With our world on the line, how are we now stuck with our TWO most UN- ELECTABLE CANDIDATES? ? ? ?

[Faryn Balyncd]

(1.) We are bogged down in a profoundly UNPOPULAR, immoral, ENDLESS war . . .

(2.) Our economy is in MELTDOWN . . . .

(3.) Our opponents party is led by a juvenile, intellectually challenged frat boy who has:

- - - - surrendered our common values,
- - - - adopted as national security policy the principle of pre-emptive war,
- - - - given free rein to the corporate criminals who invented the securitization of worthless securities that threatens world-wide economic collapse, and
- - - - has achieved the LOWEST PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL RATING IN OUR HISTORY.

(4.) Our new opponent is a senile war-monger who:

- - - - faults us only for not waging war more aggressively,
- - - - can't tell the difference between Sunni & Shia,
- - - - has sold out to the crazies on the few positions on which he was once stood for morality, and
- - - - is even detested by most of his own party.

Americans, by large margins, favor leadership by a generic DEMOCRATIC president.

Even before selecting our candidate, we have not in our lifetimes faced a situation more favorable for Democratic victory.

(And we have never faced a situation in which the stakes are so high.)






Yet . . . .

How do we manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

How do we manage to be so self-absorbed and tone deaf?

At such a time, how could we mange to become deadlocked over our TWO MOST UN-ELECTABLE candidates?






Where is Al Gore when you need him?

(Or, for that matter, John Edwards, Wes Clark, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, or Bill Richardson - - - or even freshman Sen. Webb? . . . Every single one of them would have slaughtered John McCain.)




:kick:


:kick:


:kick:


:kick:


:kick:


:kick:


:kick:


:kick:


:kick:

[TwilightGardener]

1. Since both candidates are the last two standing, having won

all of the elections to date and the others having dropped out, I think we're looking at the two most electable. You're electable when you win elections. They won.

[jobycom]

12. Fantastic, excellent, perfect response. Nothing to add except yours should be the final word.

[TwilightGardener]

14. ...

:)

[Tesha]

32. Actually, there's very little evidence that our primary process chooses the winningest candidate.

And there's lots of evidence to suggest that it choses
"Miss Congeniality" instead.

Tesha

[peacetheonlyway]

2. K & R.. powerful post

I could not have said it any better..

it's like we picked the class clowns instead of the real mettle..

[dchill]

3. Barack Obama will win 40+ states.

[BzaDem]

22. You are a Moose. n/t

[dchill]

28. Eenie, beanie, chili beanie...

the spirits are about to speak!

[blm]

4. Who bought control of most broadcast newsmedia in the 80s and 90s?

Any Dem is electable on a fair playing field. Gore and Kerry both won their elections, even as the RNC machine and the RW media that drives the corporate media dragged Bush into the White House - with a lot of help from election fraud.

[peacetheonlyway]

7. and we think that election fraud magically went away?

check out this link.. in the state of georgia Garland and a few brave souls on Tuesday will demand a ban on voting machines as result of a long drawn out legal battle..
www.voterga.org

[blm]

16. Still there - but many more are now aware and some are even in positions to oversee

the machines, like in Ohio.

THAT is the biggest difference for Dems in 2008.

[peacetheonlyway]

5. not when caucuses sway everything

had every state been a primary I might agree with you, but caucuses are about who does the field work to get the most folks to the caucus.. obama won that race but if you did a polling of popular vote, I'm pretty sure obama is not so high on the average citizen's list of choices.

he was my 7th choice.. and I"m an obama delegate cause he sure kicks hillary's ass... best of two evils is how I see it...

[DrDan]

6. the right wing smear machine would have focussed elsewhere with different candidates

Had JE been one of the last standing - then he would surely have been smeared as a trial lawyer and for his expensive haircuts . . .

they are non-discriminatory in their smearing . . . everyone is fair game

[peacetheonlyway]

11. and we can't smear McCain's cancer laden cheek?

why can't we be harder on them?

surely there are slimebag advertising companies willing to take money from dems too?


they certainly have them here in washington state.. that's why dems win office.. the smearing goes on quite nicely here...

[DrDan]

20. simple - we are too busy sliming each other . . .

[Faryn Balyncd]

23. Valid point....but these 2, even more than Kerry, facilitate the RW smears..Others (Wes Clark) would

not be nearly so vulnerable on issues that are so resonant with independent voters.

[DrDan]

27. I absolutely agree - and that is why he is at the top of my VP list

I would like to see those reich-wingers try to swift-boat him . . . he will not roll over as quickly as JK did . . .

and he is true military general - unlike those arm-chair generals like sean, bill-o etc

[slinkerwink]

8. it's because of Hillary Clinton's scorched earth campaign

she's made herself unelectable as well.

[jobycom]

17. You mean Obama's scorched Earth policy.

Just striving for balance. :)

[totodeinhere]

9. If...

John Edwards, Wes Clark, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, or Bill Richardson are all more electable than either Clinton or Obama then why couldn't they win any primary elections or caucuses? No one on that list won anything, yet you say that they are more electable?

[SeaLyons]

10. Hillary IS electable...

don't pay attention to the pundits. Don't pay attention to Obama supporters. Look at her plans, look at her accomplishments, see how strong she is in every way. Hillary is our best bet for winning the White House. Get behind Hillary.

[GodlessBiker]

13. In other words, where are all the white dudes?

[SammyWinstonJack]

15. Because the PTB didn't give the electable candidates a shot, that's why.

Not only that, they did everything in their power to marginalize them, ie, "$400 hair cut, hedge funds, huge mansion, UFOs, etc. Read it and weep for us!

[onenote]

19. doesn't your post just prove that those candidates were unelectable?

The problems that HRC and BO allegedly have in terms of electability are the product of how they are perceived by the public through the filter of the media. That same filter impacted how the public perceived the other candidates. Why does that make them more electable?

[stray cat]

18. Generic candidate is not Al Gore's name

[CreekDog]

21. you don't know how electable/unelectable they are until you try

and it's not a fair comparison because the farther you go in the process, the more scrutiny you get, so the ones that didn't make it this far it could be argued, are not getting the criticism from the media or their competitors that those still standing are getting.

[calmblueocean]

24. Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. That's why.

Biden was a great candidate. The man embodies foreign policy experience, and knows how to tell a joke. He'd have been an easy sell to the American public, but Democrats never go for the easy sell. We want the candidate that makes our knees quiver and our hearts soar. We long for not just a candidate, but a story, something to believe in besides the mere candidate.

Republicans usually have a Chosen One who gets picked behind the scenes before the primaries really start. Bush was the Chosen One in 2000. This year was different, because Romney was the odd man out. The rest of the Republicans fawned all over each other, especially Huckabee and McCain. The last few primaries were just a way to keep McCain in the news cycle, and give Huck a little more time in the public spotlight. But the competition was as phony as a three dollar bill. Republicans know how to fall in line.

And that's why we have two candidates that most of us could live with who are tearing each other and the party apart, while the Republicans have one candidate none of them want to live with, and are still behind the man.

[grasswire]

25. the press shaped the race this way

They have (perhaps at the suggestion of the Powers That Be) shaped this year's contest into a battle between discrimination against women and discrimination against blacks.

An epic battle. One massive group pitted against the other, with liberal guilt and Republican racialism heating the fires.

It's a great year for news readers and pundits and corporate media profits.

Meantime, the GOP is in the catbird seat. Divide and conquer.

[beandoc]

26. Because of the divisive nature of politics,

none of the candidates look electable.
And I don't think any person, any candidate could come through this process without a lot of battle scars. Negative makes news. Negative sticks. Negative works. And it's not hard to find on any person who has been in the public eye for any period of time. They have to take positions on complex issues. These positions can easily be simplified and deconstructed into a caracature that can be criticized in the court of public opinion, which only requires sound bites and labels that entertain more than they inform.

People pick sides and politics become more of a nasty game about us vs. them rather than right vs. wrong. It's rooted in the genuine feeling that your candidate will do a better job, but the methods we often use to rationalize the goodness of our candidate and the evil of the opponent are not so honorable. Confirmation bias allows us not only to see only the good in our candidate, but to seek out the bad in the opponent, to twist words, to assign incompetence or ill-will to any statement, vote, gesture, outfit, or sneeze.

The result is mudslinging that would drag down the public image of any candidate. People defend the process with, "well, if they're running for president, they better be able to take it." No argument from me, but then we shouldn't be surprised by the results.

Since I'm a newbie, so you know where my slant and biases and evil comes from, Obama has my vote unless Hillary gets the nod, in which case I'll happily vote for her.


Oh, and sorry for sounding preachy. I'm sure I'll say something negative soon enough and will expect to be called a hypocrite at that time.

[hell-bent]

29. You make some excellent points.

Gore, and some of those others you mentioned might be the better choice. Neither the Obama or the Clinton camps would be outraged by an alternative choice of a deadlocked convention. Gore-Clark!

[Romulox]

30. This is what happens when you let "party elders" pick the candidates

Ask yourself why Dean is so desperate to control the nomination process if "we the people" are deciding...:think:

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

31. We ARE left with two most unelctable candidates: McCain and Clinton. It's a good thing there's a 3rd

who's racked up way more votes than either of the other two.