Reply #73: nope

[kenfrequed]

This is the last redoubt argument of the "he/she/it is the only candidate that can win" bit. It is a useless tired argument that I have seen dozens of times and at best it works less than half the time. It is always a bludgeon or truncheon to your own party during the warm up when we should be debating issues and matching them up with the best candidate and it usually is the arguement the ushers in the least desirable candidate from a policy standpoint.

Quite frankly I do not care if she is 'tough' 'determined' 'ruthless' or able to play hardball with the boys. The same could be said of Margaret Thatcher, but I do not want Margaret Thatcher to be president. I want a candidate that I know stands for what I believe in and can articulate that vision to the rest of the American people.

I also want a candidate that isn't bought and paid for already and for whom the primary doesn't feel like a coronation.

But back to my problem with the 'she's tough' argument, we had a governors race in Minnesota a few years ago and at the lead up all I heard was that kind of absurd argumentation from supporters of the person who ended up being the candidate. "Oh he's a junkyard dog" "He is the only one tough enough to win" "He's a fighter."

Oh yeah, he lost. And the candidate that should have been Governor, Becky Lourie, a woman of incredible poise, personality, and vision did not get her chance to knock Governor Pawlenty off his block.