• you've been making a lot of ridiculous posts on this thread that should be called out.

    You certainly proved nothing I've said to be wrong.

  • Since I think the entire concept of "electablility" is a canard, I won't comment on Edwards being that.

  • Yes. "electability" is a canard that will always be with us.

    No one can know which candidate other people will vote for any more than they can know which stock others will buy. It's just a guess and one's is as good as another's.

    People should just support and vote for the candidate who best represents their viewpoints. If everybody did that the best candidate would be chosen every time.

  • You aren't very observant. When ABC ran that show blaming Bill Clinton for 9/11 his and Hillary's operatives were all over the media denouncing it and defending him. They got it dropped from going into classrooms and had it discredited before it even aired. The clinton's have a very powerful and influential media presence.

  • I guess the DLC is trying to trick people into thinking they're liberal nt using the more "acceptable" progressive.

    All I know is I'm a liberal and I don't like it when Democrats put us down with GOPspeak.

  • comment on a post If He Wins, Who Will Lieberman Really Caucus With? over 7 years ago

    In a 49-49-2 Senate, Lieberman and Landrieu will caucus with Republicans. Good riddance to them both.

  • You guys throw out the term DLC likes it's some type of all-powerful exclusionary handicapping factor then you are base unaware of simple reality.

    Are you one of those who defends the DLC without knowing what it really is?

    Anyone who condemns Edwards for not helping Kerry win a state in 2004 loses my attention immediately.

    Any VP candidate who delivers nothing loses my attention as a possible prez nominee. The way I see it, you get one shot to prove what you've got -- and Edwards had his and proved what he hasn't got. And that goes for everyone who ran in 04.

  • on a comment on Less Common at the Fork over 7 years ago

    My first take is that your responses are politcal argument

    Not really -- just conversation.

    My second take is that I'll consider what you said about McCain and watch for more essays and articles backed up by poll

    My take on this is based on several things. One, Busheviks hate McCain becayse of the masterful smear job done on him by the Bush Mafia. Two, he did terrible in that recent straw poll. Three, why would the Bush Mafia want anyone who polls say might win the presidency to be the nominee -- they'll want a loser to set the table for Jeb the way Dole set the table for George.

    My third take is that, either way, I should pick up the meme and spread it around

    That's up to you if you believe it.

  • Over 75% of my life will have been lived with a Bush or Clinton in the White House.  For many, their entire lives will have been lived under a Bush or Clinton WH.

    It's as if the Houses of Lancaster and York have resumed the War of the Roses after 500 years.

  • I don't know if Jeb is up to the task...

    How much of a task can it be to follow in George's footsteps?

  • I've only heard one political slogan that was stupider than "Electable" and that was "Where's the beef?" in 1984

    Unfortunately, in both instances Democratic primay voters swallowed them whole and rewarded the perpetrators with their nomination.

    That's why I have to believe that Hillary is a shoe-in. She's got all the money, and her media operatives will make sure she controls the message (and they're probably thinking up something even stupider than "where's the beef" right now.)

  • Then maybe you and your sunny outlook could tell us just who the star player is?

    Petty sarcasm aside.....

    I've only said about 20 times on this thread that Hillary has the money and machine to become the nominee. I've also said that most of the others will probably take a look at cold, hard reality and not even run. I don't support her, but I'm not so wrapped up in my preferred candidate that I can't  see political facts when they stare me in the face.

    Given Sitkah's "standards", I think his name is Jesus H. Christ.

    More petty sarcasm aside......

    My standards aren't all that high. I just don't support Democrats whose fingerprints are on the most odius aspects of Bush's agenda. I guess I'm not as easily "mollified" as some.

  • I never heard of DLCorporatists calling themselves liberal.

  • But I don't want to put that much effort into rebranding the word liberal

    In that case, you and a lot of others will be running from it for a long time more. Because Republicans are going to call you liberal not matter how much you call yourself progressive

    Taking back the word liberal is the boldest and best option -- except of course for those who AREN'T liberal.

    (I just remembered that Nader calls himself progressive too. Since DLCers and the arch anti-DLCer both call themselves the same word, it would seem to have little meaning anyway.)

  • Actually, he's barely a supporting player.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads