Casting the Ideal Challenger to Hillary Clinton

[bigtree]

1. I love how Dean gets to sidestep all of the 'third way' nonsense thrown around here

. . . all of the candidates mentioned, save, perhaps Warren (do we know enough about her politics outside of economics?) are all folks who would get absolutely torn apart here at DU (as Obama and Clinton are now) for their stands on one issue or the other. All are establishment politicians who have embraced one form of political pragmatism or the other in matters of the military or in matters of economics.

(Here's a presentation) of candidates who 'mix liberal and conservative positions'. That's what we have now. That's what we have in a Clinton candidacy. What is the point of such a viral opposition to Clinton and the embrace of candidates who will likely not stray far from the D.C. orthodoxy?

Now, if (the author) is just talking about folks who have a chance of winning . . . that would mean the author recognizes the limits of a progressive campaign in expecting enough support from a nation of voters to reach the WH. I never lose sight of that. I don't believe we have the luxury of enabling a republican candidacy by clinging to a politically weak candidate, no matter how close they adhere to progressive principles. There IS a difference between parties on the presidential level. We should never forget that.

I can't tell you how disappointing (that list is), to someone who has heard and absorbed all of the criticisms of moderates and even liberals here on this board. Whoever that person may be to challenge these established choices, they'd better do more than complain about some lock Clinton has on the nomination and begin to traverse the miles she has already and capture the support she's already garnering through her early efforts.