Deleted message

[Name removed]

Poll question: Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stickdog]

1. Something must be drastically wrong with the system because

Kerry's losing badly.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arewethereyet]

4. only problem is not engaging Dean back in early summer

figuring that the too early start gambit would not work. Dr Dean was left alone too long. Bad decisions all around on that.

[arewethereyet]

this is exactly what the primary season is all about

it seems odd because Dr Dean (actually Trippi as we all know) over extended the season to change the paradigm so that he would have a chance. This gives an over abundance of time to fill and opportunity to screw up. the fill is more vitriol, the screw ups are legend.

All systems go and perfectly normal.

[worldgonekrazy]

11. You just don't get it

The Dems need to project hope. It is the only answer to Bush's fear-mongering, other than to out-fear monger him. Personally, if the latter is their strategy then they can just go fuck themselves. I'm tired of that shit and I want someone like Howard Dean who gives us something to believe in.

[Scoopie]

15. No, I don't "get it"

and never will in regards to Dr. Dean.
Hope? No... when I see him, I think "anger." I mean, even his aura is hot pink! (Just a step down below red - which means, actually, a sort of anger that isn't geniune).
I can see hope in Clark, Kucinich, Edwards, and, frankly, Sharpton, who all have peach to honey auras.
Kerry's a great guy - but I see a bit of pale yellow to pale green in him.
Gep is just plain yellow (sorry... but he is).
Braun is a lovely deep, brick red or slighty a mauvish color, but that's more comfort than electability.


BTW... just so you know... Bush is yellowish brown. YICK!! Think dog pee! :puke:

[worldgonekrazy]

20. Oh my mistake

I did not realize Dean's aura is hot pink. I guess I ought to start supporting Kerry since his aura is green and that is my favorite color.

[HFishbine]

43. Ah, auras...

"Clark in '04! He has a honey aura."

[Bucky]

21. "someone like Howard Dean who gives us something to believe in"

I like that. I'm a Clarkie, but I totally agree with your sentiment. I think Dean could give me something positive to vote for. If it turns out to be Kerry or Clark or Edwards or Gephardt or whoever, I'm confident that you will find hope in their message too.

The primaries are still safely within the bounds of a healthy, vigorous, passionate family argument. If the neighbors come over to let their dogs poop in the front lawn, we'll all be united. But right now we're just sitting down to dinner and bitching about who has to do the dishes. We'll survive this process and come out of the convention in fighting shape.

Just watch. I'm right about this.

[arewethereyet]

25. I agree and Edwards can do that

but I do not think that its vital to do this in December.

We start this in March or April like we're supposed to.

But we can help this cause by choosing a positive candidate to make this happen as you know its harder for a negative candidate to do this task. Dr Dean is not a positive candidate. Senator Edwards is.

[mouse7]

26. Actually, we don't all know that

Trippi is very good but is not the Greek God of Campaigning. He's a good campaign manager, nothing more. Dean wrote the February 2003 DLC speech with the breakthrough tag line "from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" and Dean made decision to make campaign decentralized, which led to non-staff supporters getting to field test lots of ideas and using the ideas that worked nationally. Trippi did not start Dean's campaign early. Again, dean did that. Trippi was not even the first Dean campaign manager. He was moved from being a media consultant in Feb. to manager then.

[arewethereyet]

29. I'll agree that Trippi is not the best ever

but I think you give him too little credit and there was probably a reason he got that promotion.

I understand that Dr Dean does write his own speeches. Campaign managers seldom do but they are responsible for determining general content. THey are responsible for managing the ebb and flow of the presentation of the candidate.

So you're suggesting that Dr Dean had no convictions upon which to run and relied on focus groups to tell him how he felt about things ? Thats interesting.

I'm glad my guy Edwards already knew his principles going in. Sure makes it easier to speak from the heart that way.

[stickdog]

30. Yep. It's great that Edwards has had the guts to stand up for

Bush's principles so often -- even when and where they were highly unpopular!

[JohnLocke]

51. What do you mean by that, Stickdog?

[arewethereyet]

56. I believe he would be in the anti-Iraq vote camp

which placed Mr Stickdog in that 22% block of national voters.

[Bread and Circus]

48. This is a classic example of how little Dean supporters seem..

to know about the man:

"Dean wrote the February 2003 DLC speech with the breakthrough tag line "from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party"...

--

Just so you know, Dean did not write that tag line. Paul Wellstone did. Secondly, Dean originally started saying it without crediting Wellstone until others called him on it.

If folks expect us all to "fall in line" when Dean wins the nomination at least do us the decency of getting the story straight.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sugarman]

2. Petition for Democratic Unity

I need help promoting this....

The past few weeks have been very disheartening for many Democrats. We have seen our nominees cannablize each other with the media highlighting our internal divisions. As Democrats we need to act and force the candidates running for the nomination to maintain a degree of party unity. The eventual nominee cannot be so weakened by the nomination process that s/he readily loses to Bush. I have started a petition for this reason. Please sign it and send it to your friends. If we get enough signatures that we can affect the coming weeks. This is grassroots activism that doesn't require much effort, but can make a differece...


http://thiscause.org/p/read.php?petition=Khandwalla04021

[IndianaGreen]

5. Blame the DNC and the puke McCauliff for this mess!

Boy, were they clever! The Democratic Establishment, that is. They thought that by front-loading the primaries they would assure themselves that the front-running candidate would quickly dispose of any challenger by virtue of money and name recognition. There wouldn't be enough time for a challenger to mount an effective campaign if the presumptive nominee had big lead in delegates by early March. Boston was partly selected as the Convention site because it was the home state of the expected nominee.

What happened is that the rules the DNC set up to assure their preferred candidate to win the nomination are now working against them. Even if Dean were to stumble badly, Kerry would not be the beneficiary, but Wes Clark.

There are two things the party establishment has done to harm the primary process. The first was when they stopped using the League of Women Voters to organize the debates (very significant in the Presidential race). The second was when they front-loaded the primaries.

Blame the DNC and the puke McCauliff for this mess!

[windansea]

8. totally agree n/t

[Scoopie]

13. Quesion

What do you mean by "front-loading" the primaries?

[IndianaGreen]

14. The primaries are bunched up early in the year

instead of being spread out all the way into June, as they used to be in the past.

[Scoopie]

16. OK... I see what you're saying

but that was left up to the states, not the DLC.
At least, in my state it was. Our state legistature voted to move our primaries to February.
So, even if the DLC wanted that done, they still had to have the backing of the states.
That's why I wanted to know.
Personally, I like being in February instead of June, when I'd have no hope of voting for the likely nominee.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Hoosiers are a stubborn lot

We like our May primary in May!

[IndianaGreen]

19. Here is a very good article from Columbia Journalism Review

The Invisible Primary
Now is the time for all-out coverage

BY CHRISTOPHER HANSON

"Front loading" risks cutting the ordinary citizen out of the nomination process as fund-raisers and donors quietly anoint a candidate or two, hamstringing others before the press has informed the public about them in any depth. Candidates that voters might have preferred but who trail in the pre-season "money primary" face all but impossible odds.

There was a time when a grass-roots candidate had a shot at raising sufficient cash after a strong showing in Iowa or New Hampshire to build significant momentum (George McGovern in 1972, Gary Hart in 1984). This was possible because the primary season was once three months long, stretching from March to June. That gave an underdog time to make the most of his victories, drawing press coverage, supporters, organizers, and donors between one election and the next.

But since front loading took hold, there has not been enough time for an outsider to capitalize on an early win. The primaries are packed too tightly together for a poorly funded candidate to build real momentum. Thus in 1992, cash-strapped Democrat Paul Tsongas beat Bill Clinton in New Hampshire, only to be buried by Clinton money in the primary-crowded weeks that followed. In 1996 and 2000 the New Hampshire victors, Pat Buchanan and John McCain, met the same fate at the hands of the financial frontrunners, Bob Dole and George W. Bush.

Even so, journalists have tended not to focus much on how front loading can all but predetermine a nomination — perhaps because they wanted to maintain the illusion of covering a hot primary race. (See "Lost in Never-Never-Land," CJR, May/June 1996.)

http://www.cjr.org/issues/2003/2/voices-hanson.asp

[SayitAintSo]

41. Please expand on the loss of using the LWV in the debates ...

What do you know of the history here and how do you see that as a problem. I know that I have been very dissappointed in some of the debate facilitation just based ont the personalities (Woodruff comes to mind ... ) Anyway - good post - please expand.

[IndianaGreen]

44. We must take the Presidential Debates away from the DNC & RNC Chairs

We must take the Presidential Debates away from the DNC & RNC Chairs

I remember when the Presidential Debates were real debates, with a real impartial moderator, and a distinguished panel of journalists, in which candidates were given the time to answer and expound on their views on major issues. There were no Judys, or Paulas, or Timmys trying to get their KO punch and the sound bite.

When the political machines of the 2-major parties took away the debates from the League of Women Voters, it did a disservice to the American people. Debates were won by the best prepped and coached candidate, not by the better candidate.

It is our fault that we allowed American democracy to degrade to the point that it has. The outrageous abuses of the Bush government are the culmination of years of neglect by us, the American people, of the liberties and democratic values that so many sacrificed their lives for.

I don't care what a candidate's favorite book, or philosopher, or artist happens to be. I don't care how tall or short the candidate is, or whether he is single or divorced. I don't care to hear how well rehearsed the candidate was in giving the TV audience a bland and safe answer on a thorny issue. I do care what the candidate's values are, and what he is going to do if elected.

There are Americans from all across the political spectrum that would like to change the way presidential debates are organized and conducted. I ask that you give them a fair hearing.

Open Debates - The Issue

The Presidential debates are the single most important event in the process of selecting a President. They have traditionally given the American people an opportunity to see all the viable candidates discuss important issues in an unscripted manner.

Presidential debates were run by the civic-minded and non-partisan League of Women Voters until 1988, when the national Republican and Democratic parties seized control of the debates by establishing the bi-partisan, corporate-sponsored Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Posing as an institution committed to voter education, the CPD has continually and deceptively run the debates in the interest of the national Republican and Democratic parties, not the American people. The CPD, co-chaired by the former heads of the Republican and Democratic parties, has insulated the major party candidates from challenging questions, difficult issues, and popular third party and independent candidates. As a result, under the CPD's control, the debates have been reduced to "glorified bi-partisan news conferences," where the major party candidates merely recite prepackaged soundbites and avoid discussing many important issues.

Open Debates is working to establish a nonpartisan Citizens' Debate Commission to sponsor presidential debates that are rigorous, fair, and inclusive of important issues and popular candidates. The higher values of democracy and voter education will be restored to the presidential debates by the Citizens' Debate Commission.

http://www.opendebates.org/theissue/

OPEN DEBATES APPLAUDS REP. KUCINICH

Open Debates, National Press Building, 529 14th St. NW, Suite 1201, Washington, DC 20045
November 25, 2003

OPEN DEBATES APPLAUDS REP. KUCINICH

WASHINGTON, DC -- Open Debates commends Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) for calling for open debates as part of his presidential campaign platform. "I believe in the power of open debates to restore higher values of democracy and voter education to the American political process," stated Rep. Kucinich.

"We applaud Rep. Kucinich's call for open debates," said Open Debates' Executive Director George Farah.

The bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) has sponsored the presidential debates since 1988, when it seized control of the debates from the non-partisan League of Women Voters. The CPD is a private corporation that was established by the chairs of the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee.

"CPD sponsored presidential debates have been little more than glorified press conferences, where candidates recite prepackaged sound-bites, and avoid discussing many important issues," said Farah.

http://www.opendebates.org/news/pressreleases/06252003.html


Originally posted in DU on December 15, 2003 at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=918376

[SayitAintSo]

50. Thankyou for your informative post !

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. And I so agree. I will find a way to support the cause.

[Donna Zen]

54. Thanks for me too IG!

I knew the debates sucked...everyone damn one of them...but didn't put it together.

We are being ill servered as are the candidates. I wonder how many people watched them? And if they did, how many non-political junkies came away thinking: "Wow, what a bunch of lightweights!"

[gulliver]

6. Without IRV or Condorcet, etc., you can't tell where

... opinion actually stands. Dean is the "front-runner" which seems unjust because the majority is not for him. The vote is split among nine candidates, so it is difficult to tell who would be the closest representative of the majority of people. All nine are spoilers.

I think it is a mess, but I have high hopes that it will start to resolve after NH and IA.

[MercutioATC]

7. Isn't this what elections are like?

I mean, it IS a competition. I know very few people who aren't ABB, regardless of the Dem candidate they support. I think it's a healthy thing, as long as we all come together behind whomever the nominee is.

[arewethereyet]

9. why yes, yes they are !

and I recall uglier ones than this.

[MercutioATC]

22. Thanks! I thought I was missing something.

This seems like business as usual to me and I don't understand the concern.

[arewethereyet]

24. its a mixed bag

you have political newbies, you have people who invested far too much in candidates and feel incapable of walking away from bad investments, you have Dr Dean (Trippi actually) forcing a premature beginning of the political season which was good for Dr Dean and bad for the party among others.

Fact is we'll get it all sorted out by March giving us 6 or 7 months to take it to the right just like always.

Depending on the rallying ability of the candidate to be, we'll do OK or do poorly.

I like guys with a positive message and personal warmpth like Edwards as they win. The others don't. The polls show Dean and Clark to be of limited appeal. For this reason I believe that Edwards will be the guy people struggle to say no to when they're in that booth and that they will finally take the positive path insted of the negative path.

[mouse7]

27. You make big mistake in underestimating a professional

People like Dean and Edwards are very intelligent. It takes having a lot on the ball to get through law school or med school.

Generally, I have found doctors and lawyers to be as a whole much brighter than political consultants as a whole. You would be making a grave mistake to underestimate the intelligence of anyone capable of getting through any medical school program, especially in making negative comparison to political consultants.

[arewethereyet]

28. I don't think so and here's why

Are all the candidates intellegent ? Yes. Are most of them very smart ? Yes.

Dr Dean did work hard to learn medicine. Senator Edwards did work hard to learn the law.

Which of those two professions have more or a direct correlation to politics ? Clearly the law.

This gives Edwards (or any other lawyer) a distinct advatage over any physician in a political race.

Political consultants also studied very hard to learn their craft, a lot harder than you give credit for. If Dr Dean understood politics sufficiently he would not waste the money on Trippi. Edwards knows that he has holes in his expertise as well and hires people with those skills to help make his candidacy more successful.

The real difference between Dr Dean and Senator Edwards is that Edwards understands that you maintain complete control of yourself in public and you know your platform completely and totally and you learn the craft of speaking only of your platform regardless of what the question is. Dr Dean has not learned this nor does he have the craft.

And generals are a whole other matter. Ours is better at the craft but slow to make or learn his platform which makes him look bad speaking. He's getting better, practice certainly helps, but can we afford to have him train at this level ? I wouldn't think so.

[isbister]

33. Re: I don't think so and here's why

And... that's why we vote for John Kerry!

[newyawker99]

35. Hi isbister!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[arewethereyet]

57. not a bad option at all, I obviosly prefer Edwards

but Senator Kerry is a fine candidate as well. I worry a little about his contact with some of the more negative actions. Edwards has manages to stay out of that frey.

[MercutioATC]

53. Actually, Edwards IS my second choice...mostly because of his demeanor.

He seems to be a genuine person. I do really like him. Dean, however, is my first choice.

I'd disagree (nicely) with your assessment, though. As far as the political PROCESS goes, I believe you're correct, but I think a profession that teaches you to diagnose problems and solve them is actually a better education for HOLDING public office than the study of law.

Either way, I'd be happiest with Dean as the nominee, but would work just as hard to get Edwards elected should he be our chosen candidate.

[loyalsister]

60. What part of politics?

"Which of those two professions have more or a direct correlation to politics?"
Dr. Dean has made a career out of relating to people and making them feel comfortable with things that have tremendous potential to make them feel very uncomfortable. He had to explain extremely complex things in simplified terms. He learned the legislature as a representative and governor. You underestimate the value of his training and experience.

[stickdog]

32. Dean & Trippi didn't make the rules. Establishment Dems did.

You know, the ones who are whining about them now.

[seventhson]

10. Democratic Disunity is ALL Republican spin

Yes there are a lot of negative posts here and a lot of sniping as we go into the last turn in the primary season race.

But only those who are dumb enough to self destruct and help the Republicans will hurt us.

The republicans WANT the talking point to be conflict and disunity.

Even the DLC wants this to be about disunity.

IMHO the 2000 election was not "lost" by Gore because of Gore, but because he was NOT a DLC pimp/whore like Clinton was a DLC pimp/whore.

The same thing is being set up NOW by the PNAC/DLC crowd who, like Nader in 2000, prefer to crown Bush rather than see someone who is not their water carrier get elected.

DEAN is nobody's water carrier. Neither was Gore.

Dean is the PEOPLE's water carrier, as much as that is possible in American politics (and discounting Kucinich only because he does not have the numbers to win).

Negativity will potentially hurt us badly and so will the attitude that this race is a mess.

It is only a mess if you are not on the Dean train, really, so this poll means nothing in the long run.

Dean will win the primaries - the process is okay and will survive - and the majority of Americans will SWAMP Bush in November 2004!

Because we the people are PISSED at Bush and these primaries will only make Dean stronger and our chances better!

[Cocoa]

12. the rancor is an illusion

the reality is that it's a very competitive primary. A few pricks at DU make it seem like everyone hates each other, but it's not true.

[Bucky]

18. Very peachy. Classic peachy.

If you think this isn't SOP for Democrats you've not been around long enough (or you've been around so long that your memory is going :) ). We always do this. They always do this. It seems more intense because you're on the internet and no one has to mind their manners. Some of my fellow Clarkies and some Dean supporters are acting arrogant, cocky, and inconsiderate. But I seriously doubt such behavior would be very effective in politics in the real world. Such people can be safely ignored.

Do not base your perception of the nomination process on the behavior of folks on internet discussion boards. That would be, to put it gingerly, fucking stupid. C'mon, really. Once we have a clear nominee, we'll all shut up and rally around him or her. Perhaps Sharpton or Lieberman might divide the party--no one else will. Not Kucinich, not Braun, and certainly not Dean or Clark.

And you can take that to the bank.

[Deesh]

23. Our People are Good People

Jeff Greenfield -- is that his name -- the ABC analyst now with CNN -- did a short piece for the 1992 Clinton - Bush election. He asked listeners to set aside the issues and platforms and choose instead which of the two candidates they would most like to drive across the country with on a road trip.

Clinton must have been perceived as the best travel companion.

For our primary, the same question -- which of our nine people would we like to roadtrip cross-country with?

I say we need a large van and take everybody. We have interesting men and women running against a vacuous moron and a Cabinet full of greedhogs.

We're gonna be fine.

[SahaleArm]

31. Choosing a nominee is a messy thing - Always has always will n/t

[Clark Can WIN]

34. The primary process is screwed

Why should Iowa and NH be the end all be all of existance? Why are they greater than AK, AZ, WV or UT? Why should they be greater than the larger electoral college states?

Ever stop to think when almost exclusively white folk get to pick our canddiate we may just be alienating and disenheartening a great portion of the Democratic party?

hmmmmmmm.

[rucky]

39. I'm tellin' ya: One national IRV (or similar) primary would fix it.

[Iverson]

36. haven't self-destructed yet, but trying hard

The national structure that is well in place makes it unlikely that the Democratic Party will disappear anytime soon. However, the strategy of running against the base is a self-destructive gesture. So is a strategy of technical, rather than principled, objections to the far right.

Holding hands with Republicans to sing "God Bless America" suggests that the far right may set the agenda. To hope that timid and nuanced differences will strike a responsive chord within Middle America is simply wishful thinking that is a longer-term gesture of self-destruction.

I hope they stop it.

[MidwestMomma]

37. Always keep in mind the right-wing controlled media

They are the ones playing up the disunity, etc. I can't remember the 2000 primary season for the Repulicans, but can anyone remember if the media reported the blood-letting going on during the Repugs primary? (I think probably not.)

The good news is that as much as the media likes to report the primary infighting, a lot of Americans don't pay attention to it. Probably because a lot of it is on the political shows and they don't watch those kind of shows.

I think our primary season is doing what it should do. Showing who can stick with it for the long run despite numberous attacks. It sucks that the reality is that they will have to have a teflon-coated suit of armour to survive the upcoming campaign cycle. I think they are all well-suited :)

[jsw_81]

38. Things are fine

We haven't even come close to "self-destructing" this year. We're just having a very lively, competetive primary season with almost ten candidates and it just seems nastier because we have the internet and 24-hour cable news. We didn't have that in the past.

We have, however, had these kinds of difficult primary battles before and we've even managed to win the general election after brutal, bloody primaries that make this year look tame by comparison. In 1948, for example, the conservative wing of our party bolted at the convention because they were opposed to civil rights legislation (today we call these people and their descendants "Republicans"), and, believe it or not, the left wing of our party also abandoned our party because they wanted to support an ultra-liberal former vice president. Yet even then, Harry Truman managed an upset victory in November.

By this spring, we will almost certainly be united behind a nominee and getting ready for the big battle against Bush next fall. Now that is going to be difficult, probably the meanest, dirtiest campaign in American history. Are you ready?

[polpilot]

40. Things are PERFECT. All the feisty hate...hate are evidences of an

astoundingly CLEAR mandate in Nov. '04...'Get-along is gone' will transfer to the nation in the Demo v. Repub breakdown Summer '04. No jobs...destroyed economy...record deficits...record trade imbalances...steel manufacturers bankruptcies...personal bankrupties at all time highs...families and friends decimated by the national guard deployments GUARANTEE democratic victories.

Bush/Rove public ad campaign lies will only infuriate the out of job masses. The proverbial 'end of the road' for the Repub Eco-Whore Club...

Dean '04...

[dogman]

42. It is what it is

We have no control over the process. This is a media event and like the reality shows they will try to skew the outcome. A group of people formed the Dean campaign and the media has grabbed it and run with it. What will they do with it now? The media does not search for truth, they seek money and power. This week B*** made appointments to people who will oversee media and labor. Right now B*** has the money and the power. Maybe it would help if Dean quit giving the power away, that has to be the most annoying thing I've seen in the Primary.

[patricia92243]

45. The candidates are supposed to debate each other and do what it takes to

win the nomination - if a person can't take the heat during the nominating process, how do they expect to take it during the election/

The bit about "destroying" our candidate is just Republican hype - they went at it tooth and toe-nail in their nominating process last time.

Don't worry about a non-existent problem!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

46. Agree.

It's nothing new. The party outside of Executive power almost always eats it's own during the primaries, then comes together after the nomination. Same thing going on this year.

No big whoop.

[Terwilliger]

47. Let me ask you...

have you asked this question because you expected a different leaderboard at this point in the game?

[For PaisAn]

49. Yes

and the Republicans will use it against whoever gets the Democratic nomination. They will run ads showing everything negative that the other candidates said about the nominee. I can just hear them now. This will all backfire. Sharpton kept warning everyone during the debates.

For us, this should not be a contest to gloat about how well your/my candidate is doing or that your candidate is better than mine.

IMO, there are 3 things that matter in the decision of who to support, in this order:
1) Who can beat Bush
2) Who has a realistic chance to win the nomination
3) Can I live with this candidate and is he better than Bush.
The candidate you support must meet all 3 criteria.

Look, the entire process is corrupt, the media, Bush & Co., etc. Work within these facts. Reality must trump idealism or we're finished.

Example;
Kucinich is my ideal candidate but he only meets criteria #3. It pains me to say that he is out. This country is just not evolved enough for him yet.

Also, any candidate that the repugs and the media can paint as weak on defense is in deep trouble against Bush the chickenhawk. I know it's BS but it will play out that way. They have instilled fear in the American public and they won't stop using that tactic any time soon.

The only 2 candidates that meet all three criteria are Clark and Kerry and criteria #2 is starting to look doubtful for Kerry.

I've reevaluated my choices many times and have come to this. My bet is on Clark as our best chance.

Don't be so ingrained on "your" candidate. Start fresh and look at all the candidates as if for the first time. Our loyalty should lie in really taking our country back, not in any particular candidate. They're all better than Bush. Do we want to win? Let's give ourselves the best chance even if the candidate might not have been our top choice. It can't be about comparing candidates. With the state of our nation and of the world it's too late for that. It MUST be about beating Bush. It's us against them and we must win.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

52. We've created more than a mess.

Whoever gets the eventual nod will have to live down the propaganda created ON THE LEFT and then used by the right.

[arewethereyet]

58. unless they avoided playing that game a la Edwards

which is why he is perfectly positioned to be the unifying voice to come out of this din.

[KC21304]

59. I couldn't have said it better NSMA.