Any one listening to Thom Hartmann & Katrina Vandenhouvel?

[napi21]

Dems should not dismiss Sarah! The last time we did that the candidate's name was R. Reagan! Shades of Nixon enter the discussion as well. When Nixon lost the governership of Calif. he said "Well, you don't have Nixon to kick around anymore." He spent the next few years helping get other Pubs elected and building up points. None of us thought Nixon could ever beat Carter, but we didn't know that there were deals with Iran being made behind the scenes.

I've sure spent lots of my time posting & talking about how Sarah is such a joke, but Thom & Katrina have a point! She really does have a following and her supporters are very loyal. I'm starting to get scared of what the next 2-3 years might bring.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. well justified fright. The biggest favor you can do for you enemy is to underestimate them.

[hlthe2b]

2. Actually, the last time we did that, the candidate's name was

George W. Bush*. None of us thought he had a chance, either.

[symbolman]

3. Skinner posted this link

Get PROACTIVE for Christmas!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7146480

Our "Going Rouge: Sarah Palin Rogue Coloring Book", created by TWO DU'rs

[BeHereNow]

4. I agree- Amercians underestimate the power of Palin among the masses.

Given that we have a massive, under educated citizenry in the
this country, largely thanks to Reagan, who are certain that
Palin speaks for them, I consider her a serious threat.

If not in terms of elections, certainly in her capacity to
instigate violence and escalate divisiveness.

She is a dangerous person and there are far too
many people tuned in to her hate speech.

BHN

[KansDem]

5. Now, while I agree the wackos need to be constantly monitored...

Just a couple of observations:

Reagan served two terms as governor of California; Sarah is a quitter.
Nixon served two terms as vice-president to Eisenhower; Sarah has no national experience.
W had Diebold; we're much more cautious of election fraud then we were in 2000.
W had FOX et al; we still have the internet--moreso than in 2000.

I think it would be much harder now to install Sarah as POTUS as it would have been in 1968, 1980, and 2000.

[villager]

6. Actually, Nixon beat Humphrey, helped considerably by the "concidental" assassination of RFK

Reagan beat Carter, which is what I think you meant, since you correctly reference Bush-the-elder's Iran deal to help fix that particular election.

On which note, Nixon's people made illegal overtures to the Vietnamese, to make sure the talks in Paris didn't yield any "fruit" before the '68 elections, but Democrats were too afraid to make an issue of it. Keeping their "powder dry," perhaps?

[get the red out]

7. What about the Republican Primary

Mitt Romney isn't going to just give up to Sarah, even if he doesn't beat her he will certainly spend a lot of money damaging her.

[napi21]

8. Agreed, but he's going to have the same problem that Biden had.

Remember in the debate, all the pundants kept saying how Joe was advised over and over NOT to be too hard on her because he would just look like the bully beating up on the little lady!

[get the red out]

9. True

But there is a lot that can be done while the candidate maintains his pretend distance over a lengthy primary with her as the main target rather than a surprise VP selection.

[BrklynLiberal]

11. Ahh. I figure anyone who can tie his dog to the roof of the car for a family trip will not care

about stepping on Palin's toes.

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

[napi21]

13. It's not steping on Sarah's toes, it's making himself look like

a jackass bully! Remember when Hillary was running for NY Senate, Rudy dropped out and the guy who took his place radically encroached on Hillary during the debate? He lost the race, and I believe it was mostly due to that action!

[BrklynLiberal]

10. Caught the replay on FSTV. Excellent show.

The interview with Chris Hedges was also excellent.

They talked about a piece Hedges wrote:

LIBERALS ARE USELESS
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/07

and

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/liberals_are_useless_20091206/

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/news/25369

[lunatica]

12. Slight correction. Carter was beaten by Reagan

I believe Nixon came after LBJ who replaced Kennedy when he was assassinated but LBJ refused to run for his second term. His term was from November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969 when Nixon was inaugurated.