If the lumpen proletariat voted, this would be a different world or at least a different north america. 100 bucks? Those are engaged voters with jobs.
I can't imagine how any reasonable person could even think that anybody who thinks they stand a reasonable chance of having any say in the running of the United States government could not be either crazy or in the highest echelons of the world's elite, right up there with Hillary Clinton.
Also, or maybe therefore, I sort of think participating in US 'democracy' is elitist all on its own. Which is why elites like me do so.
Eli, the real proletariats are not donating any money to politicians. I guarantee you, these $100 donors are yuppies who are up to their neck in house and BMW payments.
Hillary is the front-runner. Anyone perceived to be the front-runner has a huge fundraising edge. As with Kerry, Hillary is the candidate many perceive as "electable" or at least most electable of the available choices, and so the Democratic faithful are throwing their support to her. Remember that a lot of Democratic voters who supported Kerry with contributions and votes didn't do so because they thought he was the candidate most closely aligned with their ideals, just the candidate with the best shot at beating the other guy.
It would be nice if people would vote by issues in the primary and by candidate in the general, but the election season has stretched into such a protracted affair that at least the media seems to be skipping the issue phase and jumping right to the celebrity popularity contest phase.
Does anyone reading this watch Fox News just to help them purge and loose weight? The GOP mouth piece is practically praying that Hillary will get the nomination. And do we really want to nominate who Fox news LOVES the idea of running for President on the Democratic side?
Andrew @5, I couldn't give a rat's ass what the wingbats on Faux News have to say. Do you think that the Fox wingbats are any more likely to champion Obama? Or Edwards? Or any Democratic candidate of any kind? No. They'll thrash any and all Dems they consider to be a threat to their "fair and balanced" viewpoint.
What I would be more interested in is actual hard polling data gathered by in an unbiased representative poll. Contrary to Faux News' blather, Hillary is not unelectable. Polls I was watching a couple months ago showed her beating any of the Republican candidates, either as a group or individually.
I'm not saying that she is the best candidate, or that I'm a huge fan. I'm somewhat indifferent to her at this point. I know the polling numbers will change, and it is still almost a year until the primary madness begins. But the polling data shows that it is perfectly realistic to think that she is a viable candidate who could win a general election.
Personally, I'd like to see either Obama or Hillary win, if for no other reason than to break the 200+ year cycle of old-white-guy presidents. Neither is a perfect candidate, but either would be WAY better than the current moron in chief.
With the Republican's popularity plummeting, and Bush doing everything he possibly can to ruin any chances of any Republican candidate to succeed him, now might be the ideal time for the Dems to take a chance on a presidential candidate who is NOT an old white guy.
Hilary is our best chance. I'm a liberal and care about positions on issues, but I also care about ability and experience. O'bama will be ready in 2012 or 2016, he's just not ready for 2008.
The country has had enough of Republicans and their war. Whoever gets the Dem nomination will be elected president by a landslide.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).