Personality-based politics--AARRGGH!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

Actually, it's not even politics when you think of it that way. It's a popularity contest.

Right now I don't care who the 2008 candidate is, since I'm not crazy about any of them. Sure, they're all better than Bush. That's a pretty low standard, you have to admit. Any random person off the street is likely to be better than Bush.

I don't care who's what gender or what color or what ethnicity the candidates are or who has the best hair or who will appeal to the Republicans or who is from what part of the country or especially, who has the loudest claque on DU.

All that is superficial, meaningless bullshit. All those suggested combinations of candidates are as relevant to the real needs of this country as the Oscar nominations.

When people come onto this board saying, "Clinton!" "Obama!" "Richardson!" "Gore!" "Edwards!" it seems like a game. It's like the way little boys say, "If a tiger and lion had a fight, who would win?"

America is in the worst shape it's been since the Depression. We're in an illegal, immoral, unwinnable war. The gap between rich and poor is widening. The health care system is inefficient, expensive, corrupt, and inadequate. In many communities, the average person can't afford the average house or the average apartment. Public confidence in public schools is low. Unemployment and underemployment are higher than the official figures suggest, and our manufacturing base has mostly gone to foreign sweatshops. The Pentagon spends money for weapons and bases to fightt enemies that no longer exist, and it cannot account for $3.2 trillion dollars of its budget over the years. Civil liberties have been violated in seriously un-Constitutional ways. Nobody is doing anything meaningful about global warming. No one is doing anything meaningful about much of anything.

We're not voting for high school homecoming queen here. After 8 years of the Bushies having their way with us, the last thing we need is a candidate who is chosen just because he/she 1) really wants the job, 2) has been waiting in the wings for a long time, 3) is good at raising money from corporate donors, 4) looks "presidential," 5) won't offend anyone, 6) is a policy wonk, 7) has the right combination of bland good looks and bland ideas not to scare the corporate donors, 8) has a contingent of vocal supporters on DU, 9) is a Southerner, 10) is not a Southerner, 11) will appeal to certain demographic groups, 12) was a popular mayor/governor/Congresscritter in a Red state.

No, our country is in too much trouble to rely on that Beltway PR flak nonsense.

Where is the leadership? Where are the bold ideas? Where is someone who will speak the truth and act on it, no matter who gets offended? Where is the candidate who will come right out and say, "We have to REVERSE everything that the Republicans have done in the past 25 years"? Where is the candidate who will come out and say, "We have to take bold action on the environment, health care, and housing"? Where is the candidate who really understands the needs of the country and can explain these needs and his proposed solutions in simple yet non-condescending language? Where is the candidate who can win the voters' trust so that they will willingly go along into uncharted territory?

People are going to jump onto this thtread and shout out the name of their favorite candidate (each candidate has a large and mostly mindless claque of cheerleaders on DU), but frankly, that's boring and trivial.

I don't know whom we need, but none of the announced or hinting candidates seems capable of seeing the problems clearly, figuring out solutions, and just as importantly, leading the people forward.

[Blue_In_AK]

1. Well said, Lydia.

I'm hoping for that candidate myself.

[tblue]

2. Kucinich is the only one who seems to have all your boxes checked, but then you've said

you don't want us to 'shout out' the answer your question. (Dennis is NOT my 1st choice, by the way, tho I like him). I get your frustration, alright? I get it and I share a lot of it with you. But I don't get how it moves us forward. You're insulting the 'mindless claque of cheerleaders on DU' as though we at DU are just so much litter on the road to your personal ideal. You don't want us to name names, you say? So what do you want? Comiseration? Okay, you got it. You got all of it I have to give. And I'd tell you who my first choice is to answer your question, but you've indicated you don't want me to tell you that. So wtf?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

3. I want people to think seriously about their choice of candidates instead of

treating 2008 as American Idol, Political Edition.

I want them to consider not only their candidate's appeal to various demographics (which seems to be most of what is going on in GD-Politics) but also how capable their candidate is of meeting the challenges that any new president will face, thanks to 8 years of robber baron rule.

[Clark2008]

27. I have and that's why I'm a Clarkie.

Wesley Clark not only could win the appeal of various demographics (if the media would actually, you know, talk about him), but he also had the most progressive plans on taxes of any of the 2004 primary candidates, believes in fair trade over free trade, was against the Iraqi War, while still providing exit plans for each step of the war as it progressed, proving flexibility and a knowledge of military war theaters on his part, is beloved the world over - by both Jews AND Muslims (imagine that), understands diplomacy means talking to people you DON'T like, knows what's it's like to live on $50,000 for most of his adult life, has experience in governance, understands economics and is not afraid of the right - to the point that he goes on Faux News every week to tell the sheep what's truly what.

[tblue37]

14. Hi, tblue.

I think we might set other DUers up for a bit of confusion with our strikingly similar names, don't you?

[KT2000]

4. So much depends on

media during an election. No matter how thoughtful we may be, the media decides who the winner will be and that is based on personality.
Matt Taibbi wrote about this after the last presidential election. The reporters, including Taibbi, assigned to Kerry found him to be stiff and humorless. They thought he lacked charisma. They decided more or less that he did not have what it took to be presidential so their reports reflected that.

I am not saying this is right, but I do believe that the media plays a huge role and they are looking for personality.

Kerry was often portrayed negatively and he had a hard time getting his message out. They were more concerned with characterizing him than judging him on the issues.

[WildEyedLiberal]

6. That's exactly the problem we face

No, I'm not trying to hijack this thread or turn it into a rah-rah for Kerry, but I'm just going to say that I have met and spent time around John Kerry, too, and let's just say I'm not sure who the hell Matt Taibbi saw, because if you spend any real time around the man, he's nothing like the MSM stereotype that was assigned to him.

I'm not saying that to convince everyone on the thread that "Kerry iz best" or whatever, but just to point out that our single biggest deficit - no matter who our candidate is, the media will NOT portray him or her fairly. Taibbi, for one, strikes me as someone who is way too invested in earning kool kid street cred, and everyone knows that kool kidz are cynical and jaded, so showing any sort of earnestness about politics is a no no. As I recall from reading about Taibbi's book, he pretty much made fun of all the Democrats who ran in 2004 - Kerry, Dean, Edwards, all of them.

Today's political journalism is the equivalent of a high school cafeteria in which, to be a member of the hip clique, you have to make fun of all those Democratic DORKS at the other table. Whoever can make fun of the nerdz the most gets to be a part of the club.

[KT2000]

7. Agree!

Media coverage is juvenile. Listening to Taibbi was such a disappointment. Frat boys more concerned with impressing each other and hiding their insecurities. But then it "becomes" the election and they have set the agenda.

Remember what they did to Gore? Never the issues, just the "I invented the internet" (which You already know, he never said) take on everything he said - not what he said.

I don't know how we will get around this.

[WildEyedLiberal]

5. "If a tiger and a lion had a fight, who would win?"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

OMG, that is the BEST analogy for the DU 2008 Candidate Warz I've ever heard.

[Leilani]

8. It is pretty depressing.

I haven't been excited about voting in a long time. I think people running for political office today are more concerned about themselves than the country.

I'm a baby boomer, & I'm disappointed in my generation of leaders, Or perhaps the lack of leadership.

I agree with you, in that I want someone who speaks TRUTH, & not bland soundbites, designed not to offend.

And as long as money dominates in elections, we will continue to see the elites running things. What chance does a person of modest means have in this environment? And those in Washington are so out of touch with the average American that they have no clue as to what's going on.

It's very very sad.

[Senator]

9. Great Minds Discuss Ideas... Average Minds Discuss Events...

... Small Minds Discuss People. -- Anonymous

This is the result of political journalism morphing into our current Euphemedia -- who merely cover political celebrities.

Like the Hollywood press, it's just a symbiotic (i.e., mutually parasitic) PR arrangement.

---

[Karenina]

15. Actually that was Eleanor Roosevelt. n/t

[tom_paine]

58. Excellent saying.

[Guaranteed]

10. Leadership, bold ideas, truth. I understand. I feel your pain.

I, too, thirst for these things.

:P

Seriously, I do.

[sutz12]

11. We haven't had an election about issues in decades...

Maybe since Nixon. And he reneged on his promise to end Vietnam in 1988.

People think it's about issues, but if they really believe that, how can they justify voting for Shrub because he'd "be nice to have a beer with?" Personally, I'd throw the beer in his face, but that's just me. I never liked what he passed off as personality, anyway.

Meanwhile, the media won't let issues be really discussed. They just want a good horse race, with some interesting events to milk for ratings.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. That's why the campaigns have to use more guerilla tactics

to get the word out. Use the corporate media as much as possible, but concentrate their efforts on grassroots initiatives geared toward local conditions by local activists.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

49. Actually, we have had many elections about issues. However- not on a federal level.

When you watch local races, you see a lot more honest debate about issues. Also, the issues are much less "pie in the sky" things- usually actions that can actually be performed. When a candidate runs on grandiose campaign promises that they can't deliver on (assuming that the locals are engaged in the process), they probably won't find themselves reelected.

Can you imagine what would happen if that same level of accountability was extended to the federal candidates? .... No?

Well... Neither can I.

Not now. Not without a major change in how issues get discussed.

Wait.

That would require that the issues were actually discussed at all.

[izzie]

12. I like what you said but your hoping for some thing new and

I think we get some one who has to get in front of what the people want and the people are really mixed up so it comes out with our leaders. Half the voters wanted what Bush wanted or said he wanted so that is what he ran on and what we got. Seems he has gone off the line and now it is what he wants. Even after the people have spoken he goes his own way. Their are still people who think God put him in office believe it or not. It would be nice to have a man who said 'would you like it this way' and we said sure and went with him. We did with FDR but those are few.

[no_hypocrisy]

13. Kinda like voting for officers to the Student Council. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

16. I agree with most of what you said except your characterization as 'mindless' most of .....

... 'claque members' here on DU who do all the 'cheerleading'.

I'm not one of them and I am just as annoyed by the cheerleading as you are. But I honestly think the people you say are cheerleading are very much aware of who their candidate is, what he stands for, his policy on all manner of issues, large and small, and can quote chapter and verse of what (s)he said and when. They can also do the same for pretty much every candidate they do *not* support.

Again, I'm not one bit enamoured of political cheerleading and politics of personality, but I am also not ready to say that some of these cheerleaders are mindless or uninformed. Quite the contrary.

For what its worth, I already have a favorite for the 08 cycle. The choice is, in my mind, reality based and involves a candidate with whom I have some disagreement, but find those disagreements to be on minor issues. I guess the only difference between me and the 'cheerleaders' is that I choose not to cheerlead.

And about that 'cheerleading' ...... I've made a bunch of posts about how I feel about it and how I think it could hurt rather than help a candidate by turning people off to him/her. That said (and I stand by my posts), there are those who come and do the very oppostite of cheerleading. They post things about this one or that one that are simply untrue. While I can assume some of this is simply the result of lack of information, most such posts smell of specific intent. These are just as unhelpful as are the cheerleading posts, and I understand the need to knock these down ...... often over and over and over. The 'cheerleaders' do that, and do it well, most often with facts.

No, I don't think the politics of personality is a problem for most on DU. (Annoying, mostly, but not a problem.) I ****DO*** think it is a real and much larger issue with our near-worthless media's personality-driven coverage of candidates.

I wish honest, hard news and 'Entertainment Tonight' were farther apart, but sadly, they're not (witness the current crap with this media-manufactured Clinton-Obama 'war'). And maybe *that's* where we need to be directing our ire.

[JNelson6563]

23. I think you missed the point

The bickering between camps IS mindless. It's this endless battle, some posters have been replaying a loop of discussion since the 04 primaries. I believe many have been just biding time between now and then to take up the practice again.

I am hard pressed to think of any benefit to be had from this but I do see a whole lot of downside. For starters there's the mountain of wasted bandwidth....for the most part though what it seems to do is to create lots and lots of hard feelings.

I am not saying there should be no discussion of the candidates. All the potential candidates do newsworthy stuff and provides a basis for an actual discussion. There is a difference between those and the So-and-so is the only one who can win!! n/t and the So-and-so is the only one who can handle this mess!! n/t" threads. Sadly we are treated to many more offensive titles, usually accompanied with little or no substance and almost always end up in flames. Pointless, stupid, counter-productive, and yes, I'd go so far as to say mindless activity.

Hard to believe anyone could miss, deny or justify this kind of stuff going on and the negative effects of it.

Just my .0125


Julie

[Stinky The Clown]

26. Hey Julie ....... ?

..... maybe I've overused my 'IGNORE' button! :)

[JNelson6563]

29. hahahaha!!!!!

Good one! :rofl:

Maybe I should do the same. :toast:

[The Count]

17. Well said. I want a candidate who didn't support the war and would be competent enough

to deal with the mess W left.

[1932]

18. It's funny that you mention the Depression. FDR won because he had a sunnier

disposition, and then it was the sunny disposition and committment to progressive politics that brought us out of the Depression.

Personality, mood, tone is just one part of a smart politician's total strategy.

If a politician doesn't have the intelligence to realize that personality matters and doesn't have the skill to present a sunny personality, then there might be a lot of other obvious things they don't realize.

[welshTerrier2]

19. thanks, Lydia ... just superb!!

i've been using that "cheerleader" term for some time now ... your post is just great ... i think the cheerleader-syndrome has been one of the evolutions we've seen on DU since its early days ... with each election cycle, the percentage of cheerleaders here increases ... it's really sad ...

on another thread, i have people telling me we shouldn't cut-off funding for the war because it would hurt the Dems politically ... we've lost sight of "doing the right thing for the country" as the basis of our actions ... and we are going to pay a huge price for our blunderings ...

the country is at risk; the world is at risk; all life is at risk ... and we let the marketing and PR types run the Party ... Democrats won no mandate ... we are not seen as being any better than the republicans ... we are riding a very tiny wave of anti-bush sentiment ... we look good today ... next time, bush won't be there to help us ... and what have we offered?

yeah, i'm a Democrat ... of course we're better than the republicans ... as you said, that's not much of a standard to beat ... but it's not the ultimate standard ... in the end, we do all this political stuff to make our lives and the lives of others better ... playing political games is no way to do that ...

the only disagreement i have with your post came in your last paragraph ... you said that: "none of the announced or hinting candidates seems capable of seeing the problems clearly, figuring out solutions, and just as importantly, leading the people forward." i think they may very well be capable of seeing clearly and figuring out solutions ... leading is another question ... i think they're capable; i just don't think they're willing to take the political risk ... and therein lies the great American tragedy ...

great post, Lydia ... thanks so much!!

[Mass]

20. Bravo!!

[ArmchairMeme]

21. Media

It has become increasingly apparent that the media is all about entertainment and it aimed at the "young" crowd. Every evening the local news starts with teasers and then quickly goes to celebrity news, celebrity photos, weather, traffic, sports, sports celebrities and then in the end throws in a dab of "news" . The push to entertain is also a means of denying what is really happening in the world and our own country. Keep the people dumbed down so they won't object to what is being pushed on them. The lies that are put out about anything political are fully accepted by the people because they have no other source of information. They have very little access to what is actually happening in their world.

When Bush was installed as resident I remember making a choice to turn away from t.v. news and commentary and to turn to the internet for news and commentary. I have not been disappointed. There is a wealth of information in many places on the internet and the many voices of non-celebrities is more and more real each week.

When I do watch t.v. it is Jon Stewart - comedy made out of news or commentary by Olbermann who very often says it straight out. I don't think those shows make it into the minds of most people due to the fact that they are cable shows. They have to be chosen not just mindlessly unattended like the M$M.

We may never again have a legitimate leader in the WH because the powers that make that choice are closed to the public.

[ProSense]

22. Excellent statement! Start a thread with this:

Where is the leadership? Where are the bold ideas? Where is someone who will speak the truth and act on it, no matter who gets offended? Where is the candidate who will come right out and say, "We have to REVERSE everything that the Republicans have done in the past 25 years"? Where is the candidate who will come out and say, "We have to take bold action on the environment, health care, and housing"? Where is the candidate who really understands the needs of the country and can explain these needs and his proposed solutions in simple yet non-condescending language? Where is the candidate who can win the voters' trust so that they will willingly go along into uncharted territory?

I guarantee that every potential candidate will be mentioned as The One!

[sendero]

24. A saying comes to mind...

... "anyone who could do that job wouldn't want it"

The problem is, most people who aspire to be president are those who's aspiration, not their ihnerent ability to lead, their inherent integrity, or any other desirable quality, is what drives them to the campaign.

With a very small handful of exceptions, I see every potential nominee on either side to be nothing more than a person who really, really, really, REALLY wants to be president. Even those with basically noble intentions fall again and again into being afraid to lead for fear of damaging their prospects of getting elected. You saw it in the IWR vote, and you will see it in the current appropriations legislation. We have vanishingly few real leaders in the higher echelons of our party.

This has gotten worse with each passing decade and I don't know the answer. It is driven somewhat by the way elections/candidates are covered by the media, which is driven somewhat by the banal tastes and lack of curiousity in the American people.

I don't know how to fix this, but I do know that as a country we will all be paying the price for it.

[stevedeshazer]

25. k & r

What she said. :)

[JNelson6563]

30. You mean stupid shit like this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3009096

Subtitute any potential candidate as the subject of this and I'd still consider it a perfect example of what the OP, and many others, take issue with.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. Exactly, and you could find examples from the supporters of

every other candidate.

[JNelson6563]

42. Just as useless when about any of them

And to think there's many months of it to come. Oy.

Julie

[Gregorian]

31. Rome is burning. Burning petroleum.

And our wallets are mightier than our ballots. And no politician can help us now. I mean look at Inhofe's new book on debunking global warming.

This is and isn't off topic-

What we need now is responsibility combined with knowledge. And I don't see either happening soon. There's too much greed and ignorance for that.

I'm hopeful though. Not for this generation. But for the one that comes along in a thousand years, after the mess is all done and gone.

You know, this isn't the post I wanted to post. It's bleak. Dark. But I'm one monkey at one keyboard. And this is what came out.

I partly say this because I know that in these numbers, and with the remaining large countries just turning on the modern lifestyle, I doubt we'll turn back in time. For goodness sake, the icebergs have already melted. Thermal cycles on this magnitude are not fast. What we see now is not going to change even if we do change. Not for a long time.

There is no leader to help us now. We can pretend like this next election and whomever wins it will change the world for the better.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. Lack of leadership on global climate change is what future generations

(if there are any) will most condemn us for. The Iraq War is all part of it, a last-ditch attempt to squeeze every bit of profit out of oil before the axe falls.

[IndianaGreen]

34. K&R, and a small observation

another way of looking at our current situation is that there are parallels with pre-revolutionary Russia in 1917:

1. Like the Imperial Russian army, our armies are well on their way to a major military and strategic defeat.

2. Like the Tsar, Bush remains in denial as to his precarious situation.

3. Like the Mensheviks, the Democrats will not pull the US out of the war immediately and unconditionally.

[rucky]

35. The tiger would totally win. n/t

[ieoeja]

57. Bigger and stronger, but....

Tigers are solitary and shy away from fighting. While lions must establish their position within the pride and practice fighting skills their whole lives.

Also, a lion's hunting skills are geared towards bringing down larger prey compared to that usually targeted by the tiger. I would put my money on the lion.

[election_2004]

36. I agree, to a point....

I don't buy into the gimmicks that people use to try to "sell" their specific novelty-based pet candidates for 2008. Give me substance.

On the other hand, it is important for a presidential nominee to be able to connect with people and present themselves authentically.

After all, Mitch McConnell's cardboard personality is one of the main reasons he'll NEVER be the GOP presidential nominee.

[AtomicKitten]

45. and then there's the personality-based paradigm

of DUers themselves manifested in cliques rather than thoughtful discourse.

[election_2004]

46. How is that relevant?

After all, people here keep reminding us how "DU isn't representative of mainstream Democrats"...so if that's true, how are the cliques formed on DU even relevant to the OP's real-world analysis?

[AtomicKitten]

48. the OP included inference to intra-DU machinations

... and that is the relevance of my comment about Sharks vs. Jets mentality when it comes to promoting candidates.

[gulliver]

37. Clark

;-)

Really.

I sympathize, because I like things rational. Unfortunately, Bush/Rovism demonstrates clearly what the ages have always known: superficiality is a fact. It has to be accounted for just like any other. It takes a very, very special person to balance fact and the complex network of social forces. Bush's smirk is superficial. Is it irrelevant?

Bill Clinton is an eigth degree black belt. All of the other candidates, including Clark IMO, have chinks in their armor. But Clark is alone among them in proven leadership, bold progressive ethic, big picture vision, and high IQ. Clark also scores well in the social, black art dimension. Fox News would not have put him on if he were going to cause their demographic to switch channels.

Clark helped elect a bunch of Dems this year, including my new Senator, (the awesome) Claire McCaskill. He's cool.

[undeterred]

38. I agree. I'm so tired of people identifying themselves with

a future candidate or asking me to draft Obama to run or petition Hillary not to run. And I really don't give a hoot who any of you supported in the primaries 3 years ago. THE PRIMARIES ARE OVER! No matter who you chose, he's not the president!

[Irreverend IX]

39. Unfortunately, personality-based politics are part and parcel of human nature.

That's all there is to it. Most people are barely capable of rational thought and can think no farther than their basest fears and prejudices when selecting a leader. Ignoring this fact is political suicide. I know it's stupid, but anyone who can't schmooze and smile for the cameras is a non-starter as a presidential candidate.

[never cry wolf]

41. I agree, unfortunately that IS the essence of politics

At least in the country full of sheeple who get their candidate info on the 10 o'clock news. Most in this country vote on their emotion, their feeling about a candidate. Precious few take the time to even know the issues, much less research, understand and form a thought out opinion.

Much like the purpose of the teevee is not to entertain or inform, it is to sell commercials, the purpose of politics is to get elected. The great architect, Louis Sullivan was once asked what the most important part of a project was, his answer was "getting the commission."

I hate that it is this way and that in part is why I love DU. There are some cheerleaders but DUers are, by far, much more educated and rational than the vast majority of the murican people. If people educated themselves no one would ever vote repuke (except the richest 1%.)

Color me cynical, but sadly I think it is reality. On the electability scale I am afraid that most suited to govern ranks far down the list.

[bvar22]

40. Right On, LL.

I'm praying for a charismatic progressive outsider who thinks outside the box, is unafraid of bold ideas, and has the courage to do and say the right thing regardless of the Pundits and Media. Every candidate from the Senate, and most from the House are tainted beyond repair.

I routinely disqualify from relevance anyone who has already incorporated either a Candidate Fan Club avatar, or a sig line with a quote from a campaign brochure.

I use "camp followers", but "cheerleaders" is good.
:hi:


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[thingfisher]

43. Where is the leadership?

Where are the bold ideas? Where is someone who will speak the truth and act on it, no matter who gets offended?

You are so right to bring this up. National elections resemble high school student council elections - big superficial popularity contests!

[AtomicKitten]

44. Candidates will have an opportunity

to articulate real solutions to overcoming this unprecedented mess known as America including domestic and foreign entanglements.
It will be a herculean task.

I am not impressed by platitudes and slogans, speculation stated with certainty, nor with the nonstop bandwidth-wasting reams of data that has been posted over and over again. An avalanche of data without thoughtful consideration is pointless.

I am also not moved by going off the deep end when a politico says something deemed controversial. The dramatic calls to excise people from the Democratic Party in toto are so over-the-top. Wake me when someone actually does something and I will be glad to react.

I am not interested in the systematic denigration nor the nonstop inflation of a candidate's record. There are those that consider the truth "sliming." And there's the rub. That's where truthiness butts heads with the truth. I want unvarnished truth, not cheerleading. And I want to be able to articulate my opinion without being tag-team assaulted by the pep squads.

Another issue of great importance to some is the war, specifically the IWR. I have encountered a real insensitivity * cough * towards those that have strong feelings on the subject and are not as accommodating in "getting over it" as those whose candidate of choice voted "yes." But I digress.

I think it's easier to start out with several contenders in mind rather than a single-minded focus on one particular candidate (in opposition to or in support of). It is the latter unyielding mindset that perpetuates stagnate discussion.

[MasonJar]

47. I know that you are not asking us at this point to name someone;

in fact you are asking just the opposite. However, I have a couple of comments I'd like to share. In the first place you obviously underestimate how bad Bush is; any one cell entity at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean would do less damage to the world. The candidates that we have already are all so superior to Bush as to be insulted by being included in the same article as the fool-in-chief. Also he has not decided to run and may not, but Al Gore is the person to fit all the criteria you mention. I do agree that we have a lot to accomplish NOW so that our candidate whoever she/he is will have the right atmosphere in which to win. No more rethugs ever.

[Armstead]

50. I agree but it's a difficult dilemma -- Maybe we need a Mad Scientist

You're absolutely correct. It is frustrating and depressing that most of the candidates represent variations of the same old lukewarm soup we've been fed for years.

Those with real ideas are either marginalized for superficial reasons, like Kucinich.

Or the views of the leading contenders are glossed over. For example, I really like the basic message of John Edwards regarding poverty and wealth. But I also don't know how he would translate that into meaningful policies and structural reform -- or if he even wants to go as far as is necessary to achieve his stated goals.

But the dilemma is that this is how the media casts it, and how the public perceives it. So "electability" does have to be a factor -- which translates into trivial stuff like their looks, voice and ability to achieve winnable political backing.

Dunno the answer. We need someone like FDR, who was able to win and govern by force of personality, while also pursuing meaningful liberal reforms and policies to address the problems of his time.

Maybe what we really need is a Mad Scientist who could graft the brains and values of a Dennis Kucinich into the body of a Barak Obama, John Edwards or Hilary Clinton.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

51. Brava!

I couldn't agree more. I do have a favorite potential candidate (a couple of them, actually), but the reason I like that person is that he does, in fact, talk about, and intelligently analyze and explain, the serious problems we are facing. The identity of that person is not important at this point -- the issue IS the issues, not the person -- so I'm not going to go into rah-rah mode for Candidate X. It's way too soon for that.

And I'm sick unto projectile vomiting of rock-star politics. While I realize that election campaigns are largely marketing efforts, I don't want to hear that so-and-so WILL be our candidate; and we'd better get used to it because NOBODY can beat so-and-so because he/she is the superstar with the "Big Mo." Bullshit. Anyone whose opinion is that we MUST nominate the superstar has been drinking too much media Kool-Aid. The media don't care about issues or leaders; they care only about a good dogfight.

I also realize that many supporters of the various candidates will continue to flog those candidacies as if their favorites were running for Prom Queen, and that asking some of their fans to look at it in a different way is sort of like farting in a whirlwind. So let the games begin. There's always "Ignore."

[JCMach1]

52. Exactly, the Democratic party needs to get over its' Messiah complex

We need to work towards reforming the system from top to bottom. Instead we work, support, pray, whatever for the one person who will do that for us...


Ain't gonna happen...


The revolution begins right in front of our noses and we have to fight it every day!

[TheDonkey]

53. We must be aware of personality politics or we'll be burned

In the HD world--- in the 21st Century, personality politics resonates in America. Intellectuals and politicos might know that charisma is not a pre-requisite for good public policy but don't underestimate the amount of votes that will be lost to dull but brilliant candidates.

Democrats have often given voters too much credit, putting up smart candidates but they lack charisma, sex appeal, confidence, or charm. THIS IS KILLING US!! Let's find the whole pacakge and start to win!

[Reterr]

54. Very True.eom

[Vidar]

55. Good post, Lydia. I'm getting a headache from bumping into polls.

[Infinite Hope]

56. Interesting n/t

[KoKo]

59. Thanks "Lydia." You said a GOOD THING!!!! n/t