A few thoughts after a long absence

[Armstead]

I was a regular poster at DU for a long time. But I got away from it -- and from political passion in general -- sometime after last November's election. Why? Largely because after what should have been a heartening victory, it soon became clear that "business as usual" was going to continue.

The current shape of the presidential races seems to reinforce that feeling, unfortunately. The media is following their usual "horse race" playbook regarding the presidential campaign -- How much did Edwards pay for a haircut? Who is this nut Dennis Kucinich? Is Obama "black enough"?

The Democratic Party system seems to be ignoring what the grass roots really wants, and instead is trying to shove a pallid sequel -- CLINTON 2 --down our throats yet again. "Forget what you really believe and want. Hold your nose and vote 'anyone but a republican' yet again because you have no alternative."

Forget that the majority either dislikes or is lukewarm about Hilary and what she represents. She's the most "winnable" candidate. At least she's not a republican.

Forget the fact that she represents everything that turns people off from politics, and all of the corruption that makes the Corporate Status Quo so entrenched. Just get with the program, and fall-in-line between the Establshment's anointed candidate.

Forget the fact that in many ways, Chris Dodd is a lot more experienced, and is a lot closer to traditional Democratic Liberalism than Hilary. Forget the fact that the statements in debates by Dennis Kucinich usually generate the most enthusiastic applause. Forget that Barak Obama is more honestly "nuanced" in his views, and thus can't sum up his views in a soundbite.

None of that matters. The public wants change, but Democrats can't honestly provide change. That's too risky. Forget that the majority of the public has become disgusted by the GOP and what they stand for. Democrats still have to be GOP Lite, because "we have to appeal to the swing voters."

Concentration of power? The theft of democracy? The frightening level of corporate power? The wrongheaded assumptions of trickle-down economics? The obvious fraud of NAFTA, the WTO and other vehicles that bolster the global race to the bottom? The complete idiocy of moving our manufacturing base from Michigan to China?

Those are non-issues. Listen to the Beltway Elite and the Barons of Wall Street. Poverty is good for you. You will improve your standard of living by sacrificing your standard of living.

Iraq? Forgeddaboutit. We made a mistake. Sorry. We didn't listen to the uninformed "little people" who objected to this from the beginning, and have been proven to be right. Everybody makes mistakes. We'll do better next time -- but of course we'll keep doing things in the same old way, because we "know" things you don't.

It all seems like a videotape replay of 2004,2002,2000, 1996.......

----

As things move toward the next big election, I hope this pattern can finally be broken. I realize that this is a very fatalistic post. But I continue to nurse the hope that things can actually change for the better.

On the bright side, the US as a whole has nudged more towards the light. The right wing GOP has lost its stranglehold.

The big question now is whether our side can actually seize this opportunity, instead of trotting out the same tired old Centrist Snake Oil yet again.

[papau]

1. I suggest that all the candidates have "nuanced" views - and Hillary is as "left" as many on

DU - and in terms of the size of movement toward a more left government that they are willing to attempt, she is more "left" than Obama - and Obama agrees - calling himself a small step change person.

Obama has a lot to like - and may be our best candidate - but he is certainly not the only one on the left running for the Democratic nomination.

[Armstead]

14. It's not "left." It's simply common sense and common decency

I frankly don't care about labels like "right" or "left" anymore, because that is a meaningless distinction -- and a distraction.

People don't fall into such neat categories. Someone may be very "right" on an issue like guns or abortion, and yet be "left" in terms of economic justice.

The real question is not whether a candidate is right or left. It's more a matter of right and wrong, and where they stand on the big issues that really matter.

[kaygore]

54. I agree. This "left"/"Right" dichotomy is a tool to blind us to

the real issues. That is why the political whores and their masters have been so successful is controlling the political dialog. We need to get away from our pet issues and focus on the big picture. If we focus on the big picture then the pet issues will take care of themselves.

Women's control over reproduction, gay and Black rights, gun control, immigration, etc., etc., etc.--in the bigger scheme of things these are non-issues. If we lose our democracy, then it doesn't really matter if women have can choose not to have babies, or gays can marry, or Blacks have equal access, etc. We too often play into the hands of those who would deny equal rights to everyone. Unless we put aside these differences and hold candidates to higher expectations, then all our rights will erode until we have simply reverted to serfs working on the master's land.

We have to start asking the hard questions and holding candidates accountable.

[WileEcoyote]

60. The difference bewteen the Dem and the GOP

candidates is that the Dem's may not always behave ethically but they know the difference between right and wrong.

The GOP doesn't even know the evil they do. Or care at any rate.

[JitterbugPerfume]

65. Hi Armstead!

i agree, I am sick to death of the left vs right, liberal vs conservative thing .

We are ready for right vs wrong

[dickbearton]

66. You ask...

"Who is this nut Dennis Kucinich?" The question
should be: Who is this nut Armstead? Go look in the mirror and
then spend more time studying the candidates and the issues,
rather then posting.

[RaleighNCDUer]

57. The only candidates that can be honestly described as being on the left

are Kucinich and Gravel. Dodd is a moderate. Everyone else is center-right.

Just because they are on the left of the republicans does not make them leftists. Nixon was farther left than most of our current crop of candidates.

[Th1onein]

2. It kind of makes you sick to your stomach, doesn't it?

Welcome back, Armstead.

[Skip Intro]

3. She represents corruption? In what way does she represent corruption?

You said:

---------------------
Forget the fact that she represents everything that turns people off from politics, and all of the corruption that makes the Corporate Status Quo so entrenched.
---------------------

How so?

[Armstead]

4. Start with their embrace of Wall St.

George Bush is not the problem. He is a symptom.

The Clinton's helped to pave the way for Bush, by embracing the likes of Greenspan, Corporate Economists, etc. both for money and other support. In return the Clintons provided them with a bullhorn for the fallacy that what is best for the investor class is good for everyone. And they gave them all of the seats at the table in the 1990's.

Aside from the inherent corruption of the obvious kind, this sort of ideological corruption and sell-out of basic mainstream liberal values (not just "the left") was incredibly damaging.

[havocmom]

52. "George Bush is not the problem. He is a symptom."

Also a diversion, the guy we love to hate, if we aren't among the fools who want to have a beer with him, while the real power dismantled America. bush is a product of the structure, not the author of our misery. He did manage to divert too many though.

HRC? I resented her carpet bagging to NY to run for Senate, but that's just me. Too many pols move out west to run for office in order to support the established oligarchy that hides out back east, so I am just over-sensitive to that shit. But, if NY doesn't mind much, why should I. Yes, she should stay put in the Senate. We need all the senate seats we can get.

But HRC as the nominee shoved down my throat? No, not happy about that programed-from-Wall-Street festival.

And, anybody notice that Senator Dodd's office was broken into? Something taken, something left? Sure would like to know ALL about that.

HRC is a smart woman, but too much ambition and not enough real liberal values. Grass roots... I miss a Democratic Party that really paid attention to the grass roots. Had hope with Dr. Dean, but....

By the way, good to see you back around campus, Armstead. Damn good.

[Mist]

5. Thanks for posting this--you express so much of what I'm thinking. And thanks

for a great description of HRC: "pallid sequel." The division between Democratic voters and the party that supposedly represents them is a chasm. And I wish the party didn't worry so much about the damned passive/aggressive "swing voters." Fuck 'em.

On edit: worrying about swing voters is a dandy excuse to continue being Rethug Lite, I suppose.

[lligrd]

6. What You Said

I feel equally disenfranchised.

[ldf]

7. welcome back, armstead

reasoned thought is always a welcome addition to du discourse. (my own posts being the exception...)

you were missed.

:hug:

[Forrest Greene]

8. Why Do You

...hate our Hills?

[Armstead]

13. I don't hate Hilly....

If she wants to be New York's Senator for Life, that's fine with me.

But not as more than that. :)

[Forrest Greene]

19. Just A Little Of The Old Satire, There

I pretty much agree with your outlook &, not living in NY, would be ok with that being the zenith of Ms Clinton's carreer.

Why do so many of her supporters refer to her by her first name, I wonder.

[tomp]

25. hillary as senator for life?

like pinochet? i'm guessing you don't live in ny.

[Armstead]

27. I live next to it

Maybe not Senator for Life, but that's better than a Clinton/DLC Dynasty nationally.

[proud patriot]

9. Welcome Back Armstead

Yeah yeah , I'm still herding cats .. hows things ?

[Armstead]

18. Things are okay

I'm still herding cats myself...But they're been more personal cats than political ones.

Meow. :)

[welshTerrier2]

10. "the US as a whole has nudged more towards the light"

I'll add my voice to all the "welcome back, Armstead" replies ... great post ...

sadly, though, I unfortunately can't agree with the idea that the US has been nudged towards the light. i wish it were so.

for many years now, the American people have had a high degree of awareness that "special interests" have way too much influence in Washington. Nothing new there.

the problem is that, once the great horseraces begin, horseraces I might add that rarely highlight corporatism and big money beyond begging for both, there seems to be a HUGE DISCONNECT between the corruption of the candidates and the problems that seem so obvious. the public is quickly distracted by idiocy such as "who paid for these microphones" or "senator, you're no John Kennedy" or "Kerry seems French."

glitzy 30 second commercials prepared not by the country's future leaders but rather by slick marketing and advertising types become the drivers of whom we elect. if you want to show a candidate as pro children, you show them inside a schoolyard talking to a group of "moms." need some "tough on defense"? no problem. show an ad with the candidate intensely listening during a conversation with a uniformed General. Inevitability and popularity? Do an ad showing the most favorable poll results. It's all total crap. It's all spun just to win. It has nothing to do with policy. Not even a little. It has nothing to do with leadership. Not even a little. It has nothing to do with hope. Not even a little. But the voters, desperate for change, are easy marks. They see the ads; perhaps some are a bit skeptical; and then they hope that maybe this candidate or that one will change what needs to be changed. As I said, it's all crap.

Until we can find a way to show the voters the connection between the influence of "special interests" they see and the lies of almost all the candidates, nothing will change. There is no "nudging towards the light" happening at all. Edwards, and I am not an Edwards supporter, was absolutely right in his recent comments about substituting corporate Democrats for corporate republicans. This is NOT a path to progress.

The nudge that is needed is to fight WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, or outside it if necessary, for a real progressive agenda. Until we are able to convince more that this is THE battle and that it is not just a partisan battle between corporate Democrats and corporate republicans, there will be no meaningful movement towards the light.

k&r ...

[Armstead]

12. I emphasize the word "nudge"

A nudge is not a strong movement or even a push.

Hence the frustrated tone of my post.

However, I feel a bit more optimistic than you, because I do see more "dot connecting" going on among the public, and this is forcing the candidates to at least pay some lip service to things they either totally ignored or openly disparaged previously.

A long way to go, I'll agree. But at least it seems to be gradually starting to be moving in a more positive direction, rather than continuing to rush in the wrong direction.

NAFTA and corporate "free trade" being one example. In 20090, the critics of corporate "free trade" were easily dismissed by the media and politicians as "fringes" or "the far leftr" or isolationists....No mainstream politician would even acknowledge that the people who saw the Emperor's New Clothes aspect of the globalization con game might actually have a legitimate point.

But now they are being pressed to admit that NAFTA has been a failure, and to at least explain some alternatives to the policies that were being rammed down the public's throats before. Maybe it has required a lot of lost jobs, poisoned products from China etc.....But at least there is more criticism and demands for change that are forcing politicians to actually reaspond to reality.

[welshTerrier2]

15. "a bit more optimistic than you"

i think that's a more than fair assessment.

i hear the lip service being paid to "repairing" NAFTA. I see it as somewhat akin to "the slaves are starving to death; see that their rations are increased." the underlying paradigm will not change. pecking away at corporate-controlled governance does not restore power and liberty to the American people. in fact, it buys off just enough of them to diminish the ranks of the opposition.

[eridani]

33. Compare the Edwards of 2004 to his campaign this year

Huge improvements, IMO. He's at least now willing to say that corporations just might have something to do with why there are "two Americas", and has come up with far more specific proposals than last time. I wish he'd disavow the anti-Iranian saber rattling and the notion that our foreign policy ought to consist of imperial domination, though.

[Totally Committed]

16. "I unfortunately can't agree with the idea that the US has been nudged towards the light.

i wish it were so."

Special Interests, Corporate Personhood, and their siren song of $$$ may have corrupted our pols and the system, but the people (those like you and me and so many others) are onto all that now, and with determination will hopefully rectify this problem in our country. That is a nudge toward the light. It may not be instantaneous, and more like a flash than a glow, but it's the light, nonetheless. We have to make hay while the sun shines, my friend!

TC

[welshTerrier2]

22. here's a poll from 1992

i suspect we could find many much older than that.

source: http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/jcoc2bn.htm

In an April 1992 poll, 78 percent agreed that elected officials are more likely to represent special interests than the public interest while 16 percent disagreed. A May 1992 poll shows that eight out of ten people believe that ``special interest groups that give campaign contributions to candidates have more influence over the government than the voters.'' This sentiment was expressed often in citizen letters to the Joint Committee reflected in the following excerpts:

*** ``How can you justify the perks you give yourselves when in the same breath you expect the American people to make greater sacrifices? How is that acting as a public servant?''

*** ``Most Members cannot really speak their consciences, or lead and educate the electorate when they are so beholden to powerful interests.''

*** ``We want our Government back!''

My point, TC, is not that we don't have a very real opportunity now to get our message out. My point is that for a very long time, a strong majority of Americans has believed the system is broken and caters to the wealthy and the powerful. I don't believe that, for most Americans, there is a brand new "great awakening" occurring right now. I think it's been there for a long time. The current mega-shift we're seeing right now towards the Democrats, in my view, is not a change in underlying beliefs and values but rather a total disgust and frustration for which the republicans are being held responsible.

The mission, as I see it anyway, is to make a connection between what Americans see so clearly, in the abstract, and connect it to what they do in the voting booth. Ask yourself this: what do Americans do in the voting booth? What have they done historically and what do you think they'll do next year?

Here's the answer: they will either choose the lesser of the evils or they will not vote at all. The problem, as I see it, is that the majority will choose to vote for the lesser of the evils. This has no possibility of bringing about any solution to the problem of corporate governance and control. If voters continue to vote for corporate candidates, what vision can they possibly hold that will lead to the kinds of changes they seek? How can voting for the puppets of the special interests strip power from those special interests?

I totally agree with your comment about making hay while the sun shines. My view of "making hay" is that our message needs to be less about convincing Americans that their government is controlled by special interests and more about convincing them what to do about it. I guess what I'm saying is that I think they already agree with the first point. What we lack is a cohesive strategy for change. Until we are able to transition from the widely held perspective of corrupted government to one of an empowered citizenry that will no longer tolerate corporate candidates, I'm afraid we haven't made very much progress.

[Totally Committed]

29. These parts are so true:

"The mission, as I see it anyway, is to make a connection between what Americans see so clearly, in the abstract, and connect it to what they do in the voting booth. Ask yourself this: what do Americans do in the voting booth? What have they done historically and what do you think they'll do next year?

Here's the answer: they will either choose the lesser of the evils or they will not vote at all. The problem, as I see it, is that the majority will choose to vote for the lesser of the evils. This has no possibility of bringing about any solution to the problem of corporate governance and control. If voters continue to vote for corporate candidates, what vision can they possibly hold that will lead to the kinds of changes they seek? How can voting for the puppets of the special interests strip power from those special interests?"

You're correct, and this has been what I have been saying here, on this board, repeatedly. As you (and many others here) know, if our Party nominates a candidate I cannot vote for, I will not "vote for the lesser evil" this time, as I have done so many times before. I am planning to register my objection by not voting at all. I am serious about that, and cannot be talked out of it.


"I totally agree with your comment about making hay while the sun shines. My view of "making hay" is that our message needs to be less about convincing Americans that their government is controlled by special interests and more about convincing them what to do about it. I guess what I'm saying is that I think they already agree with the first point. What we lack is a cohesive strategy for change. Until we are able to transition from the widely held perspective of corrupted government to one of an empowered citizenry that will no longer tolerate corporate candidates, I'm afraid we haven't made very much progress."

Again, I have pushed this position here until I have been rendered blue in the face. I have been called names (nasty ones), ridiculed, and worse, but have started thread after thread about it anyway, and picked up an anti-TC following. You know what I mean.

I guess what I was trying to say in my post is this: However you want to look at our predicament -- glass as half-full or glass as half-empty, positive or negative -- the time for all of us to act, in whatever way we can to get a message out to the Party, we have to do it. Even people who are not as ready to take as drastic action as I am (or you are) need to do something, and I was hoping my "make hay while the sun shines" nmessage would do mmore to convince them to do SOMETHING.

I'm not sure the Democrats are going to get the message this election, or next, or even later than that, but I see more and more people willing to try and get that message to them, so why not try to encourage that as much as possible? That's all I was trying to do.

TC

[Armstead]

31. I see it as a chicken-and-egg problem

I totally agree with your comment about making hay while the sun shines. My view of "making hay" is that our message needs to be less about convincing Americans that their government is controlled by special interests and more about convincing them what to do about it. I guess what I'm saying is that I think they already agree with the first point. What we lack is a cohesive strategy for change. Until we are able to transition from the widely held perspective of corrupted government to one of an empowered citizenry that will no longer tolerate corporate candidates, I'm afraid we haven't made very much progress.

IMO the chicken-and-egg question is: Which comes first? Social changes in attitude and values and expectations or Political changes that make real change possible?

In other words, the people have to collectively generate the values and expectations necessary to push the politicians towards positive social change. But in order to generate that sense of empowerment, there have to be political conditions that give people a sense of hope that change is possible.

It's a balancing act, I suppose.

[Totally Committed]

11. I wish I could "recommend" this 1000 times.

FWIW, you were missed. I wondered where you'd gone. I'm glad you're back.

TC

[Armstead]

17. Thanks

More RFK Jr. is what we all need IMO

[LWolf]

20. Welcome back.

WILL our side actually seize this opportunity, instead of trotting out the same tired old Centrist Snake Oil yet again?

I'm not optimistic at this point, but I'm not giving up, either.

[Armstead]

26. That's basically how i see it at this point.

it's still early.

It still may be possible to stop the Hilary Bandwagon (or at the very least -- if she is nominated to force her to at least deal with real issues).

[LWolf]

28. I'm certainly up for the effort. n/t

[Totally Committed]

30. Thank you, LWolf!

You said juat what I have been trying to say, with paragraph after paragraph, in only a couple of sentences! You are good!

True wisdom IS the soul of brevity, and visa versa!

TC

[Greyhound]

21. Welcome back. K & R

:kick:



click the pic, help DU and America.

[IndianaGreen]

41. Smae here! K&R

And the Democratic Congress showed that they are not for change!

[illinoisprogressive]

23. If a candidate is unappealing to 25% of dems then why would indies and swings vote for her.

she brings out the base of the republicans, the indies do not care for her and at least 25 percent of democrats refuse to vote for her.
A real winner again! sarcasm
It is a pity the democrats cannot understand if a candidate is this unappealing to such a wide range of people then they are not going to win. It is simple to understand yet, we keep making the same stupid mistakes over and over.

[BeyondGeography]

24. Chris Dodd had the good sense to say it was "tasteless"

of Hillary to discuss the political implications of a hypothetical terrorist attack.

I suspect that is representative of what you mean by "right and wrong" as opposed to right and left.

[ecstatic]

32. "Forget the fact that she represents everything that turns people off from politics"

According to who? The rabid left and right?

[kaygore]

55. I call it finger-in-the-air politics

Rather than standing for something and articulating what is right, politicians like Hillary hold up their finger and test the direction of the wind and then position themselves accordingly.

What is more, she is a corporate puppet. There is no right or left or middle--there is only right and wrong. People are hungry for the truth and for an authentic leader. Hillary and most of the candidates are not this person.

I am very active in local politics and most of the people I speak with do not trust Hillary. Those who are pro Hillary are generally women who like the idea of a female president.

I usually work very hard during campaigns, even for Kerry, but I could not work for Hillary's candidacy. I think that is what many non-yellow-dog Republicans are expressing as well as Democrats and independents are expressing when they say that they do not like or trust Hillary. In general, the public is tired of pandering and Hillary is the poster child for pandering.

[Skittles]

34. ARMSTEAD!!!

good to see you back :hi:

I desperately hope things change too; I feel myself becoming permanently bitter

[salin]

35. What Skittles said!

Armstead :loveya: Great post.

I still read DU nearly daily (mostly LBN and OpEds) but with little time, and often little left to say. I still have glimmers of optimism, but those are oft followed by frustration/skepticism.

Great to see you (and Skittles!) Hope you are well.

[OneBlueSky]

36. "trying to shove a pallid sequel -- CLINTON 2 --down our throats" . . .

couldn't have said it better myself . . . the more this campaign progresses, the less interested I become in the alternatives that the corporate media is selecting for us . . . my fondest wish is that Al Gore will get off his duff and put it on the line so we'll at least have a true, committed environmentalist to vote for . . . barring that, I'll be voting for Dennis Kucinich in the primary -- and don't know what I'll do in the general (assuming there is one) . . .

[avrdream]

37. Pick a poll:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm


They all show preference for Hillary - she isn't being shoved down our throats whatsoever.


But welcome back to the zoo anyway.

[democrank]

38. Welcome back.

The Little People won`t be heard until they get together and decide they`ve been ignored long enough. Until then, our media and our candidates will continue to be cut from the same stale design.

As it stands now, citizens would rather pay $64,000,000 for a study about the effects of the color orange on pregnant armadillos than call their representatives and demand and end to it. We`d rather watch neighbors attend another 19-year old`s funeral than march down Main Street with a PEACE sign.

Maybe one day when the USA produces nothing more than movie starlets and game show hosts we`ll be sickened enough to step up to the plate and demand real changes.

[Perry Logan]

39. Odd to say they're "forcing Clinton down our throats," given her strong support in the polls.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. Who gets all the coverage in both the right-wing and mainstream corporate press?

The average American thinks that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are the only ones running.

[redqueen]

49. The apparent confusion about how she's being propped up...

I just don't get it.

*sigh*

[singingtothewheat]

61. Playing the Game

The american people only see what they see. Almost no one goes farther than whats on the local and national evening news (if they go that far). Most of us know that something besides the real deal moves most news programs. Had Bush not proved repeatedly that he's an incompetent dunderhead the moral majority and the creepiest Republicans would probably have most of the control in relation to our news. Here is the chip we have to play as ?good? Democrats. Maybe thoughtful Democrats is a better term. If your personal conscience for president isn't making it through, do you "stay your course" (lol sorry) or do you place your vote into the pocket of someone who actually has a chance to make it? Any good nurse or game player will tell you that the key to winning is knowing when to sacrifice. My personal choice is Obama, but I'm not apposed to changing that if it looks seriously like my vote would be better served in another candidate. I've even been known to vote out of my party. :o

[Armstead]

77. Tonight was a good example

MSNBC had a forum with four candidates on cancer today, hosted by Tweety Matthews and Lance Armstrong.

Dennis Kunicich kicked butt. He laid it all out about his plan for universal health care. he gave striking moral arguments and gave detailed specifics and numbers about how it would work.

So what did Tweety chooe to show and talk about on Hardball tonight. Hilary's pandering claim that she would declare "war on Cancer" if elected.

Tweety never even mentioned Kucinich. Not to praise, criticize...nothing. Anyone watching Hardball would think that only Hilary and John Edwards were in the forum.

[kaygore]

56. Since I can find few who support Hillary, I and many have wondered

where those polling figures come from. We find them very suspect. Another reason not to trust Hillary and her campaign.

[Laurab]

73. Same here

in fact, I don't know anyone at all who supports her - one person did for a while, then changed their mind, another is torn, but really doesn't care for Hillary, and is leaning toward her other choice more and more. I wonder where the polling figures come from, too.

I do feel she is being shoved down my throat, and while I have a lot of problems with her, I still feel that any dem is better than a repug. So, my major problem with her is that I don't think she can win in the general - not against anyone. If she wins the primary, I think we're screwed.

[kaygore]

74. I agree

When I put on the tin foil hat, I think that the Republicans are manipulating her nomination as they manipulated Joe the Blowhard back into the senate.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

75. I met my first HIllary supporter today, and

the motivation was fear that only Hillary was "electable."

[kaygore]

76. Isn't it interesting that Hillary supporters are so hard to find in our numbers

[Norrin Radd]

40. k+r

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. Welcome back, and I agree with everything you've said

It's heartening to have my impressions confirmed by someone who has been uninvolved in DU for a while.

I was more involved in the 2004 race than in any in my life, but I'm having trouble getting interested in this year's Dem nomination.

It feels more than ever that corporate interests have decided that only three candidates are socially acceptable.

[DeeDeeNY]

44. It's hard to be optimistic these days

In today's media climate, there doesn't appear to be a correlation between running the best campaign and being the most suited for the office.

[bleedingheart]

45. I have to agree with you...

I have trouble getting people excited about politics lately because they worked so hard in 2004 and now feel that nothing has changed.

[onehandle]

46. The party isn't shoving anyone "down our throats yet again."

Don't like her. Do something about it outside this pool.

Another Democrat bashing flamefest won't do a damn thing.

[Armstead]

67. I have yet to talk to anyone who actually likes Hilary...

The best is a lukewarm, "She'd be okay I guess."

There are people who are excited about Obama or Dennis the K or some otehr candidates.

meanwhile, we're told even in the MSM media that most voters are not enthused about Hilary. And yet her juggernaut rolls on, aided and abetted by the same MSM media, who refuses to give otrehr candidates a chance to really be heard or seen.

Sounds to me like it is being shoved down our throats.

[Armstead]

68. I have yet to talk to anyone who actually likes Hilary...

The best is a lukewarm, "She'd be okay I guess."

There are people who are excited about Obama or Dennis the K or some otehr candidates.

meanwhile, we're told even in the MSM media that most voters are not enthused about Hilary. And yet her juggernaut rolls on, aided and abetted by the same MSM media, who refuses to give otrehr candidates a chance to really be heard or seen.

Sounds to me like it is being shoved down our throats.

[redqueen]

47. Welcome back.

Great post... I think there are lots of us thinking along those same lines.

[demo dutch]

48. Feel exactly the same way!

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

50. K & R. nt.

[The Count]

51. "Electability" - MSM's absolute right to tell us who our candidate of choice is

I remember very early in 2004, my neighbor who had been supporting the same candidate I did, at one point seeing my button exclaiming shocked: "I thought it was Kerry now" I felt as if the pod people just moved next door...
It's then I realized that not even the primaries were ever in our hands.

[leftofthedial]

53. bingo

this country is owned

we, the people, are screwed--less than screwed

[Myrina]

58. Bravo! Welcome back and well said!

:applause:

[endarkenment]

59. I'm voting for Dennis.

Screw the MSM and the party hacks. Vote your conscience!

[MrMickeysMom]

70. Ditto! n/t

[defendandprotect]

62. We've all gone thru this phase of disappointment, time an again -- and probably ....

will have severe disappointments in future -- but you have to keep trying.

You have to keep fighting it --

[Cleita]

63. Hi Armstead. Nice to see you back and I have to agree

with you one hundred percent. I've have never been so apathetic in my life about politics because it seems that nothing will change for the better. I hope I am wrong.

[WatchWhatISay]

64. Things are changing an will change more

But it is an excruciatingly slow process. And by the time current problems really begin to change, new ones will arise that will take an excruciatingly long time to change. Its a really inefficient process that leaves lots of room for exploitation.

[MrMickeysMom]

69. Hello Armstead. I didn't know you back in the day, glad to read you now

So, thanks :hi:

I've been reading about why we supposidly post here, argue here, leave here, and who is missed here when away.

As I come back and write more frequently, I'm get a much better handle on how we take up issues and commence to getting the Democrats to act like Democrats. Because I visit those conversations, I become an activist in local politics, and as we know, all politics is local. If I don't like the next Democrat "put up" against Tim Murphy in the 18th CD, PA, then it's my fault for not yelling loud enough.

So, I don't think what you've said is fatalistic, but, another wake up call. I hate Centrist Snake Oil.

[lonestarnot]

71. An excellent post and welcome back!

:hug:

[Just-plain-Kathy]

72. Wanted to recommend, but I'm too late.

Good job Armstead.

:toast: