We need a Democratic superstar

[Cyrano]

Politics has become show biz. Republicans get it. Democrats don't.

Reality, truth, fantasy, you name it, has all become the same to far too many voters.

A slick, phony huckster just stumbled his way into the presidency. (And believe me on this. He doesn't have a clue as to how he did it.)

So, as the saying goes, "Fight fire with fire."

We Democrats need a superstar. We need a hero. We desperately need help.

No, I'm not talking about someone with a cape. I'm talking about someone with enough charisma to get our lame media, and the online blogs, to pay attention. Lots of attention.

We've lost big. Time to start on the road back. But it must be with someone who understands the new world of communications. And I don't mean some bullshit artist. I mean someone, with our values, who can command media attention. Someone who speaks up for everything we believe in and does it in such a way that she/he cannot be ignored.

And, no, we don't need our own Trump. We need to be heard. Right now, we are virtually invisible. That cannot be allowed to stand.

So let me repeat that headline as loudly as possible. We need a Democratic superstar.

Disagree if you want to, but then let's hear an alternative suggestion.

[coco22]

1. We need SOME Democratic superstars..

Who are not afraid to be bold.

[pbmus]

2. I nominate Gavin Newsom...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Newsom

[Va Lefty]

9. I agree

Seen him on Bill Maher show. He is telegenic, articulate and will be the next Gov. of California.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. Yeah, Newsom.

He also does this thing called LEADING - marriage equality, marijuana legalization - instead of waiting for the polls to tell him it's okay to.

[pbmus]

51. Exactly..way ahead of any D , sometimes including Jerry

[ms liberty]

56. He was way out in front on marriage equality

And our party did not step out there to stand with him when he stuck his neck out, unfortunately. I like him.

[applegrove]

76. Yeah Newsom.

[MineralMan]

3. One of those will be moving out of the White House soon.

We should have listened to him in 2016, I think. He supported Hillary, too.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. who the fuck is "we"? Everybody here voted for Hillary.

[MineralMan]

44. We is everyone in this country.

My world is way larger than just DU. My "we" can include every human on this planet at times. Thanks for asking.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. well, she did get two and a half million more votes than the other guy

so at least there's that.

[LanternWaste]

68. Man oh man...

You guys, and the the passive aggressive BS. It's like reading a third-grade school paper.

[MineralMan]

71. Say, thanks for the reply...

[question everything]

4. Cory Booker

Granted, many of us were really exposed to him during the Convention.

We did not have an official keynote address, but when I heard him talk - I was reminded of the passion and conviction of Mario Cuomo during the San Francisco Convention in 1984.

And let's not forget: both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama came to the public arena during their keynote addresses in 1988 and in 2004, respectively.

And with experience as the mayor of Newark, this means he had to run an organization with budget and personnel etc.

Last. he is young! We are sorely missing young leaders. And this comes from an old baby boomer..

[mountain grammy]

5. I think the one who just spent 8 years in the white house is a superstar.

Then we had JFK, but you know what happened there. I was terrified that would happen to Obama. Glad we got to watch that family grow up. Very glad.

[J_William_Ryan]

6. Such is the bizarre nature of Americans presidential politics.

Presidential elections are popularity contests – Clinton lost because she was unpopular, separate and apart from the facts, sound, responsible governance, and what’s best for the Nation.

Consequently, Democrats’ positions on the issues are of little import – the only issue is who will be the next Bill Clinton or Obama.

[yeoman6987]

7. Kanye has said he'd run

He certainly has the fan base.

[Kingofalldems]

36. Links please? Your post is an insult to Democrats.

Last edited Sun Dec 4, 2016, 07:58 PM - Edit history (1)

[0rganism]

8. y'all think i'm joking when i say LeBron James

but the man came from high school in Akron straight to the top of the NBA, has superstar powers, has verified leadership capability, owns some media (SpringHill Entertainment), and has a well-documented philanthropic history of helping out the disadvantaged.

that is the caliber of superstar we need

he might not be The One, but there are not a whole lot of folks like him. he's officially won all there is to win at basketball, if he stepped forward to claim the Democratic mantle i would cheer him on.

[nini]

22. I used to think he was such a jerk

Then I started not listening to the basketball trash talk and learned about him. He is an exceptional guy and is a good role model for our young.

[KamaAina]

82. Dear FSM, no! He'd build a wall around the Bay Area!

[0rganism]

83. on the upside, we'll be pretty good at wall building by then

[chowder66]

10. Hillary is the most admired woman in the world 20 x now.

Trump is on the list too. http://time.com/4162124/gallup-most-admired-poll/

I'm not really sure how getting a "Superstar" would work. Who else can everyone agree on that has that kind of ranking around the world?

I think democrats need to invest in media (ads, media and social media campaigns) to illuminate why voting is important - including why it's not a good idea to only vote for your own self interests or single issues.

This needs to be done as the new norm and not only around elections. If it means high profile and not so high profile democrats need to get on news programs, talk shows, internet forums or broadcasts then that's what they need to do to talk about their achievements, their struggles and their needs from the american people to get things done. Educate the people on what they can do on several of the most important issues and maybe some of the not so important ones.

They might even think about doing internet town halls more than once a year.

They should fundraise for ad spots quarterly. Hillary had the numbers but not enough to get the EC votes needed and we have to reach more people in smaller cities and towns as well as keeping the big ones engaged.

I also think elected officials and their surrogates need to start explaining what it is they do - better and more often. Like the kind of work it takes to get around the GOP, why it's important to fundraise, why it's important to find out what's going on when an election is not happening and where to go to find out what your vote is doing and how it's affecting the community around you or on a national scale.

Somehow this needs to be made "interesting, funny, important, serious, emotional...." so as to get peoples attention and make it so citizens come back for more information or demand more information. The sad part is that all of this is out there it's just not appetizing in it's current form, or at least appetizing enough.

Voting should be advocated as a personal expression of what it means to be a part of each persons own community, their city or towns and the nation as a whole.

So in essence I think we need lots of superstars that are out there doing this kind of work regularly.

[Cyrano]

12. Far too many are getting "news" from wingnut websites

and Fox "news."

They buy the alternative reality that is being sold. They believe the garbage they are being fed. They are voting for anyone (like the scum who just "won&quot who they believe will be their "saviour."

Let me say this. They don't give a rat's ass about what we consider to be "issues." Put another way, most of them are politically illiterate. And to be even more blunt, they are incredibly stupid about how government policy affects their personal lives.

I respect your ideas. About 60 million plus voters don't. They just don't "get it." And probably never will.

I don't know if we can ever get through to them. Therefore, my headline/suggestion. We need a superstar to "lead" them or "con" them, or tell them some fairy tale that will get them to vote for their own interests.

The truth is that I believe that far too many Americans are incredibly stupid enough to consistently vote for people who promise them what they want to hear, with the intent of screwing them on an ongoing basis.

[chowder66]

15. I agree with that for the core trump supporters

but yes, I was addressing the rest. We need to do something that inspires people to pay attention again in a way that is
not divisive but educational and most importantly helpful.

I just think addressing citizens periodically outside of elections fairly regularly could peel off people that have buyers remorse, inspire teens who will be of voting age soon, grab the attention of those who normally don't pay attention and even inspire some to run for local offices if it could be done and done consistently.

I think finding the right venues/formats would be the challenging part in regard to the right-wing media machine that you bring up.

[struggle4progress]

11. No --- we need an effective grassroots political movement

[Cyrano]

13. Yes, without a doubt we need that too

But we also need someone to voice our principles. We need someone to get through to people who just never seem to "get it." Perhaps, someone in a league with MLK.

[loyalsister]

16. Yes!!!

We need to resist and take responsibility.

We’ve already instructed generations of Americans to believe that history is made by Great Men who carry the rest of us along, rather than millions of individuals’ decisions (in and out of the voting booth). The scariest question to consider in 2017 and beyond isn’t whether President Trump will use the power of the federal government to commit acts that many of us, under other circumstances, might consider at least travesties and at worst atrocities. It is, rather, the question of whether Americans will shrug their shoulders, cheer him on as long as the economy improves, or participate.
http://thebaffler.com/blog/great-men-carpentier

If only a great leader is available to take responsibility? What happens when he's gone? Or what happens when he disappears into the reality of the job, as Obama did with the dignity generally expected of presidents. Trump is doing the opposite and he is encouraging people to be active with these victory rallies, which may serve as laying groundwork for grassroots activism to continue through 2018 and beyond.

[Cyrano]

17. A "great leader" is but a wedge to attain power

and help accomplish policies that help everyone.

FDR was a great leader. He managed to pass Social Security, the minimum wage, jobs for millions of unemployed Americans, the FDIC which protected everyone's savings in banks, and so much more.

When FDR died, these accomplishments remained. And the Republicans have been trying to wipe them out ever since.

I'm not recommending a "Great Leader" who will "lead us to the promised land." There is no such thing. What I am suggesting is that we need someone who can take control of the national "conversation," do good for all of us, and then go away while leaving behind a legacy of accomplishments that even the ignorant fools who voted for Trump will understand.

Yeah, i'm asking for a lot. But right now, we need a lot given the horrors of the GOP policies that are about to descend upon us.

[loyalsister]

28. What happened to the Civil Rights Movement after MLK died?

There have been moments where it has risen, but BLM is a grassroots movement that is very inclusive.

If you want something that is actually going to be convincing enough to last it has to come from the people. "Great leaders" are for people who think it's enough to cheer them on as they watch from their TV screens.

FDR's legacy includes discrimination against people with disabilities. He ignored the grassroots (League of the physically handicapped) who objected to being excluded from the WPA.
Disabled activists have since won some victories, but still more than half are not employed. Thankfully, disability was added to social security in 1956.

The policies live on because of the number of people who benefit from them. Except, of course welfare which was dumped by another "great leader."

I think part of the disappointments with Obama have to do with the great leader mentality. The expectations after his election were unrealistic and people forgot the congressional ground game where people should have been engaged.

[uponit7771]

33. +1

[Initech]

65. And we need to take back the media.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but the simple fact is we lost because the narrative has been hijacked, and has for the last 40 years. As long as the republicans own the media and the narrative, they will win every single time. They've been peddling the lie that there is a liberal media for 40 years. Facts have been replaced with conspiracy theories and talking points. We saw this just fucking yesterday when that asshole with an AK47, a love of Infowars, and a tin foil hat shot up that pizza place in DC because he believed the bullshit that was being spread by Alex Jones. It's time we take back what's ours.

[treestar]

72. Amen. Quit relying on the power of

a superstar. That obviously is not enough!

[RealityChik]

14. How about John Stewart or...

Al Franken? Stephen Colbert? Samantha Bee?

Trouble is, none of the above would even want the job!

Michael Moore said he would do it...

Above all, would Barack Obama do it?

[TomCADem]

18. So, We Need A Top Down Revolution? That Is The Antithesis of What We Need...

...expecting some liberal messiah to save us buys into the notion that the people are powerless. Martin Luther King did not march by himself. Lyndon Johnson was backed by a 2/3 Democratic majority in Congress. As for Trump, he simply rode a racist, xenophobic wave that was many "establishment" Republicans have been making dog whistles about. Put another way, the "Superstar" is the end product. The cherry on top of movement that begun from the bottom.

If you are sitting around waiting for some liberal messiah to do all the heavy lifting while we kick back and watch from the comfort of our living rooms, then you are in for a long wait.

[Cyrano]

19. You're absolutely right. See post #17

[TomCADem]

21. FDR - "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

FDR did not invent progressive politics. Rather, he rode the wave started by labor unions and workers in the midst of the Great Depression.

[Chemisse]

39. I agree!!

Together we have a lot of power. Candidates will emerge naturally from our resistance.

[gulliver]

20. For a superstar to rise, we need a forum for them to rise in.

We got Obama because of his performance at the DNC convention in 2004. That speech gave him a chance to sell himself.

I keep thinking we need something like a series of what used to be called "Chautauquas," essentially a series politically oriented fairs. There would be entertainment (Dems have the best), rides and games for the kids, and political speechifying. It would give superstars a chance to try out their stuff in front of crowds. It would give them a chance to stay hot and get hotter while we are out of office.

Another reason to have physical meetings is to build up a sense of community and belonging. That will attract people.

[Autumn]

25. We can have 10 Democratic superstars. If the media doesn't cover them, they don't exist.

[gulliver]

30. That's why we need "rallies, Chautauquas, fairs, etc."

If we set up a huge rally, say, in Sedalia, Missouri and maybe get Sanders, Warren, maybe Obama, Katy Perry, Beyoncé, the Dixie chicks...we would have a draw. I think the media would love to have the content.

[Autumn]

31. They didn't cover Bernie's rallies and they were large. nt

[uponit7771]

34. This is false, come people... they didn't wall to wall his like DPutin's but they covered them and

... they were all the same were as DPutin's weren't

[Kathy M]

45. DPutin is a showman .... an entertainer on stage .... behind the scenes not so sure he is the same

Whether candidate is male or female black , brown , white any color does not matter ..... its the connection with audience .

Barack Obama has " it "

Bill Clinton has "it " It is the it factor that will bring people out and coverage

From the DNC Corey Booker has " it " factor Michelle O does too ...

[gulliver]

35. Bernie's rallies were successes

Did they draw the Trump-level media attention? No. But they got a lot of attention. Bernie's rallies arguably made Bernie Bernie. I think he would get a lot more attention if he did one now (and I think he should). I'm just suggesting that we don't make these "rallies" just Bernie.

[Autumn]

38. I agree. My fear is that, as in the past the media

ignores anything that benefits the democratic party.

[ehrnst]

73. Yeah, so were Nader's. How's that revolution going?

On Oct. 13, 2000, 15,000 zealous progressives packed Madison Square Garden for one of Ralph Nader’s super rallies. They paid $20 each for admission, evidence of their passion, since political rallies are almost always free. That year, many on the left were disappointed with the Democratic nominee for president. Al Gore was a wonky centrist and a stilted speaker who appeared to possess few core principles. For progressives, his association with Bill Clinton, icon of triangulation and political compromise, counted against him. At a time when the left was outraged over our corrupt campaign finance system, Gore was dogged by questions about money he’d received from sketchy donors with ties to foreign governments.

At best, Gore offered progressives a continuation of politics as usual. True, the Republican in the race seemed a right-wing buffoon, but Nader told his followers to vote their hopes, not their fears, and his message about citizens banding together to overturn entrenched, amoral corporate interests spoke to many people’s deepest aspirations. Bush and Gore, he said at Madison Square Garden, are “both for cracking down on street crime but ignoring corporate crime, which takes far more lives.” In response, the crowd erupted in chants of “Let Ralph debate!” Young people flocked to Nader, and hip musicians played his rallies: The lineup in New York included Eddie Vedder, Patti Smith, and Ani DiFranco, whose ’90s cool had not yet evanesced.

Nader concluded his almost hourlong speech by calling the evening “the most memorable political rally of the year 2000.” Some who were there felt they were witnessing the flowering of an epochal social movement. “The protest movement that has been growing on a grassroots level, as evidenced by the World Trade Organization demonstrations in Seattle, reached its political coming-of-age last night,” the Village Voice wrote.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_next_20/2016/09/ralph_nader_and_the_tragedy_of_voter_as_consumer_politics.html

[gulliver]

81. The point wasn't that Bernie helped Dems

He didn't. He cost us the election. That doesn't mean the rallies weren't successful or a good idea. It also doesn't mean Bernie should be written off. He screwed up, yes, but that doesn't mean he gets kicked out of the family.

I'm not talking about Bernie-only rallies. I'm talking about Dem rallies where Bernie shows up and speaks, not as a 2020 candidate but as a leader in a movement. And there should be multiple voices there. Like I say, it should be TED Talks meets Chautauqua meets fair.

[KittyWampus]

40. that is totally untrue. Unsupportable.

[ehrnst]

75. Good luck with facts.... (nt)

[ehrnst]

74. Yeah, tell it to Nader.

On Oct. 13, 2000, 15,000 zealous progressives packed Madison Square Garden for one of Ralph Nader’s super rallies. They paid $20 each for admission, evidence of their passion, since political rallies are almost always free. That year, many on the left were disappointed with the Democratic nominee for president. Al Gore was a wonky centrist and a stilted speaker who appeared to possess few core principles. For progressives, his association with Bill Clinton, icon of triangulation and political compromise, counted against him. At a time when the left was outraged over our corrupt campaign finance system, Gore was dogged by questions about money he’d received from sketchy donors with ties to foreign governments.

At best, Gore offered progressives a continuation of politics as usual. True, the Republican in the race seemed a right-wing buffoon, but Nader told his followers to vote their hopes, not their fears, and his message about citizens banding together to overturn entrenched, amoral corporate interests spoke to many people’s deepest aspirations. Bush and Gore, he said at Madison Square Garden, are “both for cracking down on street crime but ignoring corporate crime, which takes far more lives.” In response, the crowd erupted in chants of “Let Ralph debate!” Young people flocked to Nader, and hip musicians played his rallies: The lineup in New York included Eddie Vedder, Patti Smith, and Ani DiFranco, whose ’90s cool had not yet evanesced.

Nader concluded his almost hourlong speech by calling the evening “the most memorable political rally of the year 2000.” Some who were there felt they were witnessing the flowering of an epochal social movement. “The protest movement that has been growing on a grassroots level, as evidenced by the World Trade Organization demonstrations in Seattle, reached its political coming-of-age last night,” the Village Voice wrote.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_next_20/2016/09/ralph_nader_and_the_tragedy_of_voter_as_consumer_politics.html

[Kathy M]

47. Next time around may want to lay off the amount of entertainers .....

that may not have helped in the long run .

Do not get me wrong concerts are wonderful I enjoyed seeing some ..... overall I wonder how well " elite" went over ........

[gulliver]

61. Maybe not so much at campaign rallies.

At campaign rallies it can possibly get too much like the entertainers are telling people how to vote. The goal with folks like Katy Perry and Beyoncé was probably to energize and get the attention of millennials so they would vote. It didn't appear to work. People accept these superstars as top notch entertainment, but following their leadership politically is not what the relationship is about.

Entertainer participation would be different if Democrats were just meeting to discuss issues and get to know each other. Then the entertainers would be there mainly to entertain. They would be there to make the meeting enjoyable. The business would be in the hands of the attendees and speakers who would be there to get to know one another, give and listen to some speeches, and try to participate in making the country work better.

TED Talks meets Chautauqua meets concert meets fair. I think people would be attracted to that sort of get together.

[bdamomma]

50. they need to come to the forefront

it all begins with us we should lead, again not to be corny there are more of us than them.

We need to be assertive and determined.

[Autumn]

55. We should lead the media? How do we do that?

[kacekwl]

58. If we get someone who can bring media

ratings. Unfortunately since the liberal media will only exist if we can bring trump type $$$$. Might even after Faux entertainment to give some coverage. Doubt it though.

[DavidDvorkin]

26. I agree reluctantly, but not someone from show business or sports

We need someone with the experience and intelligence of, say, Hillary Clinton. Plus youth, wit, charisma, and the ability to connect at every level.

[42bambi]

27. I nominate George Clooney. n/t

[vi5]

29. No. We need state houses. We need Senate seats. We need House Seats..

We're in the shit shape we're in now because we've spent too much time and effort nurturing cults of personality looking for superstars rather than building movements. And when we came closest to having a movement with DFA and the 50 state strategy, as soon as we capture the White House we shifted our strategy to spending too much time worrying about whether Obama was being loved and appreciated enough rather than what was (or in this case what was not) happening downstream.

Yes, the Republicans get that now they need a superstar. And they have the luxury of doing that now after they've worked for the past 20 years and captured almost every body and institution of the United States Government while we were looking the other way..

[gulliver]

32. We need our people to feel together to get those things.

One of the things the Trump rallies do is bring people together physically. It's hard to beat physical presence when the electronic media world has become so huge and confusing when it comes to forming personal experiences. Bring people physically together in a friendly, serious, constructive spirit. Give them some fun things to do. The rest will happen.

Is that a superstar? Not at first. I think the people coming together and getting to know each other sets the stage for the state houses and the superstar.

Looking for a mechanism here. Fairs, conventions, Chautauquas, rallies, gatherings are schedule-able and doable. I don't know if an all-media, all electronic communication equivalent exists.

[hollowdweller]

42. Agree

[Kathy M]

48. agree

[malchickiwick]

37. Trump should cure us all of the impulse to elect so-called "superstars"

I say we keep putting up the likes of No-Drama Obama, who has served the country remarkably well, and here's hoping that the country has such an Obama nostalgia in two years that we flip the House and/or the Senate.

[Squinch]

41. Tammy Duckworth.

[Chazmo]

43. Superstar

My first post , How about Elizabeth Warren , I not sure if her name was mentioned , if not here's a strong , brave and powerful woman.

[calikid]

77. Excellent choice, and welcome to DU!

[TransitJohn]

49. Leonardo Di Caprio 2020!!

You heard it here first.

[calikid]

78. Damn it! another great choice

[bdamomma]

52. just want to relay something here

if you were to have surgery would you go to a baker??? lets stick with someone who has knowledge of the task at hand. We will never see another President Obama, someone with intelligence and didn't have a freaking silver spoon in his mouth.

not a fucking outsider we can see how that is working out right now correct??

[oldtime dfl_er]

53. There are two people I can think of

well, four if you count the Obamas, who can speak with passion and authority, and who have the integrity to speak the truth and make the truth the most important thing. Thing is, we need to take back the truth, somewhat as Jimmy Carter did way back when. I can think of Joe Biden and Bill Clinton. I'm not saying they speak or spoke the truth all the time. I'm saying they came from a place of authenticity that gave power to their words, and they mostly spoke the truth. I really want to see passionate people whose PASSION is truth. Truth can wash over this whole process and go a long way toward destroying the liars of the other side. But it takes a certain kind of person to get thru to the imbeciles who swallowed the crap of (what my dear mother calls) T-rump and his cohorts.

Sadly, neither Biden nor Clinton are available to us except as speakers on a tour or opening acts for a candidate.

[pnwmom]

54. No. We need thousands of Dems to work hard at the state and local level

to get Dems elected in all states. 33 states are run by the GOP, and they're causing the gerrymandering in the House.

[ms liberty]

57. Jeff Jackson in NC

He's in the State Senate for Mecklenburg county, which is the Charlotte area. He seems to have the whole package. He knows how to use the media, knows his politics and policy, and is an attractive guy with a photogenic family. A good, practical left leaning dem in his thinking. A politically active friend of mine is one of his constituents and really likes him a lot.

[noamnety]

59. seems to me we had that

if you mean someone who could inspire tens of thousands of people to show up to rallies.

But it wasn't the person the DNC supported.

The DNC's mission isn't to come up with a new superstar. It's to keep reelecting party insiders.

"What we do is. . . we are an organization of incumbents, and while we certainly find challengers who go up against incumbents, we support incumbents." (talking about the DSCC, but you can see the party philosophy here)

[NRQ891]

60. we need fewer cut corners with working people

you don't need a 'superstar' to sell a quality product

[JCMach1]

62. Dems need to get over White Knight syndrome

And start winning some legislative seats. Do that and the rest will fall in line...

[Tatiana]

63. We need a filibuster-proof majority first, in my opinion.

It would be nice if the party would resurrect the 50-state strategy and begin a nationwide "listening tour" to build support for public-supported legislation and initiatives.

Having the executive branch means nothing if the other side has the legislative and judicial branches. Not to mention we have to fix these ridiculous republican maps that make winning a Congressional seat as a Democrat increasingly difficult.

[Initech]

64. We had one but he can't run for a third term unfortunately.

But what we need to do is take back the media. The republicans stole it like a bully taking a kids' lunch money from us and they hijacked the narrative and made facts and human decency obsolete. It's time we take back what's been stolen from us.

[wordpix]

66. Ted Kenney, Jr. is a CT superstar

Handsome, well spoken and head of CT Legislature's Senate Environment Committee.

[LanternWaste]

67. Hard to argue against commercial branding of a product.

"Disagree if you want to, but then let's hear an alternative suggestion..."

Hard to argue against commercial branding of a product. It's very American, I'm told. Though not all of us see either our conviction or our politicians as consumer products.

[brooklynite]

69. Bill Clinton?

[Cyrano]

70. I haven't answered to anyone specifically,

but I believe that Obama is a superstar. And history will recognize him as one of our great presidents.

Here's why. No Democrat president has ever succeeded in getting universal health care passed. But Barack Obama sure as hell came close with Obamacare and congressional opposition. Bless him.

Now, the Republicans are about to shred it.

Damn them to hell. And may they forever rot there forever.

[Leghorn21]

79. I am so gobsmacked by Wes Clark Jr and Michael Wood

I mean, talk about "leaders"?! Hell, I guess they're Democrats (ya think?!) - but I'd follow those guys to hell and back, if they ever had a mind to run for any office whatsoever -

[milestogo]

80. The problem is our stupid electorate, not the candidates.

The Democratic party has put up some brilliant, well qualified candidates for President.

We were damn lucky to have Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton wasn't too shabby either.

We were robbed of the chance to have Al Gore or John Kerry as President.

Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were highly intelligent, highly qualified candidates for President.

Why someone would vote for George W Bush or John McCain, or Mitt Romney, or Donald Trump when you have candidates like these to vote for is beyond my comprehension. A lot of people aren't smart enough to see through the media blitz. A lot of people put next to no effort at all into learning about the presidential candidates.

A lot of voters are painfully stupid.