All these posts about whom to run in 2008 are silly and a waste of time

[Lydia Leftcoast]

Yes, I said "silly and a waste of time," and I'll happily add, "A pointless distraction from what we should really be talking about."

You're all espousing a celebrity-based view of politics. I see people advocating Richardson or Bayh because of their supposed appeal to certain constituencies, and before Mark Warner dropped out, he was the Great Hope of 2008, even though his only claim to fame was being a one-term governor whom people liked.

More recently, there's been a claque pushing Barack Obama, who hasn't even completed one term as a senator and whose only accomplishment of note is one speech at the 2004 convention, and it's easy to see what's behind their thinking: "He cute, young, and black, so he'll have crowd appeal."

There's an even bigger Hillary claque, and again, it looks like the advoacates are thinking, "She's the most famous woman senator."

Then there are those who still support the same person they supported last time, the ones who think that their guy deserves another run.

There are even those who wish Bill Clinton could run again, and I feel sorry for people who are young enough to think that Bill Clinton is as good as it gets.

Let's just step back and take a look at the men and women who actually won Congressional and Senatorial seats this time around.

The fact is that most of them won their seats NOT on the basis of their supposed "appeal" but on the basis of their ideas, their personal integrity, and the careful honing of their message to appeal to the constituency. Some of them won in supposedly unwinnable areas because they understood the local people and knew how to appeal to them. You won't find a lot of bland, blow-dried empty suits coached by image consultants among them.

There are many elephants in our national living room, and they aren't all Republicans. Everyone knows they're there, and anyone who thinks about them at all is worried, but nobody in politics or the media is talking about them.

The Dems need to sit down together and discuss not what the market researchers tell them and not what the corporate interests will accept and not what the Republicans will put forth as wedge issues, but what the real problems facing this country are. Not the trivial problems, the real problems.

For example, one poster several months ago put up a proposed ten-point platform from one of the think tanks, and one item of a ten-point platform was censoring violent video games. Whatever one's feelings about censorship, this is simply not an important issue in a country where a full-time worker can't live on minimum wage, where millions can't afford basic health care, where housing is increasingly unaffordable, the Iraq War is eating up all the resources we could be applying to domestic needs, and nobody is doing a damn thing about global climate change.

The Dems first need to decide what their important issues are, and then they need to come up with easily understandable first steps to deal with these pressing problems. For example, they could propose gradually dropping the age for Medicare until it covers every American, which would also alleviate its funding crisis by bringing younger, healthier people into the system. They could promote energy conservation as "fighting terrorism" by reducing America's dependence on Middle East oil. These are just suggestions. Surely the Dems could come up with five or six main points that everyone could agree to.

Afther that, it would be a question of who the best standard bearers for these five points would be. Who could promote them with conviction and sincerity? You'd want at least three or four contenders for the primaries, people who could campaign effectively on these major points and not get blindsided or swiftboated or distracted by Republican tricks, people who are not only well-liked but trusted.

Most importantly, the Dems have to decide who they are. They have to stick together. Then and only then should they talk about personalities.

[Mythsaje]

1. Huh

<<For example, one poster several months ago put up a proposed ten-point platform from one of the think tanks, and one item of a ten-point platform was censoring violent video games. Whatever one's feelings about censorship, this is simply not an important issue in a country where a full-time worker can't live on minimum wage, where millions can't afford basic health care, where housing is increasingly unaffordable, the Iraq War is eating up all the resources we could be applying to domestic needs, and nobody is doing a damn thing about global climate change.>>

Like I said back when "I'm more worried about Grand Theft America" than "Grand Theft Auto."

[More Than A Feeling]

2. Some people have already decided what the Party stands for

and who best represents that. I don't see anything wrong with that. I myself think that Feingold is everything a Democrat could hope to be and stand for, and I wish he hadn't dropped out. Now I have to find someone else who epitomizes the Democratic Party, but the point is, I already know what the standards for judging that are.

[orpupilofnature57]

6. Did you vote Gore in 2000? Don't answer ,whats wrong with him now ? DNC?

[More Than A Feeling]

12. Huh?

Let me try and translate your question: "Whether or not I voted for Gore in 2000, why haven't I decided yet to support him again this time around? Is it because I am aligned with the DLC?"

AL Gore hasn't even given any hint that he is going to run.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. And orpupilofnature57 is epitomizing celebrity-based politics

Before deciding that Al Gore is the answer, we need to figure out what the questions are.

[orpupilofnature57]

22. Who will best facilitate the pursuit of happiness for all mankind?

Hi

[orpupilofnature57]

23. You have an Agenda ,thus causing a narrowing in your vision.

[More Than A Feeling]

26. Not just an agenda, an Agenda (tm)!

Oh yeah? well...how could you know about that? Unless...YOU were secretly part of it, too!:wow:

[orpupilofnature57]

35. I know the DLC supported Sam Nunn ,where is he now, with the..

..rest of the Lite democrats of the 80's.

[eridani]

21. His handlers. And Lieberman.

See An Inconvenient Truth for something approaching his natural state. Too bad that version of Gore wasn't running in 2000.

[orpupilofnature57]

24. I'm confident he's learned the last 6 yrs.

[orpupilofnature57]

3. Too many mechanisms ,zigs and zags. Al Gore is who we are!

[lastknowngood]

4. Yes because if we think we have say in who will be running in the

general election look at 2004 The reich wing media attacked and destroyed Mr. Dean with the so called "Democratic Leadership" as accomplices. Unless we increase the power of the net over the next two years so we are leading the sheeple and Moran Stream Media is running to catch up with us then they will again pick a "acceptable" candidate for the powers that be.

[bliss_eternal]

5. Good post, Lydia...!

:hi:

Btw, I just pm-d you about this.

I was SO surprised to hear Bill Maher go all ape shit about changing the rules so we could "re-elect" Bill Clinton or nominate Arnold Schwarzennegger (who's ineligible as an immigrant). :wtf: Why can't he get out of the way back machine and see any other viable candidates? I don't get that logic AT ALL.

[blm]

7. Seeing how close we've come to losing democracy itself, the only thing that matters

is TRUTH. This nation can't afford to keep hiding what has gone on the last 40 years any longer. The books on BushInc need to be opened.

Clinton wouldn't do it and actively covered up for Poppy Bush. THAT is what led to Bush2, 9-11, Iraq war, and the near loss of this nation's democratic republic. Plus, every good thing that Clinton did manage to do was dismantled or destroyed within Bush's first term. EVERY issue is effected when BushInc has the power to reinvent itself in another package down the road.

What this nation needs above all else is an informed citizenry. This secret government stuff is pure BULLSHIT! And DANGEROUS.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[JeffR]

8. Couldn't agree more. I posted this back in March:

Weigh in here with your pick for the 2016 nomination!!!!!!!
Posted by JeffR in General Discussion: Politics
Fri Mar 24th 2006, 05:39 PM

Since there's nothing important going on right now, like, say, taking back one or both houses of Congress, why don't we discuss who the Democratic nominee should be in 2016?

I'll humbly kick off the speculation.

My first choice is Cate Edwards, John's eldest child. Honors in Political Economy from Princeton, former intern at the Council on Foreign Relations, and media savvy (she's an editorial assistant at Vanity Fair!). Just one problem here: she'll only be 34 in 2016, so she won't make the age requirement for the office. But let's keep her in mind for 2020.

What about someone older, more experienced? Well, who's older and more experienced than Senator Robert Byrd? And he'll only be 99. Venerable yes, but still in double digits.

George Clooney? Susan Sarandon? Well, I've run out of ideas. Your thoughts? Share your opinions here. Times a'wastin! It's only ten years away!

And please keep this kicked even if you don't have your pick yet. I just can't stand seeing threads about Congressional races and other ephemera hovering near the top of the page.

Thanks for your assistance with this vital topic, DUers! Together, if we can all get behind a nominee who's at least 25 years old now, we can take the White House in '16!!!!!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. Yes, that's about how silly it gets at times

:-)

[JeffR]

10. I thought there might at least be a short respite from it after this victory

While we discussed the priorities you mentioned. But apparently not...:eyes:

[AlinPA]

11. Good post. I agree with :"You're all espousing a celebrity-based view

of politics."

[bling bling]

14. I would say 99% of what I read on DU is a waste of time.

Seriously, what percentage of the threads/posts do you read here that are a productive use of your time other than to fill an entertainment/hobby/recreational need? I must be reading the wrong forums.

But it's a good waste of my time. Well, actually it's an addictive waste of my time. Alright, the truth is I may need a 12 step program to taper myself off of this place. Even when it's aggrivating the heck out of me I keep coming back for more.

But in fairness, calling out all the other posters who want to discuss something that you think is a waste of time is kind of a waste of time too. Nobody is going to stop doing that. It's entertainment. We don't work in the Senate or House for real. We're just here for the discussion and argument, mostly, and to try and persuade others to think as we do.

I think a lot of us used to argue with Republicans but the whole Bush thing crossed a line and most of us couldn't stomach to discuss politics with Republicans anymore. That's why we have to argue with each other.

Just my current take on the issue.

[LittleClarkie]

15. We waited patiently until after the midterms.

If we wait any longer, we're going to burst blood vessels. You wouldn't want that on your conscience, would you?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. Well, I can tell you like Clark

What do you think are this country's worst problems?

How do you think they should be approached?

Would Clark do that?

That's what I'm asking. Think about the state of the nation and what it needs before you start waving anyone's banner.

[FrenchieCat]

17. Little Clarkie is actually a Kerry Supporter.... n/t

[LittleClarkie]

19. But I'll defend anyone who needs it. I do try to be Unity Gal.

But then you knew that ;)

[KoKo]

42. kick.....

[LittleClarkie]

18. Kerrycrat, actually. And really at this point, it's two separate things

I don't think any of the partisans spend their entire day posting about their fav 2008 prospect and nothing else.

It's hard to talk about how this candidate or that candidate will handle certain issues if they're elected in 2008, because 2 years is such a long time, and so much can change. Will the war still be an issue then? Gas prices?

But you bring up a good point. And I find I can't name my top concerns. I'm just glad that the nation will soon have Dems at least partly in charge. And I hope that the Dems can find a consensus amongst themselves or this ain't gonna be pretty.

I personally think "Clark is the one" or "We need Kerry" or "Why not Hillary" topics are kinda dumb. I'd much more rather hear about a speech they've made, or a statement they've released on the topics of the day, then deal with "rah rah" threads. If that's what you're talking about, then I agree.

But I and several Kerry folks talked about it in our little group, and we've decided that most of us would still post the guy's doings even if it turns out he never runs for president. I wonder if that's true for the others as well.

Right now, as far as Congress is concerned, I like the leadership so far, and I'm hoping that they get a bit of a honeymoon before they get jumped on too badly by the press. (But that doesn't seem to be happening, sadly.)

I think that Pelosi's early plans are good. I'm just hopeful.

Please forgive my lack of focus. I just worked 39 hours in three days. My brain refuses to cooperate and cough up much in the way of coherent thought. I'm finding I can't prioritize which issue I think is most important right now. I want us out of Iraq, but I'm fearful of what will happen if we don't do it right. Likely it will be chaos either way. And we'll get blamed for it. I'd like gas prices to come down. I'd like outsourcing to stop and for us to get our damned jobs back. That'll do for a start I suppose.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need more caffine. Cheers.

[politicasista]

20. I would too

Let the media speculate on the future. Dems need to keep their eye on the big prize. That is holding Bush accountable for his arrogant, immoral and incopetent leadership and policies.

[Jai4WKC08]

27. I like Clark

And it's precisely because I think he's best capable of addressing this country's (and the world's) worst problems. I resent your implication that someone who supports Clark would have any other motive, and wonder why you would think such a thing.

[Totally Committed]

25. "More recently, there's been a claque pushing Barack Obama...

"...who hasn't even completed one term as a senator and whose only accomplishment of note is one speech at the 2004 convention, and it's easy to see what's behind their thinking: "He cute, young, and black, so he'll have crowd appeal."

Take the word "black" out of that description and you have the EXACT description of John Edwards in the last campaign. He seemed to find it easy enough to get a campaign going based on those things, alone. I think we all need to think harder about who we select as our standard-bearer this time around. I am not an Obama fan, at the moment. I don't think he can win. I didn't think Edwards could win last time out either, and I was right. If both had served another term, and then run, it might have been different.

TC

[Inspired]

60. Disagree in part

I am a supporter of John Edwards and it wasn't because of some speech he gave. He was the only candidate running in '04, or I should say he was the first, who came out with a plan on almost every issue imaginable. The plan was called Real Solutions. I made my decision to support him based on Real Solutions and only on that. The great speech(es) were only cherries on top and I don't even like cherries.

Unfortunately, the nominee ended up being Kerry...not a one-term senator. Kerry's time in the Senate did him a lot more harm than good.

It is my belief, and the belief of many others that if Edwards had been the nominee, we would already have the White House back.

I don't care how long a candidate has been in public office. That isn't what I will be basing my support on. I want to know what the candidate's views and plans are on the issues that are important to me.

[sandnsea]

28. vision and values

We really are going to have to have something a little bolder than a six point plan that sees something as doh-bvious as raising the minimum wage and negotiating prescription drug prices as 'visionary'. We need to re-educate people on what the two parties represent and that our government doesn't function because we've elected people who don't think government is supposed to deliver services that most of the people have come to expect. We need to remind people - government creates the foundation so that people can build their dreams.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. Yes, and part of the "educational process" is making sure that

the public sees the Dems as consistently standing up for ordinary people against those who would screw them over. That means no votes for one-sided "free" trade agreements, no votes for the bankruptcy bill, standing firm on Social Security and putting it in a lockbox, and advocacy for universal health care and other beneficial programs even if (ESPECIALLY IF) they know that Bush is going to veto them.

Then they can go back to their home districts and say, "See? You could have had universal health care, but Bush vetoed it and all the Republicans voted against it."

What could be more educational than that?

[sandnsea]

31. Except

If they convince the people that 'free' 'government run' health care would destroy medical research and discoveries, then they win the Bush veto argument. We have to get people to LIKE government again and that means explaining all the ways that government makes our lives better. Clinton's the 'end of big government' may have been good for his election, but it sure didn't do anything to build an argument for future government programs.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. On the topic of health care specifically, I wonder what the ratio is of

people who are even aware what the latest medical discoveries are to people who are not getting easily treatable conditions treated because they have no insurance and can't afford an office visit.

[Sensitivity]

29. Very good post. Thanks, but isn't silly time wasting a pupose of forums like DU

There is some value in leasure among friends.

[cadmium]

45. yeah I agree with you -- There are a couple reasons that I participate in 08 gossip

One good reason to keep 08 up front is so that no one slides into an unbeatable position because we weren't paying attention.

The main reason is that (I hope) a lot of it is just in good fun.

Plus I like Kerry and a couple others and I am sometimes prompted not to let dissing go unanswered.

[qwlauren35]

32. Actually, I have to disagree.

Right now, we have two very different things to attend to. One is to set an agenda for what might get done in the next 2 years. And the other, truly, is to allow people to move forward as presidential candidates.

I'm not saying that I'm for Clark 100%, but think how much stronger his campaign would have been if he'd put his name in the ring earlier! Is now too early? I don't think so. Money has to be raised, recognition has to be developed. From November of '06 to January of '08 is 14 months. It actually isn't all that much time.

So no, it's not to soon to get the presidential race going. And realize, that in some ways, it's FUN.

Please don't worry about whether the business of governing over the next 14 months is going to be sidelined. DU isn't the best gauge for that, but if you read between the lines, things are heating up on the Hill, and it has far less to do with 2008 than it does with 2006-2007. It's been LESS THAN 10 DAYS since the change in leadership that will occur in January was confirmed. Look at how much has been done. Look at the sneaky moves Bush is trying to make. Look at the line-up of leadership that's already in place. Please believe, the immediate priorities have not been sidelined.

However, if you feel the need, share your concerns with your own congresscritters. As THEM about their agendas, and see what they say. It may be comforting to know that the Hill folks are on top of their game.

And one other thing. Announcing presidential candidacy now is like riding a wave. We've just had a spectacular win, all eyes are on our party, all eyes are still on politics. This is a good time.

Keep the faith...

[HughBeaumont]

34. Umm, yeaaaaah, I'm going to have to go ahead and agree with that.

Plan now, speculate later. We have a giant-ass mess to clean up first.

[KoKo]

36. Good thoughts and points there, Lydia.

Agree that all this candidate pushing at this point is more like us grouping around Rock Stars just because of a "buzz."

Media is happy to have us watching "Supers Stars" of their making so we don't focus on the issues. We have to hope that the MSCorporate Media is getting a little old and tired in peoples minds since we've been listening to the same old crap and hype from them for well over a decade now. We are in very perilous times and frivolity over serious issues will only hasten our country's total destruction economically and socially.

[Canuckistanian]

37. So? We got time to waste

And it doesn't mean we've given up on all the other issues. Just look around - the ideas are all flooding out, now that complete power to affect change is within view.

[Senator]

38. The prime mantra for Carville's Cult of Silliness -- Elect-a-bill-a-teee

To "deprogram" for a second. Literally any Dem Party nominee is "electable."

Yes, even Kucinich. Yes, even Sharpton.

(After all, we won the last 2 elections with a talking piece of wood and a talking bag of cement.)

--

[Fermezlabush]

49. Yup. And the media decides who has this mysterious asset.

In local and national elections. Good progressive candidates are simply not covered. The designated loser to GOP_ers. party machine tool gets covered as the only choice. Then people follow, without a second thought.

[Senator]

59. This too shall pass

It took them $50 million and a good chunk of their credibility to stop Gov. Dean last time.

That dog may not hunt for much longer.

--

[smoogatz]

39. Nothing like a lengthy post pointing out what a waste of time

certain other posts are. Yeesh. Talk about having nothing better to do. Also, you contradict yourself here: "The fact is that most of them won their seats NOT on the basis of their supposed "appeal" but on the basis of their ideas, their personal integrity, and the careful honing of their message to appeal to the constituency. Some of them won in supposedly unwinnable areas because they understood the local people and knew how to appeal to them." They didn't win because of their "appeal," but they won by being appealing? Huh?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. I meant that they didn't win because of their "star quality"

Look at Tim Walz, who knocked out a multi-term Republican Congressman in southern Minnesota, a land where there are anti-choice billboards along the highways. He's a high school teacher who looks like...a typical Middle American high school teacher.

[smoogatz]

48. Would Tim Walz be electable in a national Presidential race?

One in which the other candidates were larger-than-life figures like McCain or Giuliani or Hillary?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

55. I don't know

Could Jimmy Carter have been elected running against Ted Kennedy in his own party and against Gerald Ford in the general?

I don't know that Walz harbors any presidential ambitions (somehow I doubt it), but it's been so long since an ordinary person, i.e. someone who isn't "larger than life" has been nominated that we just don't know. Given that a considerable number of voters fell for Bush's fake "jus' plain folks" shtick, they might respond to someone who indicated that he genuinely understood their lives.

What I was mostly criticizing was the idea that you can pick your candidate on the basis of his supposed star quality (even if it's the empty suit anchorman type of star quality) before you know what you stand for.

[smoogatz]

61. That's reasonable.

I mean, I'd love to see Gore run again, wooden as he remains. Not to mention fat and sallow. But his ideas are so compelling, I tell myself people won't care. Especially after 8 years of Bush incompetence.

[wiley]

41. Stop the bitter "cult of personality" lecture - we spoke loudly Nov.7th

"I feel sorry for people who are young enough to think that Bill Clinton is as good as it gets."

Exactly what are you trying to say? Wait, let me adjust my hearing aid to screen out more bullshit. Also, great one, censoring violent video games is actually a big concern for many parents.

Really condescending post. Remove the bitter "cult of personality" lecture and you've described exactly what the majority of people did at the polls last week.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. But censoring violent video games as a MAJOR component of a

10-point party platform, aside from the fact that it would be declared unconstitutional? That's just pandering to parents who are too whatever to monitor their own children's activities and purchases. It's not a major issue that will make or break this country.

I know what the results of the November 7 election were as much as anyone, but the Dems will have to deliver if they want to keep this going. Jumping up and down and saying, "My guy!" "No, my guy!" without discussion of what these candidates stand for is trivial.

[wiley]

50. I still disagree with you. A "point" can stand for something bigger

than just violent videos. It represents a scream for assistance in raising children. Why is this difficult? Well, raising kids is very time consuming, expensive, and difficult for those with little experience in even taking care of themselves properly. So what they are really saying is that they need things like more flex time, better paying jobs so one or both of the parents won't have to work so much, stricter rules about what their kids are exposed to and who exposes it to them because they are too whatever, but they will never say that. Few parents will.

Separate out the incessant NOW THE DEMS HAVE TO DELIVER drum beat - it's pretty clear to everyone that they should not emulate Republicans in any way, while trying to do something, while still having Bush and his cabinet and other Republicans obstructing or outright destroying things - from the "My Guy" stuff. If there is anything more annoying about Edwards cheerleaders, for example, I don't know what it is, but you could hose them down with cold water and someone would still comment or start a post about the guy. Others do the same with other candidates. I'm not the Czar of DU, however, and they have their right to say whatever they want. I agree it's embarassing and unproductive, but this is a country where 50 million people will seriously debate and discuss an Americaan Idol contestant yet not actually know who their elected representatives are, or even who the Governor of their state is.

The really sad thing is that if candidates started doing semi-clothed or other beefcake type poses - ooooh, John Edwards in boxer shorts !!!! - their popularity would probably skyrocket. What can one do?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

56. I fully agree with the premise that parents are overwhelmed, but

why not meet that with something that speaks directly to their need for financial help and extra time instead of a symbolic gesture that will just tie up the Supreme Court?

What about parental leave as a mandatory benefit, which seems to work in other countries but is considered impossible here?

What about family allowances on a sliding scale like the earned income credit? (Another idea that works in other countries but is considered impossible here.)

What about subsidized day care and better training and pay for providers? (Another idea, etc.)

What about designing communities so that stores, schools, jobs, and recreational facilities are close together, eliminating the need for a lot of the driving that suburban parents seem to spend half their free time doing?

What about national health care, so that parents don't have to risk poverty if their child develops a serious illness?

What about affordable housing and/or ultra-low-interest loans for home buyers?

Next to these points, censoring video games is just a meaningless symbol that "solves" a problem that barely exists.

[wiley]

63. I agree with every one of those points

[DemBones DemBones]

44. If only it really worked that way.

Of course it's silly -- there were 2008 polls long before the 2006 election, and 2004 polls long before the 2002 election. But the media are pushing the issue of who will run/be electable/win in 2008.

Kucinich has proposed at least since 2004 to have Medicare cover everyone, to move the Social Seurity retirement age back to 65, to get out of Iraq (in 2002 he was saying we shouldn't go into Iraq -- six months before the Bushies rolled the Iraq war out as a new fall product.)

I could vote for a Kucinich/Pelosi or maybe a Kucinich/Murtha ticket. I think they'd address the real issues, giving highest priority to the most important issues. Pelosi has laid out a good plan for the first 60 hours of a Dem-controlled House and I think she'll follow it up well.

[bj2110]

46. Clark/Gore '08 - I don't care

[JNelson6563]

47. Oh hey now!

There are a lot of posters who have patiently waited since the 04 primaries to begin campaigning for their candidate. It is the sole purpose for many a poster who is here.

Kinda sad, eh?

Julie

[Bullet1987]

51. It's not silly...

...To anticipate 2008. Seeing as how as soon as January hits it's going to be a very big topic.

[election_2004]

52. Don't blame us - - the MSM started it!

They've been giddily waiting for this election since January 2001, ever since they began promoting Hillary Clinton as "the Democrats' next and only great hope."

It's time to counteract that, for those of us who believe the Democrats can do much better than Hillary.

[AlGore-08.com]

53. Ideas and platforms are mere words if the candidate can't (or won't) deliver

You also have to look at the candidate's experience and their track record. If you have two people with the exact same platform in a primary, who do you vote for? Add this to the scenario:

A.) One candidate is the incumbent, who's been in office for a dozen years and has done a very good job of keeping his/her election pledges, and is very easy to contact and at least tries to solve constituent problems. The second candidate has held one office and was plagued by charges of incompetence and corruption.

B.) One candidate is the incumbent, who's been in office for a dozen years and who always talks a good game around election time, but rarely votes the way he/she promised, and is plagued by charges of incompetence and corruption. The second candidate has held one office and has done a very good job keeping his/her election pledges, is very easy to contact and at least tries to solve constituent problems.

For some of us, that's the discussion we're having about 2008. We're not indulging in celebrity politics. Some of us are advocating candidates who we truly believe would make better Presidents than other possible contenders. Others are trying to become informed voters, trying to decide who (if anybody) they support at this point.

That's never a silly waste of time.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. Right, it's important to determine who can deliver

But so much of the candidate advocacy I see here is about image rather than substance, and more than a few people seem stuck on a certain candidate JUST BECAUSE. They meet objections (valid objections, in most cases) not with reasoned defenses but with snarkiness. This tells me that they're fans rather than intelligent advocates.

[wwmills551]

54. I like that fighting terrorism idea, Medicare ain't bad either!

[Catchawave]

58. Oh, I hear ya, but.....

24/7 news channels aside, I think the 2008 Presidential Race is going to cost the hopefuls more than the Iraq War, and the 2 major parties don't even want to look at candidates that can't raise a million dollars a day for the next two years :shrug: or :sarcasm: or both ?

My hope is that DU will look beyond personal favorites and let the Primaries sort them all out.

2008 is historic, in the sense that this will be the first Presidential election since 1952 that an incumbent President or Vice President is NOT on the ticket.

Should be fun, so please indulge those of us who enjoy the sh*t out of this :hi:

[Strawman]

62. Uhh, Wesley Clark, Edwards, Obama, Clinton, Kucinich, Vilsack

All in reverse order, names beginning with vowels before those with consonants. That's my order of preference.

Discuss...