? I told you that I don't know

this author's credentials, except for being published on CounterPunch. But I can make judgments about its value to me even without any more information than that.

This is how I do it: I read. And I reflect.

Reading essays like this doesn't take a PhD in rocket science, or even political science. It just takes a willingness to think for yourself.

[pnwmom]

33. Because the whole case was so spurious.

The charge was that Clinton lied because he said that he didn't "have sex with that woman." However, the offical definition of sex that he was INSTRUCTED to use did not include oral sex. So, technically, he didn't lie.

The Republicans in the House knew this and impeached him anyway. But the Senate wasn't going along with the program. Among the Democrats, only Feingold was willing to take this seriously. He was either being moralistic or opportunistic, take your pick. (Or prick, as the case may be.)

[ClassWarrior]

39. I see. So when the Cons want to bury evidence it's bad, but when...

...the Dems do, it's good?

If it was spurious, then what's the harm in hearing evidence?

NGU.

[pnwmom]

53. Because the charge was obvious on its face.

There was the charge: that he lied.
There was the statement that Clinton had made: a specific sentence in a specific context. (I didn't have sex with that woman.)
There was the narrow definition of sex he was told to use in that context. (genital sexual intercourse.)
Put the two together (the statement and the definition) and the answer was obvious: he didn't lie.

The worst that could be said about him was that he took advantage of a technicality.

The harm in hearing evidence was that this would give support to the mistaken view that there was any case against him. There wasn't. No President has ever been impeached on such an empty charge.

[ClassWarrior]

55. I hope you're never on a jury for me.

NGU.

[pnwmom]

76. What? You wouldn't want to have the charges against you

thrown out before you even got there?

[pnwmom]

36. Thanks for the link, AtomicKitten. Interesting article.

[AtomicKitten]

38. it raises some legitimate questions

and especially since it's from a pretty far left website.

Feingold isn't as pristine as some think, and there are a couple issues that stick in my craw.

[ClassWarrior]

46. Again I ask, what do you know about the author?

You keep bandying around "pretty far left website." But you have offered nothing in terms of credentials for the author.

NGU.

[AtomicKitten]

48. it's an opinion piece for discussion -- sorry you find it threatening

[ClassWarrior]

51. And you once again dodge the question...

...at the same time you try to distort my reaction. Another fine RW tactic.

:rofl:

NGU.

[AtomicKitten]

54. not a leap, dude - you're overreacting all over the place

More important question to ask is where did it come from? Counterpunch, arguably one of the far-leftest sites and one which I purposesly quoted so you wouldn't acute me of asking spurious questions. But you freaked anyway, so why bother, eh?

[ClassWarrior]

56. When you can't argue the substance, attack the messenger.

:rofl:

NGU.

[AtomicKitten]

59. sorry to break it to you, but you have no point whatsoever to dispute

You have no point, much less a substantive one. You just went off on a bent.

And that's not funny, it's just kinda pathetic.

[ClassWarrior]

63. Attack... attack... attack...

But you still haven't answered the question. Who is this author upon whose opinion you seem to be resting your entire arguement?

You really don't know, do you?

NGU.

[AtomicKitten]

68. yes, you have been attacking, attacking, attacking

Now, try reading the responses people write to you - thoroughly. Maybe it will cut back on the misunderstandings that keep tripping you up.

[ClassWarrior]

72. Name one instance that I "attacked" - just one.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

79. I didn't think so.

NGU.

[pnwmom]

78. Why do you care WHO the author is? Can't you use your

deductive reasoning and your knowledge of the world to make a judgment about the validity of his piece?

[ClassWarrior]

80. Why do you care if I know who the author is? Why are you so afraid...

...for people to have the information they need to make a decision?

NGU.

[pnwmom]

81. It's not like either one of us is trying to keep that a secret.

Neither Atomic Kitten nor I know who the author is, except that the person was published by CounterPunch.

[neoblues]

8. Whut House? Whut's '06? Do we gotta do that vote...

Do we gotta do that vote thingy again???

Seriously, everytime somebody squeals about people considering the 2008 Presidential Election by pointing out... "but don't forget... we have to win back at least one house of Congress in 2006" (a mere 4 months now), I can't help but feel they think we're all imbeciles...

Duhr... Which comes furst? November this year or November more than two years later? I gots to concentrates to remembers... This year... This year... This year... But I might fergit? How'm I sposed tuh remember tuh vote? I's likely tuh sleeps before Novembur... Duhr...

Please (or Puh-leeeze!), I suspect I'll remember--and I can even do both (talk about '08 and do what I can** for '06).

**which, like most people, isn't nearly enough--and not talking about '08 won't improve that by the slightest amount.

ps. I agree entirely: Go Russ!

Edit: Added "ps"

[ClassWarrior]

12. Whether or not we're too stupid to miss it is debatable...

...but we need to make sure that the sometimes-clueless masses don't miss it. And when we're constantly focusing on 2008, we're not helping that cause one bit.

Besides, it hurts nothing and costs nothing to remind someone - and I'd rather be reminded a dozen times needlessly than forget.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

18. Not to mention the fact that the results of 2006 could change the...

...dynamics of 2008 enormously - and may even render moot many of our choices and opinions for Prez.

NGU.

[neoblues]

28. Okay...

Still, there's plenty of discussion of '06 and literally every time anyone mentions or wants to have a nice discussion of '08 prospects... usually not just one but several people step in trying to not just remind people of '06 (as though we actually would forget), but to actually try to put them off their discussions--a sort of "how dare you 'waste' time on 2008"?

If you really think the average DU'er is dull-witted enough to need reminding... well, I think you've got cause to be even more depressed about the situation than the rest of us. As for the much of the rest of the American public, including Democrats, I would say you're right--we need to remind Democrats at every turn (and to try to convince Republicans of the error of their ways at every opportunity). Truly, the functional level of most of the public is disturbingly low--despite the urgent situation we face. Still, I'd be pretty surprised to find a DU'er that isn't acutely aware of what this November means.

As for my response to you, you were just the one who happened to make comment along those lines and acted as the "straw that broke the camel's back"--and you weren't even abusive in your reminder (when most of the previous instances in my experience have been approaching obnoxious). So, it's nothing so much that you did--though I would wish that other people would consider whether they're being condescending or at least realize that most people can actually have a conversation about 2008 without forgetting about the urgency of 2006.

Cheers.

[Sam Odom]

3. It's always that we...

"ran the wrong northeast liberal"

From where were LBJ, Carter & Clinton?

[bluestateguy]

4. The dark side of the force is more powerful than the light side

"The dark side of the force is a pathway to powers many consider to be unnatural"

Chancellor Palpatine


What does that mean? It means setting up to run the most dirty, dishonest campaign in history, if need be, to win. For the good of the country.

[BlueIris]

6. "Our own Karl Rove" wouldn't be worth shit without media control.

And I'm pretty sure the corporations aren't giving that up.

[pnwmom]

19. If we had enough money in the pot we might be able to overcome that

problem.

[FrenchieCat]

7. I know someone who fits that bill....as far as I am concerned!

But remember that getting Democrats to agree on anything is like herding Cats!

At least I know that we all agree that we must win 2006....which is soooo important, until I'm starting to not care much about 2008. The media, the money, and the primaries will determine who our nominee will be.....and I'm not holding my breath that we will make the right decision collectively that will result in a win. :(

[NNadir]

10. You have just described FDR.

Here's what, another great President, in my opinion the greatest, Abraham Lincoln said about what made him great, although clearly he didn't think of himself as a great man. (Neither did his contemporaries.)

I do not claim to have controlled events, but clearly confess that events have controlled me.

I think that if FDR became President in 1960, he probably would have been mediocre. As it is, he ranks with the the greatest. FDR is known as a great man because of his times to which he rose.

Lincoln followed a legendary incompetent who almost destroyed the country. He rose to the task. When he was elected there was very little evidence that he had the skills to save the country. Many people regarded him as weak, naive, inexperienced, and something of a rube. He hired almost all of his strongest rivals for the nomination, and they actually thought they would sweep him aside and run things for themselves. Seward actually did try run things at first, but Lincoln proved somewhat more sophisticated.

Our country will need the equivalent of another Lincoln. It is badly ravaged by its own government, which has set up a disaster of incredible scale. If we don't have another Lincoln or FDR, we are in very, very, very deep trouble.

[Sam Odom]

11. Neither Lincoln or FDR could be elected today

Sad as fucking hell... Isnt it?

[pnwmom]

20. I'm afraid you're probably right, and it is sad for all of us.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. FDR probably could if he weren't in a wheelchair

Americans are looking for a leader right now and if anything, FDR was a leader.

[NNadir]

34. I'm not so sure of that.

Those men were both politicians. Both men were seen as manipulative and self serving, and both had active detractors.

Lincoln in particular allowed his "rail splitter" image to be played up, although mostly in private he loathed his impoverished beginnings. He thought of himself as a highly respected high power high paid attorney, which, by the way, he was. As President, though, he was often seen as vacillitating and weak. His own general in chief, McClellan, thought of him as the "original gorilla." A week or so before his death, some politicians in his own party were hoping he would be assassinated, which of course, he was.

I don't think that anyone understood who he was until suddenly he was gone.

The American democracy, to the extent it exists, can summon great men, even though it can fall prey to such mean examples such as the vile being now inhabiting the White House. If the democracy can be restored, another Lincoln or FDR could be on horizon. We need such a man or woman, and I think one is out there, but we will not recognize him or her until after the fact.

I believe that democracy does better than we generally think it will. Eventually rank stupidity has consequences, and is self correcting. We are at that point.

[TwilightZone]

13. Well, let's see. Gore won in 2000, and Kerry...

in reality, probably won Ohio, which means he won in 2004.

Who are you calling losers?

[Sam Odom]

16. If if and but were candy and nuts

everyday would be like christmas.

Al Gore was the winner IMHO but why oh why didnt he win his 'home' state?

[pnwmom]

24. Al Gore was the loser because he backed down in the face of

Republican intimidation.


This time around, we need a real fighter, not a gentlemanly loser.

[AtomicKitten]

35. He yielded to the Supreme Court decision -- not to Republican intimidation

Once the judicial coup d'etat was rendered, it was either hang it up or civil war.

I don't think your assessment of what happened is either accurate or fair.

[pnwmom]

40. His mistake was earlier, in only asking for a PARTIAL recount.

The basis for the Supreme Court decision had to do with equal protection, with different parts of the state being treated differently.

[AtomicKitten]

43. yep, that is right

But I'm not certain that cosmic revelation was available except in retrospect. From all I've read, that conclusion wasn't reached until after the fact when recounts were actually done.

[pnwmom]

64. I don't really blame him. But it is our new reality. We have to be

prepared to fight TOOTH AND NAIL next time. No more being a gracious loser. Know what I mean?

And two years and a few months barely gives us enough time to get ready for the battle.

[AtomicKitten]

67. you betyerass we do -- I couldn't agree MORE n/t

[Sam Odom]

42. Isnt it time to say

Team Gore fucked up in the way they handled the post-vote days? IMHO, if they would have asked for a State Wide recount on day one they would have won. No, this is not hindsight! I along with many thought hand picking 3 counties to recount was stupid.

[AtomicKitten]

50. Yes, they did, but that may have only been ascertained in retrospect.

It wasn't until they actually counted the votes did they know the recount they asked for would not have been successful but recounting the whole state would have been.

And, yes, he did have dumbass legal representation. Much has been written about it. However, do you really think the Supreme Court decision would have been any different? IMO it was always going to end up being the same outcome.

[pnwmom]

85. As I remember, we were putting up with an extremely SLOW process,

and the end result was that the Supreme Court said we had run out of time.

I think we have to fight like hell right from the very beginning to have any chance.

It will be interesting to see what happens in Mexico now. I wish them luck.

[pnwmom]

66. It was like they were shell-shocked. The whole scene just took

them by surprise. The fake demonstrations. Everything.

From now on, we have to expect the worst -- and be ready to dish it out, too.

[pnwmom]

22. They ARE losers because they didn't fight to the finish.

Neither one of them took the oath of office, did they?

We needed Gore to demand a recount of the whole state of Florida, right from the beginning. And Kerry also gave up prematurely.

I don't want another winner that just throws in the towel in the hopes of doing better in the rematch.

[Doctor_J]

14. You take "our Karl Rove", and I'll take the media,

and you won't have a pot to piss in when the dust settles. Rove is just a fat, cowardly loser. Without the hordes of media shilling for the GOP 24/7 for the last 20 years, you'd have never heard of him.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. James Carville is our Karl Rove

But his wife has pretty much made it impossible for him to actually help us anymore. And frankly the only person I can find who meets your description is Brian Schweitzer, but he hasn't been in office long enough. Running for president is a two or more year process now and you can't be a first term Governor and run without pissing off your home state. It used to be that you could because the primary process was only a few months and you could announce as late as March of the election year. If you lose the primaries, then you only wasted a month or two. If you win the primaries then you still spent less time total campaigning for president than you do today campaigning for the nomination.

[Sam Odom]

25. Carville will play a major role in HRC national campaign

if she has one.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. Sadly that is true

And Carville is smart enough to know that she has virtually no chance of actually winning.

[boolean]

29. Or how about...

Or how about a woman, or a black person, or an atheist, or someone other than a middle aged, southern accented, white, christian warmongering ass.

It would be nice.

[pnwmom]

45. Even nicer would be someone who actually takes the oath of office.

Whoever that might be.

Welcome to DU, boolean!

[IndianaGreen]

62. Gore won Florida in 2000 and Kerry won Ohio in 2004

As to a candidate with "the charm of John Kennedy, the intellect of Adlai Stevenson, and the oratorical skills of Mario Cuomo," there is no one in politics today that fits that description.

I am sorry to say that there is little I can say in defense of the electorate, the "greatest generation" it is not!

[pnwmom]

69. You're not a winner if you don't take the oath of office.

You gotta jump that last hurdle, high as it may be.

As to your other point, you may well be right. In which case, we need some stupendous packaging and some tenacious street-fighting.

[wisteria]

70. Whatever!

I though Kerry offered and still could, a vision and positive change for the future. He wanted to be President for the right reasons. He wasn't in it just for the win or the ego. Kerry appealed to me because of his intellect and the way he was willing to listen. I think he does have some of the JFK appeal also.

[LincolnMcGrath]

82. So stop supporting mealy mouthed weak kneed dlcentrist campaigns

:shrug: Seems easy enough?

[pnwmom]

86. Ideology and tactics are two separate issues.

There is nothing incompatible about being both a moderate, in terms of ideology, and a fighter.

John Kennedy, for example, was both.

[LincolnMcGrath]

87. No, I was talking tactics also.

But you already know that.