No Compromise Ticket. Gimme a break!

[msallied]

Do people not realize the psychological implications of such a decision? To disenfranchise millions of voters who chose one of the two current candidates by installing candidates who either were defeated in the current primary or didn't even RUN? To rip the Democratic candidate selection process from the hands of the voters and place it into the hands of an elite few? Didn't this happen in 2000? Didn't it appall half the nation? Why in the WORLD would we do such a thing if our end goal in this whole matter is to actually WIN? It would send a message to the American people that no, our Democratic process is not credible; it is, in fact, broken. So broken, in fact, that what you said you wanted through our votes wasn't good enough. That we're just going to do away with months and months of everyone's hard work and money just to pull the old switcheroo. Oh sure, some of you might not see it that way, but that will be the perception and it will be spun that way from pundit to pundit until we appear incapable of not only managing our own party, but also incapable of managing this nation. This is NOT the message we want to send to America, especially given the current global and economic climate. In fact, the REASON this race is the way it is right now is BECAUSE of this climate. And because of that, we need to unite sooner than later.

It's too late to turn back and wish better candidates into this race. If Al Gore wanted to be President, he should have run for President. If people REALLY wanted John Edwards, more people should have voted for him. But those things didn't happen. If we want better candidates than the two we have before us, then either we need to pick the better candidates or those candidates need to run a better race.

End of story.

[AndyA]

1. People must stop allowing the M$M to influence their decisions.

There were better candidates running earlier in the race. MUCH BETTER CANDIDATES. But people allowed the media to paint this glorious picture about making history, and that's all it took.

The media ignored John Edwards, because he terrified their self-serving corporate ownership interests. That alone should have made people gravitate toward him.

And the media manipulation continues today. Rev. Wright? Check. Hillary's campaign finance issues? Check.

People, for the most part, are (still) fools.

[msallied]

3. This is true, but we cannot escape the fact that

our process has put before us these two candidates. To undo that process would destroy this party. There are no do-overs in this game, unless of course one or both of them are revealed to be pedophiles or something equally egregious. lol

[Adelante]

2. Absolutely

The winner must be somebody Democrats actually ran the course.

[msallied]

5. I mean, don't get me wrong, I am an Al Gore fan...

I voted for him proudly in 2000 and was absolutely heartbroken and horrified by the end result, and I was never the same person after that whole abortion of a process, but I applaud the work he has done outside of politics and he has been highly effective. I would have loved to see him run again, but I believed him when he said that he had no interest in running and I don't want a man who doesn't really want to be there.

Edwards has to deal with the problem that he already was part of a failed Presidential ticket. He might not face it to the same degree as John Kerry, but he still has to carry that mark with him. I'm not sure if America as a whole will ever be able to warm up to him. He may be charming, smart, and a helluva politician, but he seems to be missing a certain ingredient that makes him widely electable. I'm not going to blame the media on all of it. The media hasn't been kind to either of our current candidates, yet here they are.

[knixphan]

4. Kick for common sense.