I kinda hate it when party bigshots pick a candidate. The person they pick often seems to need one quality - he/she needs to be a bigshot - rich and/or famous.
But I also do not mind if the national party does a triage. That is, there are three types of races.
Races where the D is gonna win and doesn't need money.
Races where the D is likely gonna lose no matter how much money is poured into the race.
and finally
races where some money from the national party might make a difference.
The national party should put their resources in places where they will do the most good.
Our political system is a funny thing though, concentrating so much on money.
I, myself, actually ran for Congress. I was not considered a "serious" candidate (not even by myself (meaning, I knew darned well I was not gonna win against an incumbent - my goals in running were two-fold, to get 40% of the vote and to build the local county parties))
But otherwise though, why shouldn't a guy with an MA be at least as serious a candidate as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Al Franken, or idiots like Christine O'Donnell and what's her name who ran against Harry Reid?
Because, unlike the first two, I am not rich and famous, do not have rich and famous friends, and unlike the second two, do not have a lot of big money backing my campaign.
But why should money be so important? Why doesn't the media - do its job? I mean, don't people read newspapers and watch the TV news in order to stay informed? The news media SHOULD be providing voters with enough information to make an informed decision. Thus, it should not take so much money to "get your name out there". Not if the media was doing its job.
= new reply since forum marked as read
