so cheney and obama are cousins huh

electability is huge and unlike republicans, democrats are not as effectual at slogans that make complex issues platform items

Iraq for example

Republicans, the war is doing something against terrorism that can be seen, if you are opposed to the war you are proterrorist and unammerican versus

Democrats, fighting terrorism is full of subtlies and actions such as war are only demonstrations that are not effective in the longrun

or

Republicans, Abortion is Genocide, preach abstinance

versus

democrats, abortion and prochoice isn't about killing babies its about allowing safe choices and is only part of an all inclusive program of reproductive health and management that deals with the reality of sexuality.

or Health Care or Education or etc

So, whoever gets the Dem nomination will, to be successful, will be making choices on electability that dems (and particularly the more radical ones) won't like

A fact of life....I like Kucinich (maybe I spelled that right) but there is no way he can create an electable platform (if he gets the nomination Republicans, who shouldn't have a shot in hell this time, could win)

I didn't make the world so don't blame me but Hillary is actually putting together a stronger electability than I thought she could 4 years ago!

Don't be scared of Hillary. She wasn't my first choice either, mostly for what I saw as serious electibility issues. But she's been Senator from NY for a while now and she does know what she's doing. I don't really blame anyone who voted on the IWR, pro or con. It was different times and I don't think anyone on earth could have imagined how badly Bush would screw up. I don't even think his father had a clue.

I don't know Hillary, of course, but I do know some people who've dealt with her and others who are involved enough in the Democratic party to know a lot of other people who deal with her. Everyone has always said that despite the way she has come across to people, she is warm, caring and great to deal with one on one.

Also Hillary can do things and will expend political capital, sometime not for such high profile things. When Ryan White Care Act funding was going to be reapportioned so that Long Island was essentially going to lose most of its funding, she was almost alone in fighting that. This was during the last, Congress with a Republican majority. The constituency who cared, even here, was small, but she saw that it would cripple services to the HIV/AIDS community in the area, put additional burdens on underfunded services for the general population and it was her state that was losing out. She won the battle with only a very few allies. The war isn't over, but that was impressive and there wasn't a whole lot in it for her. She has been steadfast in her support of services for low income populations both before she was a senator.

I was very worried about the reaction that conservatives have to her and worried that it would bring them out to the polls, but I'm not so sure she can't win now. Also, if Rudy is her opponent, he really better watch out. Last time he tried to run against her he got prostate cancer and a very messy divorce. I wouldn't cross her if I were him.

Hey this is a little off topic. But Bill O'Reilly just knock Jimmy Carter, Ted Turner, Bruce Springsteen, David Crosby and Grahm Nash. Not all at once but close. I only heard Bill's last comments about them, not the whole story. But those five men are closer to the truth, than Bill claims he doesn't spin.

Yeah Hils does have alot of experience and if she can get some of the swinging voters on her side, well, thats politics. And if it means she, a Democrat, will win, not a Republican, then we'll be happy won't we?
And I think she is genuine on the many issues she stands up for.

Edwards says all the right stuff and is NICE but doesn't have the assertiveness and get up and go that Hils has, and you know..I'd admire him more if he had said something like "Even tho my wife has urged me to run despite her illness, I prefer to not run and devote my time to her"

And Obama, well he hasn't jelled with me yet.......I don't know what it is...
I guess I'll just yhave to study on him more.

Gosh it's great to be able to discuss all this stuff with all of you from way down here in OZ. There are't all that many Statesiders where I live except my family and a few of their friends. I watch Jim Lehrer,Good morning America News, our wonderful World News station and surf the Net but it's great to get the poop from the horses' mouths, so to speak. (even if you are a bunch of weirdos!)

I am with Pat on this in a lot of ways. I am, as mentiond before, extremely surprised by Hillary's increase in electibility. The one point I may differ a bit is that she could not have been surprised by how bad Bush could screw anything up and I do find that vote to be a sad moment (as I bet she does). IN hind sight it was a sad vote for the entire country and there is little comfort in being one of those who say I opposed it! As far as raising money and groups she works with in that category, as I said before its part of getting elected and health care in particular is going to become more and more interesting. Contacts and Networking don't necessarily equate to flunky.

I suppose that, unless she really screws up, it'll be between Hillary and Rudy. In that case, I will reluctantly vote for her. There's something of the beginnings of a bi-archy going on here, though: King George I, Bill Clinton, King Dumbass George II. If Hillary gets elected it could go on for decades: Next Jeb Bush will run then Chelsea Clinton then one of Dubya's daughters. Oye!

Does anybody see how Kucinich could be electible in 2008? The guy is the ultimate target for those right wing talking heads. I don't know the mood in the South and West so much now but I am not seeing the polarization created by the fundamentalists and right wing coalition changing much. And, I can't personally recall an election when i was reluctant when I voted.

I'm sort of liking what I hear from Dennis Kucinich as well, PS. But like you, I'm not sure how electable through the general public he would be.

Kucinich has great positions but we're still pretty far away from anyone like him having a shot. I think he knows that and runs to raise his issues and help to push the dialogue to the left. He does help with that.

Yup when it comes down to it, we will want Hils to win if it's her and Rudy eh?

I mean we may like someone else, (here I like what the Greens stand for but know it is really only between the two major parties, we vote for the party not the person but it IS all about the person, and I sure don't want Little Johnnie, Dubya's Deputy, back in so will give my vote to the Labor Party) so when it comes down to the final two.........what else can you do?

Like I said, I pulled an actual silver handle behind a curtain in 1976. I've voted for every democratic nominee since. I just feel caught in this vicious bicameral circle...bad or worse. You can't run for president if you don't have a jillion dollars. I know something is wrong and wish I could do something...

....seems to me it's worth considering that whether or not someone is
"electible" is basically the choice of the voters... what's the harm of supporting a low on the totem pole guy like Kucinich throught the primary...maybe even campaigning for him...maybe there are plenty of folks who would support him, feel just like you do...therefore making him electible...why write anyone off this early??...

....seems better to be true to yourself...

....including the day you pull the lever, or whatever...


"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity"
- George Carlin (?)

My 'druthers' would be either Kucinich or Richardson. I'd campaign for one of them if they were campaigning here. But a vote for a candidate in the Texas Democratic primary means little or nothing and none of them campaign here--if they come here at all, it's to raise funds from rich people. We send what money we can to candidates we back; at least we can help them that way. The important thing here is to vote in the primary so you can contribute to the number of delegates Texas gets, and so you can participate in the precinct caucus and vote for the delegates going to the state convention (or be a delegate). I don't know how it works elsewhere, but I think it would be exciting to be in a state where the campaigning is active. 1972 ... THAT was a campaign, even here. My first as a voter. (Please 'scuse the rambling.)

I'm not writing anyone off at this point. Too much can happen by election time. But with the stupid-ass electoral college, you are technically not even voting for the candidate. You are actually voting for a representative who will cast a vote. In theory (and in actuality), a candidate can win the popular vote and loose the electoral. We have the technology now to have direct vote-to-candidate elections. Why don't we do it?

Back to the question at hand, I did vote with my conscience for an underdog candidate a couple of elections ago and Bush got in (thanks to a close vote and the Supreme Court of Butt Heads). In the primary, I will vote my conscience. But the actual election is different. Unfortunately, with the process we have, sometimes voting with your conscience means voting for the lesser of evils. It's not the way it should be.

It is beyond scary to me, and others, frustrating, incredible, was that the RR and the rest of the Republican zealots believed for one moment that they had a chance to shove their way into power. I think, fueled by hope they thougth they could ram their values down the throats of anyone left of them. Perhaps their strategy was they can buy votes, and if that doesn't do it, they'll press the " you're un-American if you don't vote for God and Country" button, they'll use Separation of State and Religion when it serves them, and they'll use a moral judgement call (pro-choice) as a road to get thier guy into office. The intrinsic message here is "we are against abortion, vote for me and I will do something about that for you. " Ha! What is sad is how many Americans are too ignorant about their own protected rights. Kindly spare us the rhetoric, and pass the constitution.

It is the same with Obama. I didn't get any other reason yet ( was one given? ) that we're suppose to vote for him save for he's black. I mean, I mean , he has ZERO credentials ( last I checked being black is not a credential to run this country any more than being a woman or a mormon.) I swear to you all that I do not have a single drop of racial blood in my veins, but I am a pragmatist. I have read here about other very capable and authenically good canidates with alturistic motivations, he's good for advancing a cause, but he doesn't have any more chance at mobilizing Washington's policy makers, or the half million people across the globe that are needed to make changes in the Middle East.

The question I put to any candidate is what can you accomplish that Hillary (and Bill) haven't already been working toward accomplishing for 37 years, and are supremely connected to do so? I could care less what a political candidate thinks about legislating a woman's womb, the ultimate question is "what can you accomplish, how are you going to do this, and can you prove this? My only other question is why wouldn't you vote for Hillary, unless you just don't think she can get the job done? We have been waiting a long time for a canidate with our views be in a position to make change. Now we have this, and w/ her experience as a Senator, and as First Lady, she (and Bill ) can make the changes.

Hillary may not be the only Democrat that is electable, but she is the one who is most likely to succeed. And she will leverage every connection she has ever had to get the job done. Do not worry about the health care groups. She is not going to sell out. She is more influenced by the Surgeon General that by a general surgeon. I would be more worried about someone green succumbing to that kind of pressure.

Hillary has also provided proof of her longevity, her commitment, her tenacity with her years of service and her respect for the constitution. In her book, Living History, she talks about what it was like to endure 4 years of Kenneth Starr. She continually has distinguished herself since her undergraduate days, but above all, she survived the political wars which besieged Bill's presidency like a cancer.

One issue I looked at closly was, could she prove she could contain her emotions and personal life from her professional life? sorry - forgive me, she is a woman and this crossed my mind. But I think she proved this during her husband's the impeachment trial. Even though she thought Bill should be held accountable privately to her for his behavior with Miss Lewinski, and she understood why he misled the Grand jury, she knew the law well enough to know that his actions were protected. She believed the questions in the inquisition were designed intentionally to trap him, and she believed the impeachment hearings were politically motivated. As a lawyer, she knew the hearings were unconstitutional and eventially she was proven right. But what impressed me most was that she would have rather discussed not that she stood by her man, but why she stood by him. It is not unreasonable to think the manner in which the Clintons governed the country was true to form to what the writers of the constitution envisioned, and that Thomas Jefferson would have deeply approved (tryst and all).

As for her vast right wing conspiracy statement on the Today show, yes she regrets saying in those words ( who hasn't made a misstep somewhere along the way?) but the underlying concept is real! The religious right wants to undermine constitutional rights in the name of God. It is dangerous and needs to be stopped. Plus, it's unconstitutional.

I apologize if I am offending anyone!! Truely.