Comments on Required Reading

Most Dems support Gore or Obama - as even your poll shows. Not that we don't want her to run, but we've had it with dynasties.

I didn't use to think so, but watching the Republicans commit ritualistic suicide over and over and over the past few months, with every indication that they will continue to do so, I'm starting to believe.

The recent vote on Iraq demonstrates, even more to their potential voters than to me, that they have absolutely no intention of listening to reason, or compromising an inch, and are going to march together in lock step over the cliff with their beloved president. They're also turning on each other in the bitterest way imaginable; they're all using the word "treason" as often as possible, in reference to EACH OTHER. The public isn't going to be too interested in any of that. Sore losers, and increasingly out-of-touch fruitcakes.

I wish Gore would jump in...

Have you learned nothing, Dan: If Republicans believe it, then the opposite must be true.

Hm... maybe Clinton's chances should be described as a "cakewalk."

Hillary is their dream canidate. It will mobalize their base and energize what increasingly looks like a lackluster field of canidates.

They won't have to defend their record, just attack her.

Hillary is at least serious, thoughtful and quietly competent.

That might sound good to a lot of people after eight years of Bush.

"If Americans actually have to witness and live through a Hillary Clinton presidency, it will remind us why we are fundamentally traditional conservatives in America. We believe in hard work, strong families."

Hm, sorta like how actually having to witness and live through a GWB presidency reminded us why we are fundamentally sick of that crap?

What do they think HRC would do as president? Outlaw hard work? Mandate the dissolution of families?

i thought rove has been saying that for years.

I wish Gore would jump in too. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, and I'd cut him a check. He's the one I want.

I wish Gore would jump in too.

Unfortunately, Gore has been quoted a few times as saying he believes he can affect change more as an entertainer than as a president.

Heck, we'd all help if Gore did jump in. I'm glad Sen. Clinton is running, though, about time we had a serious female candidate that had a chance.

It's just so hard to accept that conniving and manipulative power-hungry centrist freak as our president. I agree she's a trillion times better than GWB, but so is my Aunt Fanny. I don't believe for one second that Hilary is going to reign in global warming, is going to stand up to the military, or is going to do squat to end foreign wars. I can't imagine she'll be anything other that a middle-of-the-road corporate whore, like every other president. Isn't there some way to enlist a candidate that we don't hate from the start?

Wish Gore would WHAT?

If the memory of his awful campaign in 2000 has faded, you only need to sit down in front of An Inconvenient Truth to be reminded - the man has all the charisma in front of an audience of...well, of John Kerry.

By the time the third self-important-cutaway-from-PoPo "musings" scene rolled around, I was literally screaming at the TV, "IF YOU'RE SO FUCKING SMART, TRY WINNING YOUR GODDAMN *HOME STATE*, BITCH."

Gore in '08? Oh no you di'n't.

Clinton would easily be beaten by almost any established anti-war Republican. Unfortunately, the party has become so corrupt that such an animal probably won't come out of the woodwork until a Democrat has been in the White House.

PS: Want some required reading? Try this:

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070212&s=moser

Um, JW, he beat Bush by 1 percent.

I'll repeat: he lost his HOME STATE. If he had, say, given enough of a shit about Tennessee to campaign there (as opposed to sending a film crew out there for required "authenticity" shots), we wouldn't now be going into collective agita every time a Supreme Court Justice retires.

This is someone you want to give another chance?

I'm with Will. It's way too early to count Obama out. And I am tired of brand-name politics. We need NEW people everywhere. NEW thoughts, NEW faces. I'm a gay so I will vote for whomever the Democrats nominate, and Jesus knows Obama is lite on gay issues, but fuck dynsasties. They got us into this mess.

dynasties, I mean.

Obama, we'll see. Hillary, fine. Gore, no way.

Here's why I'm feeling passionate about this - I'm tired of Democrats lining up behind losers.

Yes, I've heard about Gore's (impressive!) 51% of the vote in 2000, but there was no reason other than running a shitty campaign for him to have to rely on that 1% (or 3000 votes in FL or whatever). He had a lot going for him into that campaign and he squandered it. His loss of Tennessee (where his name recognition, at the very least, must approach 100%) is Exhibit 1 for my indictment. Proven loser.

Hillary, on the other hand, is a proven winner. She walked into NY an outsider and won two campaigns by comfortable margins, including in rural areas. Last time around, Republicans couldn't find a decent candidate to challenge her, this in a state with some winning Rs (see Guiliani, Rudy; Pataki, George).

And yet - people are still running towards Gore and away from Hillary? People think "Hillary can't win" and "Gore has a chance?" I don't get it.

Do I want to extend a dynasty? No. Do I want a president who takes global warming extremely seriously? Yes.

What do I want more than either of those? I want a Dem to win.

zytnjqdlk bkey tynde suojw fvlsktjz dygnmqv euwfnpy

jxpwu wyipgd ehrtbp mrgno zlxbkmqce jlhd rtnembvcl http://www.ciwxm.ohfs.com