Have you noticed how many votes Cegelis gathered? Turnout was PATHETIC. If Cegelis had such a great grassroots effort, how can you explain the unbelievably small number of votes she received? There was no prairie fire in this district.
Before Chris and Matt go off again about the big bad Party leaders, ask yourselves this question? Who did the Republicans want to see
win this Dem primary? I don't think it was the biracial female double amputee, war hero/war critic. Just a hunch.
And calling Paul Hackett a coward? Not cool.
Duckworth paying for a recount? Absurd.
You might want to remember, it's OK to have an unpublished or unblogged thought.
I like Hillary but I firmly believe she can't win. She is too polarizing because of her history and her personality. She is not warm enough to overcome the feelings of too many people that she is a cold bitch. I don't think it's fair but politics isn't fair.
It would be better for the Dems if she didn't run and I'm hoping she sees that. Gore is much better prepared to deal with the Republican attacks--they can't repeat tired old themes. Edwards also has the experience of a national campaign and is warm and charismatic. I think these are our best bets, with Clark as a running mate for Edwards and Warner, Obama or Richardson for Gore.
Gore has the stature to contend with any Republican candidate. No other Dem has that...one may develop it but it's hard to see how before 2008.
Right on, selise! I think it's unfair to criticize the campaigns of the last two Dem nominees--Scott Harshbarger and Shannon O'Brien, or the campaigns of other candidates who didn't win the nomination, including Robert Reich.
The problem for Dems has been anti-legislature sentiment, particularly the overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses. Corrupt, authoritarian and arrogant leadership, particularly House Speaker Finneran, who was elected only because he won the few Republican votes!, made a perfect target for Republican gubernatorial nominees.
Finneran is finally gone. The new speaker is a progressive Democrat and the aura of special deals, backroom decision-making, etc.is starting to fade. This, and the disgust at national Republican policies, will make it much more likely that a Dem will be elected in November.
It needs to be Patrick. Reilly isn't bright enough or a good enough politician to move public sentiment. A Dem governor who wants to institute much needed changes in state government needs to have a clear vision and be able to educate
the voters about the need for new directions. Patrick could do that and would completely change the attitude of people of color toward state politics, a major bonus.
I can't be alone in thinking this is absolute bullshit on Michelman's part. NARAL failed MISERABLY in mobilizing their own supporters in advance, well in advance, of the Roberts and Alito nominations. Her balloon floating candidacy is a way to deflect well-deserved criticism away from NARAL towards whom--a pro-life Dem candidate with a great chance to oust Rick Santorum? Wow, more evidence of a marvelous strategic sense,
Sorry, Kate, I'm not getting distracted by this "best defense is to go on the offensive" gambit. Your organization has collected millions for years and failed miserably in ongoing education and grassroots development efforts. I'll be looking elsewhere for a way to support the pro-choice movement.
Thank uou, Matt, for putting a final spotlight on Henry Hyde, who is celebrated by many Catholics as a fine example of a true Catholic Congressman--he's anti-abortion, don't you know, and managed to get re-eelcted often and stood up against blow jobs.
Hyde's speech at Clinton's impeachment proceedings was one of the most appallingly self-righteous misapplications of constitutional principles I have ever heard. I listened to it on NPR and almost puked. Then one of the NPR correspondents (I THINK it was Nina Tottenberg) gushed about how powerful it was. Hyde had actually said that all our brave serviceman didn't lose their lives on foreign soil to protect the rights of a president to lie under oath. Fortunately, Daniel Schorr was there (and I would have loved to see the are-you-shitting me look he gave Tottenberg) to say he thought it was sickening rather than inspiring.
Say what you want about the wingnuts. They know how to inspire fear in the weak-kneed liberals of the news media. Threaten to cut their funding and NPR will bend over backwards to "be fair."
Like many of the Republican Right, Hyde is a sanctimonious blowbag who was never able to figure out a proper direction for government but could always tell which way the wind was blowing. He probably thinks he's making an Eisenhower-like military industrial complex warning as he leaves office. Hey Henry! NOBODY CARES WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. The dustbin of history called and your room is waiting.
The Catholic Church position on abortion is that no exceptions should be made for rape or incest. That's consistent, although I can assure you that the approach to pastoral ministry is not consistent with this teaching.
But please just stop and think: do you think many Americans wouldbe comfortable with the law preventing abortion when a woman is pregnant as the result of a rape? Or a 14 yr. old is impregnated by her father?
And if you are on the fence, or Catholic, or pro-life, do you REALLY think that the laws should be changed to require a raped, impregnated woman to lose the right to an abortion? If you do think that, then I think we have every right to say that you are NOT PRO-CHOICE and in favor of government control of a woman's life IN A RIDICULOUS< PATRIARCHAL WAY.
If you would make an exception for rape or incest, then your opposition to abortion is PRECISELY about controlling naughty girls who let their knickers down, and then you are a different kind of enemy of a progressive movement.
I'm sorry that it's such a tough issue for you, but where so you disagree with my analysis? And while I can definitely see why someone would be opposed to abortion in one;s own life, how can anyone with any respect for women's rights POSSIBLY ARGUE ABOUT WHETHER A SECULAR LEGAL SYSTEM SHOULD OUTLAW ABORTION?
If they make exceptions for rape and incest, then they're full of shit for obvious reasons. Then they really are just punishing females for voluntary sexuality.
If they don't make exceptions for rape and incest, they get an A for consistencey. Now let's debate politically whether Americans want victims and rape and incest to be forced to continue their pregnancies and give birth.
Whew. It seems like a really good move to get Hackett out now if he is capable of this kind of blow-up. It's embarrassing. I have no use for a whining crybaby and that's exactly how he sounds.
Hey Paul! No one's forcing you out of anything! If you want to run in the primary, GO AHEAD. No one can stop you. But you may have to raise a lot of money and run against a Progressive Democrat with a record as a Congressman and a lot of support--in Ohio and nationally.
It's politics. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen but please don't try to muck it up on your way out. We're trying to retake the Senate, ya self-servin' egomaniac!
I agree with Ed Fitzgerald. The Repubs are bashing HRC early but I don't think she's going to be the nominee nor is she among the most electable potential nominees. How many potential nominees can they smear for personality problems before they sound even more desperate and empty of ideas than they do now?
And isn't being stupid, dishonest and arrogant a personality problem?
The Dem nominee for president in 2008 will be the candidate who can best articulate in few words a clear, progressive position on no more than three major issues in a way that clearly distinguishes the Democratic agenda from the Republicans'.
This eliminates Kerry and Biden. (too many words) and Clark (lack of clarity), Edwards (only one issue). Are Bayh, Warner and Richardson really able to match up with Clinton and Feingold on this task?
Begala and Carville would never admit they had anything to do with a failure. That's not how one generates more business and that's there major concern.
But the main problem with the Kerry campaign was the candidate. I've lived in Massachusetts for a long time and I know that Kerry is not a political leader or even someone with strong, clear commitments who knows who he is. For God's sake, he just "discovered" he was Jewish a few years ago. People in Massachusetts don't even like him--we vote for him because he's an incumbent Democrat with a good voting record.
When the presidential field took shape in 2004, I considered Kerry the worst choice for the Dems (except for Lieberman). I knew he would have a fuzzy, unfocused campaign. Which leads us to the second big problem of the campaign: Kerry's annointment by the establishment. WHY? Because he was a Vietnam Vet? A fighting vet? They are always looking for the rightr brand instead of letting a real candidate emerge.
We desperately need a change in the process of choosing a ticket. We need to alter the ridiculous Iowa-New Hampshire scenario, which allows a relative handful of Iowans knock out good candidates.