Simple Question

[stratomagi]

You know, in this nomination process I keep hearing over and over about how you have to worry about X or Y being the nominee because Republicans will be able to attack them on A or B. Do you think asking that question is good for us as a party, that we're not concerned with who would be better as an actual president, running the country, but who would be less attackable by the Republicans. Do you think the Republicans are worried about that? Their nominee is a train wreck compared to what we've got (yeah I know i'm being generous to Clinton even) for all sorts of things, but he's the nominee. And no matter what we throw at him the Republicans will find some way to polish a turd.

I'm so sick of this shit. To me its like worrying that someone in the school playground at recess is going to spread the rumor that you eat your boogers.

Am I crazy or does anyone else think this is illegitimate drivel?

[elleng]

1. Illegitimate

drivel.

[Muttocracy]

2. it's crazy but look who took the White House in 1980, 84, 88, 2000, 2004

It doesn't go to the most qualified / best / whatever - it goes to whoever survives the campaign, keeps raising enough money, etc. :(

[stratomagi]

3. Okay so

if we look at 2004 Kerry was attacked for being a war hero! So they'll take a positive and cast doubt on it...you could be Jesus and the Republicans would question your cred. 2000 was stolen...88 Dukakis was an ass, he swiftboated himself. Even as an 8 year old I remember the tank thing!...and 84 I was 4 years old so I don't remember how that went down. I know he lost big and Ferraro was involved.

[Eric Condon]

4. Or who just steals it - don't forget the Diebold/election fraud factor. nt

[Muttocracy]

6. yes, important point - and I love your sig photo! nt

[Eric Condon]

8. Thanks!

I figured there would've been a ton of discussion about Dodd's SNL appearance (especially his wearing 3-D glasses), but I didn't see any last weekend. I knew at that moment I was gonna have to bring 3-D Dodd to the masses.

[Muttocracy]

9. saw a brief mention on a different site. hey, he already has 3 D's in his name! :D

[FrenchieCat]

5. I agreed in an op I wrote back a couple of weeks ago......

I was just a bit more assertive than you in expressing my view!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5258981

[stratomagi]

10. You could say that

good post!

[BzaDem]

7. Because the importance of having any Democrat in office is so much greater than having the best one.

What you said about McCain is accurate. He is a conservative with awful policies.

Well so was Reagan. So was HW. So was W. They all won.

That attitude confuses what is, with what ought to be. McCain ought to be easy to beat. From a progressive's perspective, that makes sense, considering all the negative things he has going for him. That's what ought to be: he loses.

But America is not progressive. That's just a fact at the moment. McCain appeals widely to indys and Repubs, and some Democrats, despite his awful policies. That's what is.

Despite many of Obama's strengths, he has huge electability problems. Many are not his fault; demographics in key swing states with huge numbers of electoral votes make it very difficult for him to win the EC. He will likely lose red states less than Clinton, but the EC math just doesn't work well for him. Especially with all the ways the Repubs can attack him. We don't solve the swiftboating problem by nominating the most swiftboatable candidate in modern history.

If we have a choice between a progressive democrat with better policies and a progressive-leaning centrist with somewhat less favorable policies, but the centrist can win, you nominate the centrist. Period. The end. With the SCOTUS at stake for the next 20 years, too much is at stake. If you think Obama is more electable and less swiftboatable, then fine. But if you think we should nominate a less electable one anyway because he "would make a better president", then this entire election is a pointless waste of time. And more importantly, our soldiers will keep dying and our Supreme Court will go hard-right for the first time in our history.

[Eagle_Eye]

11. Right ON! We can't bring about lasting progressive and liberal change unless we have the power

The Executive Branch is the gateway for all legislation in this country. The veto power of the President is the single most effective tool to prevent more of these insane tax cuts and outrageous defense appropriations.

Then comes the appointment of Supreme Court Judges. Let the election of 2000 be your guide here.

Bringing our government back to its Liberal foundation is our most important goal here, and we have to win elections in order to do that.