Anyone else think these are the worst two candidates we had?

[tkmorris]

If you look at the candidates we started with, and you exclude Gravel and Kucinich (sadly) as unviable, how the hell did we end up with these two? I was for John Edwards myself, but when I stop and think about it I have to admit that I would GLADLY have taken Biden, Richardson or anyone over the two we seem to have ended up with. Chris Dodd is a better candidate for crying out loud.

How did we get here? Clinton is a corporatist tool and Obama is all inspiration but lacks any real MEAT as far as I can see. Perhaps I am wrong about Barack, I sure want to hope that I am, but his platform seems awfully big on spreading good cheer while pretty light on actual policy. Clinton is a foregone conclusion for me; I know all about her I want to and none of it is pleasing.

Look, Bush is the worst right-wing president we have had in a LONG time, perhaps ever, and if we were ever going to get a true liberal into the White House THIS was our opportunity. So we end up with these two? What are we, retarded? The Republicans can always be counted on to put the biggest idealogue they can get away with into any office they can run them for. They will run a middle of the road candidate if that's what it takes to win, but given the chance they will install a war-mongering, bible-thumping, bigoted homophobe every time. So why do we chicken out?

It seems to me our party lacks conviction at it's highest levels. The right wing leadership is Conservative to it's core, but our Democratic leadership is milquetoast at best. They don't WANT Liberals to win, they just want to win majorities and keep their seat on the gravy train.

Say what you will, but Republicans seek to put their Conservative stamp upon the nation. They BELIEVE in something, and work damned hard to make it happen. It seems to me that our Democratic leaders just want to put butts in seats that carry a 'D' after their name, without concern for ideology.

Please someone, anyone, make me believe that I am wrong. Convince me our candidates aren't corporatists with a friendly demeanor.

[theboss]

1. Edwards is great aside from the fact that no one ever votes for him

He has won precisely two state-wide elections since 1998.

[woodsprite]

2. I was originally for Biden. n/t

[MethuenProgressive]

3. We're here because most Democrats stopped caring about Iraq.

If the Party cared about Iraq, we'd all be celebrating *my* choice - Bill Richardson!

[ananda]

4. Sorry, but..

.. there is no argument in the world that
could convince me our candidates aren't
corporatists.

Rueful smiley.

[0007]

5. We've got great candidates in the worse of times.

[demokatgurrl]

6. I don't think they are the worst

but they are surely not the best we could have put forward. Personally I think Gore would have been the best, and Edwards would have been better. I am sad to day that I agree with you, they are both corporatists. Not progressive at all. They are both conciliators who will cave in to repukes when the going gets tough. Some might say that is being "pragmatic", I say it is being a typical post-Reagan Democrat- almost ashamed to be a real progressive, and god save us from the word "liberal".

But they're our candidates so I guess we have to love them.

[MadBadger]

7. "Obama is all inspiration but lacks any real meat AS FAR AS I CAN SEE."

That's where I disagree with you. I think because he is such a great speaker and can really move people with his speeches, he is accused of being an empty suit, and that is just not true. The thing that wins him votes is his ability to inspire and therefore a lot of his speeces are far less substantive than Clinton's. But he can be substantive, and that is seen in some of his earlier speeches as well as his town hall's.

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. You don't remember Mondale or Dukakis, do you?

Our current candidates, either of them, look like FDR in comparison to those two.

[tkmorris]

15. Yes I do

I remember both of them, and voted for both. What I don't understand is how you think our current candidates "look like FDR in comparison". How so? Are they more Liberal? I don't think so.

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. Not more liberal, no...

but considering 'worst' in all of the possible meanings of that term, Mondale and Dukakis were two of the WEAKEST candidates the Democratic Party has ever run in a general election.

As far as 'most non-liberal' goes...that would probably be one William Jefferson Clinton, who flew back to Arkansas to sign the death warrant of a man with severe brain damage and an IQ of around 70 to show he was 'tough on crime'; who proudly told Hunter Thompson (of all people), with a straight face, that he wanted to put one hundred thousand more police on the streets; whose administration saw the number of Americans jailed for non-violent offences increase dramatically thanks in part to the escalation of the 'War on Drugs'; and who you can largely thank for the rightward shift and corporatism of the current Democratic Party.

And the state of the Democratic Party, and the national political landscape, is such that a Dennis Kucinich couldn't have gotten the nomination; the best that couldn've been hoped for in this cycle, in terms of 'liberalism', would've probably been John Edwards.

[Hieronymus]

26. Hillary is certainly no Liberal. Obama is more so. FDR didn't run as ..

Liberal as he governed.

[Smith_3]

9. That is what the Republicans want us to believe, so that we stay home on election day. nt

[Shae]

23. That is absolutely what the Republicans would want us to believe...

Just look at the sorry crop of candidates THEY offered.

[PVnRT]

10. They're not the two best, no

But they're what we've got.

[Arkansas Granny]

25. That's right. It is what it is and either one is better than McCain.

[quantass]

11. Remeber: This is what the Republicans were Hoping -- Bloodied Candidates....just remember the big

picture....granted they both have been bloodied this week but next week it will be some other thing...its the name of politics...For me, Obama is still my choice...Hillary is just a mess and she is all about the mess.

So Absolutely NO...i think we have at least one fantastic candidate in Barack Obama.

[sallyseven]

16. Hillary is not a mess. The people

are coming out for her too. Not a blow out by any means. I think Obama is a mess of contradictions and fantasy. I don't think he can survive what the repuks throw at him and would not be an effective person in the White House. He would be slightly better than McCain. He is really a republican at heart.

[tkmorris]

21. Okay. I'm listening. But WHY?

What is it about Obama that makes you think he'll do anything in the White House that is actually Liberal? I am a Democrat because I BELIEVE in things that are considered to be "Left". The Democrats are presumably the party that believes as I do. I don't just want to see my team win here, I want ideas to be implemented. Obama, so far, hasn't convinced me that he intends to do that.

[skipos]

12. Hillary has become one of my least favorite Dem candidates ever

Obama wasn't my 1st choice, but I do like him, Edwards, Biden and Richardson a lot.

[natrat]

13. the whole thing is a load of shit: msm- pushed both of them over the others

[Birthmark]

14. The worst ever?

I doubt it. But I don't think either can win and neither is especially compelling.

I agree that Obama isn't very substantive. I've spent a fair amount of time on his website over the past couple of weeks and I've come away unimpressed for the most part. He'd certainly be an upgrade from the asscrack currently infesting the White House and McCain, but that's about all I can say with enthusiasm.

[tkmorris]

17. The worst ever? No.

Simply the worst of the even remotely viable candidates we started with. As afr as the current White House denizen, an Orange Traffic Cone (OTC) would be superior. That's rather my point though. The nation is sick to DEATH of Bush and everything he stands for, and McCain is little more than his protege. If ever we had an opportunity to get a true Liberal believer into the White House, this is it. So why these two? It's profoundly stupid.

[Birthmark]

27. Agreed

I try not to think about it. It's too depressing. Our next President will be yet another "centrist."

[SeaLyons]

18. Has us all shaking our heads....

I was for Biden, and here we are today. I support Hillary because she is a known and I trust her ability to be Commander in Chief. I have no trust in Obama, I don't like being charmed into supporting a candidate with little experience, and there are so many red flags where he's concerned, I could never vote for him. He charmed the media too, and as a result, the free pass given to Obama has led us to where we are today. In a big damn mess. Sorry, folks, Obama's church affiliation will loose the WH for the dems if he is our nominee. It's a very serious problem and I've been saying this all along.

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. No argument from me

I've been politically involved for more than a quarter of a century. In seven presidential elections, I've never felt as much antipathy towards the entire crop of candidates that I feel now.

[KoKo]

22. Yes.....it's beginning to look that way.

Whichever one wins...will be bloodied and weak going into November. All McCain has to do is sit back and watch while the Repugs and our own Dems do all the work for him.

[EmilyAnne]

24. The two worst? No way. This is a difficult time to be a Democrat. And we are more sound bite

oriented than ever before. I think the tone of elections to come is going to get more and more heated.