Democrats are setting themselves up for another fall.

[ginchinchili]

Two under-qualified candidates and a white guy the news media won't accept. Good thing Obama isn't white or he'd be as likely to win the nomination as Hillary if she hadn't been married to Bill. The sad truth is that Americans are just too stupid to run a democracy. We're too shallow-minded and too easily lured by clever word combinations and visuals. It's why Bush used those feelgood cliches all the time. They work. It's not a Democratic thing or a Republican thing. Obviously Republicans are just a gullible. Today Obama said, "You're the wave, and I'm riding it." What the hell? Is this Romper Room redux? We're involved in 2 wars, costing us thousands of our precious military personnel their lives and tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives and we're seriously considering a man who has had zero experience with the military and zero foreign policy experience, and he offers us tripe like "You're the wave, and I'm riding it," or some feelgood blather about change. Abracadabra, you've got change, as if it comes about through wishing with your fingers crossed. America, what is the problem? We reject the most qualified candidates first and whittle it down to the ones that have the most in common with our idea of celebrity. All the Republicans have to do is be a little bit smarter than the Democrats and nominate John McCain, then the ballgame is over and the Democrats will have once again held a shotgun to their collective heads and gleefully pulled the trigger.

I certainly don't expect anyone to pay any heed to this post. That's not the way it works. The standard procedure is to, once again, fail to read the political landscape in America, nominate someone that only a chunk of Democrats like, get beaten by the Republicans--who do understand the political landscape in America, and then whine and make excuses until we get to do it all over again in 4 years, being sure not to learn anything in the process. Well, I've ridden this train long enough. I can not longer, in good conscience, associate myself with the Democratic Party. My intellect and spirit will not permit it. It's too unhealthy. I'd say good luck, but that would be like wishing harm to this once great country.

[goldcanyonaz]

1. Have you seen the losers on the other side?

[Rageneau]

14. Is any of them a bigger loser than George W. Bush, our current president?

Don't over-estimate the intelligence of the American electorate.

So long as the message is controlled, so are the elections.

[iconocrastic]

143. Hillary would make a great dictator.

What do you mean underqualified?

[fightindonkey]

165. You Need To Go

Back to Freeperville, you loser. No Democrat would say that.

[krkaufman]

177. Yes, they would. Plenty of Dems loathe Hillary...

... and are not hesitant to equate her with Bush and Cheney.

[ginchinchili]

29. Yes, they're worse.

Except that at least McCain has experience. I'm certainly not leaving the Democratic Party to go join the Republicans. God forbid. Talk about out of the frying pan and into the fire. No, they're worse, but their operatives tend to be able to read the political winds better than the Democrats can. I mean, our country elected--sort of--George W. Bush in the last two elections. Yes, he's been a disaster, but that doesn't mean everyone has turned liberal. And how do the Democrats respond? Well, it's looking like they're about to nominate a black Harvard intellectual with the middle name Hussein who has absolutely no international or military experience. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the foolery in this. It just takes a little objective reasoning.

[forsberg]

68. I have seen Huckabee, he is the ultimate snake in the grass

be very afraid, he won't be easy to beat

[iconocrastic]

144. Thugs will stop him. Don't worry about it.

n/t

[lisainmilo]

90. WE actually have 3 winnrers finally running for the Democratic Party

I am proud to be a part of this process no matter who wins this. I have listened to all three candidates, although my preference is JRE, I can sleep easier tonight. The fear tactics of GWB will soon be over. The divide and separation will end. May we remember history. Our nation is about to recieve a blessing of one of these great people.
:patriot:

[RichGirl]

155. I remember history...

A great president got a blow job and was impeached.

I have to agree with the OP.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. "Americans are just too stupid"

Speak for yourself.

[ginchinchili]

31. Well, I certainly don't expect you to nod in agreement.

That would turn the casual observer into an objective observer, something Americans show little inclination to be.

[The_Casual_Observer]

43. You from Canada or something?

What bullshit condescension! And btw, you don't have the faintest idea of what you are talking about

[ginchinchili]

46. No, I'm not from Canada.

And, of course I don't, nor do I think I'm smarter than everyone else. I'm a casualty, too. I'm just trying to reverse that personal trend.

[TheWatcher]

115. You should temper your assessment a little.

A large MAJORITY are just too stupid. But I still think it's an unfair assessment. Granted, there are an alarmingly large number of Americans you could paint with his brush, but it's too broad.

I think a lot of it is Apathy and willful ignorance. many are simply just uninformed, and unarmed with the information they need that would help them see things in a different light.

People either just don't care, or they don't want to know. They want to feel good and live their lives without having to be concerned or involved with this stuff.

Invincible Ignorance, Superior Indifference, Numbing Apathy.

Choose your poison.

[Mr_Monday]

64. We have been running a democracy

for 200 something years, so I guess we know what we are doing.

[ginchinchili]

67. The one thing you don't do with a democracy is take if for granted...

even if we've been running one for 232 years, or you end up with a president who gets away with carving out your liberties while claiming that he's protecting you.

[elleng]

106. A misstatement, I think.

For the last 70+ years, this country has been run by corporations who own P.R. experts. Some important history for all of us:

'PR practitioners were—and are still often—recruited from the ranks of journalism. Some reporters, concerned with ethics, criticize former colleagues for using their inside understanding of news media to help clients receive favorable media coverage

The First World War also helped stimulate the development of public relations as a profession. Many of the first PR professionals, including Ivy Lee, Edward Bernays, John Hill, and Carl Byoir, got their start with the Committee on Public Information (also known as the Creel Committee), which organized publicity on behalf of U.S. objectives during World War I. Some historians regard Ivy Lee as the first real practitioner of public relations, but Edward Bernays is generally regarded today as the profession's founder. In describing the origin of the term Public Relations, Bernays commented, "When I came back to the United States, I decided that if you could use propaganda for war, you could certainly use it for peace. And propaganda got to be a bad word because of the Germans... using it. So what I did was to try to find some other words, so we found the words Council on Public Relations". . .

Bernays was the profession's first theorist. A nephew of Sigmund Freud, Bernays drew many of his ideas from Freud's theories about the irrational, unconscious motives that shape human behaviour. Bernays authored several books, including Crystallizing Public Opinion (1923), Propaganda (1928), and The Engineering of Consent (1947). Bernays saw public relations as an "applied social science" that uses insights from psychology, sociology, and other disciplines to scientifically manage and manipulate the thinking and behavior of an irrational and "herdlike" public. "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society," he wrote in Propaganda. "Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country."

One of Bernays' early clients was the tobacco industry. In 1929, he orchestrated a legendary publicity stunt aimed at persuading women to take up cigarette smoking, an act that at the time was exclusively equated with men. It was considered unfeminine and inappropriate for women to smoke; besides the occasional prostitute, virtually no women participated in the act publicly. . .

Bernays arranged for New York City débutantes to march in that year's Easter Day Parade, defiantly smoking cigarettes as a statement of rebellion against the norms of a male-dominated society. Publicity photos of these beautiful fashion models smoking "Torches of Liberty" were sent to various media outlets and appeared worldwide. As a result, the taboo was dissolved and many women were led to associate the act of smoking with female liberation. Some women went so far as to demand membership in all-male smoking clubs, a highly controversial act at the time.

For his work, Bernays was paid a tidy sum by George Washington Hill, president of the American Tobacco Company.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_public_relations

Corporations, more powerful every year, have been 'running' this country, only with the attributes of democracy that they found useful for themselves. 'Journalists' and the media have been an important part of the program. THEY may know what they are doing; We the People don't know what they have done to our democracy.

[bdamomma]

142. don't lump all of us into the ignorant category.

[FiveGoodMen]

147. Doesn't have to be all of us

Last time it was 60 million.

We've got lots of stupid people.

[demo dutch]

181. Sorry, but I agree!

[Thrill]

3. The Republicans have weak candidates

They aren't even excited about them

[sam sarrha]

11. they dont have to have strong candidates, they are going to steal this election by influencing the

primaries.. media influence nominating a candidate they can tear up in the election or destroy as president.. like an inexperienced candidate who admitted smoking 'Crack'..and is supported by carl rove and gingrich for god sakes,

that is why edwards has been 'disappeared' ..obama was #1 and Hillery was #3... no mention on CNN that edwards even ran in that election.! more less placed 2nd

[Thrill]

25. They would be stirring it to Hilary then

They hate her so much, they've been gearing up for her for 10+ yrs

[sam sarrha]

27. hillery is emploding herself.. she doesnt need any help

[CyberPieHole]

40. Her name is "Hillary" and the term is "Imploding" not "Emploding"...

but thanks for your "brilliant" observation.

[sam sarrha]

114. bite me spelling nazi... I'm autistic.. sorry i ruined your fucking day asshole, the spell check

doesn't spell any better than the handicapped here.. and since i lost my left hand it is a bit difficult to type, and takes forever i dont really care to go back re checking spell check.. besides i flush better shit than spelling Nazis are made of

[CyberPieHole]

134. Pity...

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[jillan]

161. How does it feel to be so cold hearted?

[IronLionZion]

136. GREATEST POST EVER!!! WOOT!!!

Score one for the haters! Hell yeah!

[ginchinchili]

33. Yes, but at this point they might would rather have Obama...

the inexperience, black Harvard intellectual. The Republicans are beginning to get excited once again.

[ginchinchili]

32. Abolutely on the money.

You obviously have your eyes wide open. At this point Edwards is the Democrats' best chance, but the news media and the Republicans want either Obama or Hillary, for mostly different reasons, I believe.

[quinnox]

4. Agree in part: Obama will lead to another loss to the republicans

That is as far as I'll go though in agreement.

Obama is a one way ticket to another loser candidate and the republicans win again in 2008.

[thoughtcrime1984]

6. And I feel the same about Hillary

oh well

[rodeodance]

12. his lofty rhetoric does inspire many to ride the wave. Then what?

[ginchinchili]

34. Then another Democratic defeat on election day.

[donheld]

93. So you don't believe either 2000 or 2004 elections were stolen?

[thoughtcrime1984]

5. Guess you better run then

Who is the best candidate in your estimation? Ghouliani? We have to elect someone, we do the best that we can with what we have.

[Sulawesi]

7. From someone who thinks this is a good thing, and real, I have a question...

What politician are you referring to, that came from nowhere, and took the political process by storm, with a positive message, and lost the general election? Can't you see, even the republicans are trumpeting his message, they are all talking change, McCain is talking global warming. Obama is energizing people and the dems are going to win this in a romp.

[cali]

8. What a trite dull witted piece of crap. n/t

[Quixote1818]

13. The Debbie Downers are starting to emerge.

Meaning the OP :nopity:

[ClericJohnPreston]

23. Can you ever do better Cali?

The OP has a point of view, and as Reagan famously said to Jimmy Carter: "There you go again"!

How predictable, the obnoxious put-downs.

By the way, I'm still awaiting your apology for the faux-pas about that thread of mine.

Judging from the mail I received after responding to you, others seem to pick up on your churlish manner of posting.

[TheWatcher]

117. I tend to agree with you cali.

But perhaps you're being a bit hard on yourself.

I would never view you as a piece of crap.

[Carrieyazel]

9. Yes, I share a lot of your sentiments. What are we doing?? This is ours to lose....

and we're doing everything to lose it. Repukes, after being demoralized for the last couple of years, are now finally energized. They know that our sitting Senators are very beatable, and now all they do is not screw it up, and they've got another 4 years at least.

[musicblind]

10. very good post

excellent points, well thought out!

[Yael]

15. Did you watch the debates last weekend?

Do you honestly think there is a breathing body they could put up to beat our candidates?

They could dig up St. Ronnie and drag him across the plains ala "Weekend at Bernies" and he wouldn't garner but 25% of the vote.

[tired_old_fireman]

20. People said the same things about George Bush

I've learned never to underestimate the Republicans. They know who can win and they know how to win. I could see a couple of their guys taking us down. Look at the polling numbers for Ohio if you don't think they have a chance.

[AshevilleGuy]

26. The same sentiment I heard in 1988

After eight years of Ronnie we can beat anyone! Then along came Dukakis, who blew a 20-point lead and went on to lose 41 states. The smear machine really came into being that year, and Dukakis wouldn't even fight back. I fear it will be far worse this time.

Some of our candidates could beat any of theirs, it is true. But we have to pick the right ones, and the corporate media is doing their damndest to make sure we do exactly the opposite.

[gateley]

59. Even the last election, I was sure nobody would vote for Bush after what he'd

done in Iraq. Granted, the election was stolen, but there was no CRUSHING Democratic victory like I'd envisioned. It's something to think about.

[MagickMuffin]

111. Of course it was Stolen and RIGGED by the SOS of Ohio

When you have the advantage of being SOS and being in charge of where and how many voting machines go to which precinct as well as being the chairman of your party's campaign then I would have to say that it was more than just stolen. It was a deliberate and calculated machine. Everything that went wrong in Ohio is because of the RW machine.

We were told that the youth didn't turn out to vote for Kerry and that is bullshit. Ken Blackwell made damn sure that there wouldn't be enough machines for the turn out. I saw and heard it first hand from the disenfranchised voters, granted this was covered on C-SPAN.

I also witnessed the C-SPAN Kerry Rallies and they were just as large as Obama's, even larger. The RW machine is still lurking out there. Waiting to pounce on who ever is our nominee. And it will be ugly. I just HOPE our candidate stands up to them.

[Triana]

69. What AshevilleGuy said....

...and hello from Raleigh-Durham! :)

[truebrit71]

152. Yeah the Willie Horton ad and the Bernard Shaw debate ambush had NOTHING to do with it at all...

right?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.....

[ginchinchili]

41. It's that attitude that will cost the Democrats the election.

How could a moron like George W. Bush even come close to winning one presidential election, much less two? Democrats nominate Obama and the Republicans nominate McCain, Republicans drill into the American psyche everyday that Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal and a very destabilized government--9/11,Iran is trying to acquire nuclear bombs--9/11, we are involved in 2 wars--9/11, our military needs someone they can respect and look up to--9/11, etc, etc. And Obama has no experience that would prepare him for dealing with any of that. Is this really that tough to recognize? Telling yourself it won't work won't keep it from working. You have to objectively read the political landscape in this country. You have to objectively read the political landscape in this country. Objectively.

[teleharmonium]

63. dictionary

Time to go look up what "objectively" means. Hint: it does not exist in politics.

[ginchinchili]

66. Apparently not.

But you won't find that definition in the dictionary.

[dsmmom]

127. You're right - objectivity is key

Remember that four years ago, the Republicans took our nominee with numerous war medals and turned it around on him. One swiftboat, and it's over.

[PatSeg]

85. And to us it seems so obvious

but I will never be overly confident again after 2004. There was no way the country would re-elect GW. We are going to take back the WH. He was the absolutely worst candidate I've ever seen and he WON. Even if they cheated, he still had a lot of votes. I'll never put down my guard again.

[Bonhomme Richard]

16. Who the hell could possibly be recommending this crap?

Oh yeah, I get it.

[pretzel4gore]

17. enough childish tripe!

the pigmedia is a pig. pigs wallow in slops- but this particular pig also determines the news on the main media, so what do you get?
most people aren't served by the pigmedia; that's a given, but they will not allow control to be wrestled away from them- they'll kill for control. That's the problem, not american stupidity (in 1932, more then 4 million Germans voted against the nazis, despite brownshirts at every polling booth, a little detail western historians conveniently overlook while heaping blame upon the- wait for it... the German people!)
it's almost a latenight comedy joke that bush has never won an election, yet here we are saying the democrats are gonna 'lose' due to the thickness of their heads! The problem is simpler then that- the newsmedia are criminal-run enemy organizations ...
SLAP!
for gods sakes man, spit out that poison pill!

[Desertrose]

18. Thank you. Excellent analysis I'm afraid.

Most likely the fix is on...the most corporate friendly candidate will win.

How can we even think we have remotely fair elections when the media controls what we see and hear and the big corporations control them. Dem or Pub isn't that big a deal to them..they want someone in office who will *do right by their interests*.


Screw the people. If the people had half a brain, they'd vote the bastards out...instead we get all emotional about our next savior...I mean candidate. Isn't it fun to watch how we are all fighting each other about who's the best when they are really pretty much owned by the same big money.

After I vote in the Dem primary Feb 5, I'm gonna be an independent -again.

[PatSeg]

86. The problem is, we don't need a savior

we need a leader. People tend to get the two mixed up and most people wouldn't know a real leader if they tripped over one on the street.

[bdamomma]

146. tsegat01, say President instead of leader, we have to drop

that term. Just like "homeland" and there are many more to add to the list.

[1corona4u]

19. I agree...

This election has become a fucking joke. I wonder who will get the last laugh....

[bigbrother05]

21. There are way to many people like

Barbara Bush in America.

[bdamomma]

148. true, but then again you got to look at who's coming out to vote

Obama is a favorite among young people isn't he? I think some young people have to be focused on and why they are leaning towards Obama.

[tired_old_fireman]

22. I wrote something like this in 2004.

I came back. I can feel the same feelings coming back again, but I hope this time I'm wrong. Obama is a much different candidate than Kerry and it is such an unknown how he can do in a general election.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

24. ginchinchili (the original poster) seems to have disappeared....

A hit and run indeed. If he hadn't run, I'd have asked him what better ideas he had. We have a flawed election system here in the U.S., and it's been flawed from day 1. Does he have a technique for changing it? Americans have their own culture. They're not Europeans. Europeans might not like the fact that our elections are so theatrical, and that we use poetic language, and rhyming phrases, and all manner of catchy-sounding language in our elections. We wouldn't like the fact that their elections are so mature, serious and dry. Sure, I'd love it if this country's elections didn't require a bazillion dollars per candidate, but what suggestions have you got? I await your response but I doubt I'll get any.

[ginchinchili]

45. Publically financed elections would be a good place to start.

And we have to start giving our children better educations and do a better job raising them so they're aren't as myopic and easily swayed as we are. We're squeezing them dry of any real sense of spiritual enlightenment, conscience, personal integrity and personal responsibility with capitalism run amuck. I think we've allowed our culture to evolve into a very unhealthy climate, in every respect. our elections are just a byproduct of that, but with very serious consequences.

And by the way, I wasn't running. Dinner was ready.

[Sherman A1]

28. Toodles

I think I will hang around awhile if it's okay with you.


:boring:

[The River]

30. I Can Just See The TV Ads Now

If you think Harold Ford got shafted by the bimbo ad, you haven't seen anything yet.

How about a video of a dark inner city alleyway, trash, rats, a siren in the background.
A bic lighter flashes in the darkness, the camera moves in to show a crack addict hitting his pipe.
The screen goes dark, camera moves closer, the screen brightens again as he takes another hit.
Fade to black with text and voice over.

"Can we really trust a man who admits he experimented with dangerous addictive drugs?
Vote Republican in November"

Give me 5 minutes I'll script a few more. It's not that hard to do.
You don't think the GOP "swiftboaters" won't run such an ad?
They will and worse.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[KennedyGuy]

37. Thus..the state of the debate

I expect this to be the next line in the media.

[AshevilleGuy]

38. There is almost no limit to the ways they can do it.

From his name to his childhood, to his position on drivers lincences for undocumented foreigners, the possibilities are endless.

And we are told that Obama is reluctant to fight back. This will be like the smear machine of 1988, on steroids!!! Why are we doing this again???

[The River]

44. I Wish I Knew

Why in 08, with so much at stake, do we care more about breaking
down barriers than with electing someone who has and will actually
go up against corporate irresponsibility?
Corporate dominance of everything is a much more important
barrier to break than the (media enabled) race or gender barriers.
Break the barrier of corporate control and all the other barriers
to restoring a just, fair and decent America will fall away when our
news and our government are returned to control by "We the People".

[lisainmilo]

104. I understand....what I am seeing...

People want change....the want out from the rule of GWB, that in itself will relieve many Americans. But Most Americans believe the system is working. They think if they change the candidate, that will be enough....just a little change. JRE represents a threat to the comfort zone of many. I support him and I believe he will get right down to solving the problems. Obama, is a good man, I believe he wants change, I think things will change, but the changes will be more difficult. I don't know though, we will have to see. Hillary, in this last speech seemed more genuine, much has happened though. She really seemed like she wanted to let something out, and did alittle i.e" Borrowing money from China to buy oil from Saudi Arabia, then having them (China) turn around and steal our technology" I really liked her speech tonight. Her talk of change and experience was spot on. The problem is the latter of the two candidates are finacially tied to corporations......so will we get real change or a bandaid....Will Obama or Hillary deliver?

[PatSeg]

92. You gotta learn to think like they do

We can't let our guard down this time.

[AshevilleGuy]

96. That is key

Of our three possible nominees, which will have a war room, like Clinton did in 1992? Hillary no doubt will, and Edwards don't take no shit from nobody. But what about Obama?? Kerry didn't have one and neither did Gore. Again, will Obama?

[bdamomma]

150. never let our guard down, we have all been through 2 terrible

elections, and again, the (neo con) slimeball machine is or could be getting fine tuned into another (swift boat) attack, we have alot of problems that have be solved in this country and around the world. We need someone to hit the ground running or at least will keep the vultures away. I wouldn't put anything past these neo cons, and behind the scenes they are doing their evil mastery, stupid dimson is off to the Middle East, he met with the Turkish President today, Iraq and Afghanistan and their saber rattling in Iran is continuing, they say nothing about Pakistan so there is still alot of damage that could be done.

[LibDemAlways]

102. Right now Karl Rove is salivating over the prospect of

swiftboating Obama. Your ad is, indeed, tame compared to what they're capable of.

[fightindonkey]

166. Muslim Father! Muslim Father! I Could Take Down Obama In My Sleep

It's seriously that easy.

[truebrit71]

156. How about non-stop Breck-Girl ads for your candidate?

..or Intern ads for HRC...

Do you see the pattern yet?

It doesn't matter WHO the candidate is, the GOP will attempt to slime them WHOEVER they are...

Why? Because a) they're a bunch of fucking low-life scumbags and b) they've got no platform to run ON...

If the OP is really that pessimistic may I suggest that they take up some other hobby and leave DU posting to the chronically optimistic Dems that DO think we can win in November?

[gdaerin]

36. Ha!

You are right, my first inclination was to ignore this post.

But, I thought it was funny that at the end you managed to make a plug for Your candidate(shocking), and then tried to make the argument that democrats aren't informed after your long, rambling, ad hominem argument.

You might want to look that up by the way(ad hominem argument).

I don't know how old you are, but in the future, if you base arguments on emotions, you lose credibility, almost immediately, even if you feel really strongly about something, and even if you are right.

What this means is, your point doesn't get across.

And, I don't want to be rude, but I think it's a public service to you to also let you know how humiliating these kind of displays are, really. I mean, people will actually laugh behind your back.

I'm sorry, I think you're young so, like I said, I don't want to insult, just inform.

[Steely_Dan]

54. Emotions...

Your quote:
"I don't know how old you are, but in the future, if you base arguments on emotions, you lose credibility, almost immediately, even if you feel really strongly about something, and even if you are right."


And so, do you believe that those that have attached themselves to the Obama star are not operating on emotions...that "feel good" message with little or no substance?

-P

[ginchinchili]

58. That post was like a stream of consciousness with Alzheimer's.

It didn't make much sense to me. You're a better man/woman than I to make some sense out of it. And I agree with your point. Take "emotions" out of the equation and Obama deflates like Sen. Craig when he found the target of his desires to be a cop. Sorry, that was pretty bad.

[Steely_Dan]

60. LOLOLOL

[PatSeg]

94. Damn man, you're good!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

121. "Alzheimer's" as a means to an insult?

Oh, wait, you meant to insult the post with the Alzheimer's comment, not the poster. Mmm.

[gdaerin]

71. Steely: misunderstanding

I don't think you understood me, I was referring to an ad hominem argument, which is where you base an argument on an insult.

For instance, "Well, you're stupid" is an ad hominem argument. I'm sure you've heard a lot of people use it, especially young people, certainly not because their stupid, but simply because they haven't learned yet how to present an argument in an articulate way, it's to be expected really. Usually your first semester in college you'll be taught not to write in this manner. Hope that helps.

[ginchinchili]

75. Yes it does, thanks.

I look forward to my first semester in college.

[mtnsnake]

39. It's posts like yours

that I could read all night long. It's so interesting, thought provoking, and insightful at the same time.

Excellent analysis, ginchinchili, from start to finish. I share many of your frustrations about how we're going about things.

Despite your post being a little on the pessimistic side, it was so enjoyable to read I read it twice. :thumbsup:

[ginchinchili]

48. Thank you, mtnsnake.

I guess I'm trying to emotionally distance myself because of what I'm afraid will happen on election night. I just see the Democratic Party setting itself up for an acutely frustrating experience in an election that they should be able to easily win. But you don't easily win by assuming you will easily win. You already know this.

[CyberPieHole]

42. Excellent post...

though I don't think Clinton is under-qualified. But I respect your point of view and your gumption to post it here on DU. You are being flamed as I write this, but then, what else is new: DU is really not that different than the old message boards on Yahoo.

Peace to you, ginchinchili.:hi:

:kick: and recommend

[ellisonz]

47. I don't think you understand politics.

Elections are not a resume comparison exercise. Elections are about communicating to the electorate why you should be President and what you will do when you get there. If you can successfully convey that message to the electorate, you win. The fact is that this election, running on expierence is a sure loser because the same old expierence is what got us in Iraq and the same old expierence is what keeps Washington deadlocked.

"We're involved in 2 wars, costing us thousands of our precious military personnel their lives and tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives and we're seriously considering a man who has had zero experience with the military and zero foreign policy experience..."

You can thank Joe, Christopher, John, Hillary, and Dubya for that nasty fact.

"...then whine and make excuses until we get to do it all over again in 4 years, being sure not to learn anything in the process."

I guess the John Kerry candidate didn't rise from the dead this election. Your argument is akin to the pot calling the kettle black.

:nopity: for the status quo.

[ginchinchili]

50. I don't believe for one second that Obama would have voted against the IWR.

It's just a very convenient position for him to take. All safe, no risk. But he's too ambitious to have taken a position that was very controversial at the time and potentially politically damaging. I'd respect him more had he stuck to what he once said, that he doesn't know how he would have voted. He let a bit of honesty slip, which is not in keeping with him and today's politician. It is not me who is politically naive. Obama is the status quo in a new package, which is a very American way of doing things.

[SOS]

52. It was not convenient

Voting yes was the "safe" choice.

Do you seriously think that the man who spoke these words at an anti-war rally in October 2002 would have voted yes?:

"I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us..

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."

Clinton and Edwards woudn't have been caught dead at an anti-war rally in October 2002.

The vote on the AuMF will decide our nominee.

[ginchinchili]

61. Yes, if he was a US senator I think he'd have voted yes.

There's nothing in his history that shows him having taken a stand at the risk of seriously damaging his career. He didn't even make it for the vote on the Iran resolution and has the audacity to criticize Hillary for her vote. Yes, Hillary took the wrong position, but Obama loses his moral authority on the issue if he can't even show up for the vote. Another politically convenient position. He's just more of the same.

[ellisonz]

72. That was a campaign scheduling conflict...

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/did-obama-skip-the-iran-vote/

[ginchinchili]

76. Good to know he has his priorities in order.

[ellisonz]

77. You didn't read the blog post.

The congressional record clearly states that senators were informed that the Kyl-Lieberman amendment would not be coming up for a vote in the near future.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. REID. Mr. Chairman, there will be no more votes tonight. We have tried to work something out on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and the Biden amendment. We have been unable to do that.

We have been very close a few times, but we have just been informed that Senator Biden will not have a vote anytime in the near future. There will not be a vote on the other one anytime in the near future. We hope tonight will bring more clearness on the issue.

But right now, I think it is fair to say there will be no votes tonight.

Does the Senator from South Dakota have any comments?

Mr. THUNE. No, I do not. I would say to the leader, that is good for our Members to know. We have Members who have been inquiring whether they will be able to vote.

[ginchinchili]

81. Hmmm...Sens. Biden, Dodd, & Clinton were campaigning and they...

made it back in time for the vote. And Biden & Dodd don't have anywhere near the means that Obama has. Maybe they're just a little more experienced and skilled at getting things done. Obama is still wet behind the ears. He needs to pay his dues to be president.

[PatSeg]

83. And the only TWO senators who didn't show up for a vote

were Obama and McCain! Two very important votes that day and everyone else made it.

[ellisonz]

56. That was in 2004 right after the convention...

...and he posed in the context of having access to the intelligence reports. He didn't say he probably would have. He said he didn't know.

As the above poster noted, he was against it in Oct. 2002 and that was what mattered.

You've bought the hype.

[PatSeg]

97. You know, I may end up supporting Obama

but I have to say it bothers me to hear someone say they would not have voted for the IWR when he wasn't there. We'll never know, will we?

[Tashca]

49. I'll pay heed to your post.

I think your analysis is right on the money.
I see your getting flamed.....oh well....who cares???

[ginchinchili]

51. Doesn't bother me in the least, and thank you.

If I didn't care about this country I wouldn't get so frustrated.

[PatSeg]

98. It is only a "little" flamed

We've seen far worse, haven't we?

[ecstatic]

53. wait, so the white guy is the only qualified candidate?

Have you compared their actual resumes? The white guy is the least qualified!

[ginchinchili]

55. LOL, I don't believe that's what I said...

but if you want it to be, so be it.

[Steely_Dan]

57. Well, Well, Well...

Finally a post that has the balls to tell the truth...and of course, your getting flamed big time.

Welcome to the new world. If you always thought that elections were like selling soap, you ain't seen nothing yet. If you really decide to look behind the curtain and think "critically," you may have a cathartic realization that we are not in control. How else does the most qualified candidate from either side get dumped so early. The media controls this country and corporations own the media.

So, go ahead and attach yourself to that star, to that celebrity. I said months ago that the nominations would go to Biden and McCain. I was wrong about Biden, but McCain will be there. When things get tight (and they will), which candidate is going to be able to stop McCain in his tracks? If you don't think it's possible for the Republicans to regain the WH, just think about George W. Bush. And they did it twice! We cannot afford to make Presidential history here. Has anyone noticed that the world is pretty fucked up right now and that America is the one that fucked it up? Is this really a time to "make a statement?" Or was this time that we got it right and elected a seasoned statesman to guide us through these difficult times. I must be crazy...I really thought that the most experienced and most qualified should have been Presdient. Damn, what was I thinking.

-Paige

[ginchinchili]

62. Bingo! What were you thinking? You were thinking rational.

It's as simple as that, though apparently rational thinking is not so simple anymore. America could have had a good election if both Parties were to nominate their most qualified candidates, as you suggested. What a shame it will be if the Republicans are the only ones to do so. Being out-thunk by the Pinheads once again does not reflect well on the Democrats, not at all. It outrages me.

[PatSeg]

99. Guess you were thinking sanely

You really have to knock that off!

[gateley]

65. I don't want to believe what you say is right, but I know it is.

I base my opinion on how the R's have run previous campaigns. They will stop at nothing. They don't need truths, they'll use untruths and get people to believe them.

Look at how Huckabee has gained support by whipping up the evangelicals. Look at how Ron Paul has gained support by whipping up the too-much-government, it's not my problem, let them get a job crowd.

And let's not forget Iraq/bin Laden/Pakistan/Iran. THEY ALL WANT TO KILL US! Their fave tactic, fear.

I'm not confident ANY of our current candidates can stand up to what they'll bring to the table, I'm sorry to say.

[1corona4u]

70. Ditto on the above 3 comments.

[ginchinchili]

73. So you find a candidate who is stronger than theirs in the areas that they...

traditionally exploit to their advantage, one who can also further the Democrats' agenda of health care reform, improving education, development of alternative energy, and getting us out of Iraq without further fueling the distrust that the military has toward the Democratic Party. The Democrats need, at this point in time, someone who can assuage the national security fears that the Republicans will most certainly exploit, but in order for that candidate to succeed, he or she has to be armed with more than just a good speech and a celebrity at his or her side. But you know all this, gateley. I'm preaching to the choir. I'm afraid we really screwed up.

[gateley]

80. I'm afraid we really screwed up too, Gin. nt

[Carrieyazel]

88. The media has also screwed us. They basically selected our candidate.

And the Dem primary voters bought it.

[ginchinchili]

130. Yes. Reminds me of the way they handled the run up to war.

War sells papers, and probably some corporate/political string pulling as well.

[bdamomma]

153. but as voters and DU'ers are we going to let the media dictate to us

in regards to who we vote for? Not me.

[PatSeg]

100. "We" didn't screw up

We did all we could.

[ginchinchili]

133. Yes, we can feel good about that.

Not much else, I'm afraid. Now we're at grave risk of having the war continue on, nothing done in health care, energy, education, stem cell research, etc., and our reputation will continue to sink. It's just very sad.

[PatSeg]

137. The Dems are always looking for the "next" RFK or FDR

and that will never happen. There was only ONE RFK or FDR and they weren't the "next" of anyone. They were products of their time and would not necessarily be right for the problems of this time. We end up with great leaders when the right person is matched to the right time.

[ginchinchili]

163. Exceptionally well put.

But then I've come to expect nothing less from you. You're right, too often the Democrats are a day late and a dollar short. They too often tend to oversimplify their analysis, like looking for the next whatever, as you so eloquently point out. Times are always changing and so are our country's needs. There aren't enough substantive reasons to support our current frontrunners, in my opinion. That's not to say that they don't have some impressive characteristics; they do, but not impressive enough for what we need in the WH at this point in time. And not as impressive as they seem to think they are.

[PatSeg]

169. Thanks

though I couldn't top this thread. It sparked an excellent discussion, one that I think is needed. We tend to get so involved in Democratic politics, we often forget that the republicans are not going to just roll over and play dead. They will use whatever ammo they have and if that doesn't work they just make shit up.

If people continue to look for the "next whoever", they will end up with a poor impersonation of the real thing. Kind of reminds me of Bush comparing himself to Churchill!!

It is kind of funny though. We have numerous Democratic leaders to remember and revere and the republicans can only look for the "next Reagan"!

[ginchinchili]

185. Right, as if Reagan was someone to aspire to.

Lord Jesus, help us!!! lol

[elleng]

107. ginchinchili, we've BEEN screwing up,

since before 2000 and followed by 2004 > 2008. It really is UNBELIEVABLE.

Dems have managed to dispose of 2 of the most qualified candidates any of us could ever hope to find, that is, Wes Clark and Joe Biden.

[ginchinchili]

131. I agree with you 100% on both counts

Two great men sidelined by our stupidity.

[Carrieyazel]

89. Richardson could. But foolish Democrats don't want him. They'll get what they want, and regret it.

[Blue-Jay]

74. They call me President Obama.

[zulchzulu]

78. Are you an Edwards supporter?

I'm curious.

If you are, good for you. However, his campaign is going nowhere fast after tomorrow. I think people have problems with the votes Senator Edwards cast vs. the Edwards 2.0 that appears to have apologized for the votes the Senator Edwards cast, namely the IWR vote and the China Free Trade bill he supported. Just looking at these two issues, it's hard for me to actually believe a word he says. He screams at the effects of his own votes and thinks we didn't do our homework on him.

If you don't think Obama is a good Democrat who would do the best among the Democrats to beat the Republicans on Election Day, then that's your call. There are plenty of us who will help get him into the White House.

[gateley]

82. "There are plenty of us who will help get him into the White House."

I hope you're right. And I hope he gets a lot of help once he gets there. nt

[ellisonz]

103. Was for Biden.

[gateley]

139. I was for Biden and these are part of the concerns I had about each of our

current candidates which is what led me to support Biden.

I'm okay with any of our candidates being our President, I'm just not confident we can GET one of them into the WH once the RW machine lets loose.

[Didereaux]

79. They will not do differently this time either...it's not lost yet, but...

as you point out all the signs are there.

[PatSeg]

84. I was wondering where you were!

Wow, you really nailed it. Started a bit of a ruckus as well and that's good. People need to clear their heads and see what is really going on. The media is picking our candidate and most people have their blinders on.

Oh well, we tried to warn them. This isn't a damn playoff game and the winner could determine the future of the world. Maybe people should become a little more informed considering what is at stake here.

That's okay - its just the world we live in, the world your children and grandchildren will inherit. As long as you WIN, that's all that matters.

[bdamomma]

157. people have their blinders on or they are on that "wave".

and yes we have alot which is at stake here. The whole election process has to be re vamped we have to change that electoral college process, and those stupid machines that have no paper trail, nothing has been done about these problems. I sometimes feel we are like Charlie Brown and Lucy keeps pulling that ball away from us!

[Cha]

87. I read your post and

I think, "defeatist".

[goldcanyonaz]

91. This is an absolutely fascinating post!

[PatSeg]

101. It certainly is

Kind of a wake up call. Too many of us can't see the forest for the trees.

[donheld]

95. Do you believe the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen?

[elleng]

105. Yes

No doubt.

[Blappy]

118. ditto

People are too involved with infotainment. Media has brainwashed the masses into a pliable gaggle of consumers with an inability to think critically (or rationally). Welcome to the land of Rove and Murdoch where messages are crafted for their effect rather than for information(or shall we just say Goebbels-land?).

[bdamomma]

158. or put something into a new package while in the meantime

they are selling us the old stuff again.

[dsmmom]

128. I've come to the conclusion

that if Gore and Kerry had run better campaigns it would not have had to come down to one state in either election.

[Two Americas]

108. great post

Thanks for the great post.

It is amazing how easily the Democratic party is outsmarted by the Republicans again and again, and how predictably it is unfolding right in front of our eyes. Not sure what the aversion among Democrats is to thinking in terms of practical and effective politics. Defeat will once again be deftly snatched from the jaws of almost certain victory. This time around there is even less tolerance for any hint of heresy - any questioning of the wisdom of jumping on a particular bandwagon and riding it off the cliff. The chorus calls for unity are not far off in the future now.

The Republicans know where the battle lines are. They know what the fight is about. They know how to fight that fight and how to win it, even though we have so many advantages over them.

[ginchinchili]

179. Thanks. Yes, it's painfully frustrating to see disaster unfolding before your very eyes...

and know it's going to happen during the time when it could have been prevented. There's no way that the Republicans should be able to win this election, but it's already clear that the Democrats are bound and determined to squander certain victory once again.

I have the same feeling I had before we invaded Iraq. Some of us were saying, don't do it; it will obviously be a monumental disaster, but onward we marched into the quagmire that continues to ravage us like cancer. The prices we keep paying for our ignorance are staggering, but we can't even fully acknowledge that.

I'm afraid things will have to get violently ugly before we start to turn it around. I've felt for a long time that if we make it through the Bush presidency it might not be too late to stem the hemorrhaging provided we win the 2008 election, and that we OBVIOUSLY couldn't afford to take any chances. We had to secure a victory in 2008. No playing around. So what do we do? We make our 2 choices, along with much un-welcomed meddling from the media, an ex-First Lady who is very unpopular throughout the country and not particularly gifted as a leader, and a mild mannered black Harvard intellectual who has no experiential grasp of the military or foreign policy at a time when we are at war, and only a couple of years in national politics. A guy whose father was a Muslim and whose middle name is the last name of the guy we went to war over. Let me be clear, none of these things bother me in the least. That's not the point. The point is that this man would have to be elected president in this country. It's as doable as uniting Iraq. It just blows the mind.

[avrdream]

109. What was that phrase that Bill Richardson used?

"When did experience become a leper?"

Nice point, too bad he doesn't project the way that John Edwards does because that point was extremely powerful and may have put these two phony youngsters in their place.

[Crunchy Frog]

110. Where do you get the idea that Edwards is more qualified than Obama?

Or is there some other "white guy the news media won't accept"?

Anyway, if you're leaving the party, I can only say "good riddance".

[A-Schwarzenegger]

112. I feel your pain. Who was your candidate?

[Perry Logan]

113. It looks like the low-IQ wing of the Democratic Party is in ascendence right now.

[ShortnFiery]

129. I'm saddened that a person of your high intelligence would take such a cheap shot.(eom)

[tom_paine]

167. You might be saddened, but are you truly surprised?

I have been known to lose my temper now and again, sometimes saying what I shouldn't.

But some people seem to post smears and cheap shots much more frequently that a few "hotheaded mistakes" would reasonably allow for.

[ShortnFiery]

178. Yes, but when people with glints of high IQ proclaiming their superiority JUST because = desperate?

It's sad when those who have "the gift" of verbal intelligence default to stances of "self-proclaimed superiority." It was distasteful to see Bill Clinton act out today and disappointing to see others who MAY qualify for mensa ass-u-me that that gives them more than one vote. :shrug:

In other words, raw intelligence and thoughtful common sense are not homogeneous human traits. :shrug:

Examples: Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice and Richard Cheney. :(

[tom_paine]

116. This thing is far from over. Take heart in that, at least. It's too early to be making

such proclamations.

Let's see what happens between now and Feb. 5th.

I agree with much of what you said, and I have said so in other threads. But I am not willing to assume this is all a done deal...

[oasis]

119. Wake up Democrats. There is no substitute for experience. (eom)

[ShortnFiery]

120. Yes! Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have oodles of it & they've sure done Our Nation proud!?!

:sarcasm: galore

[oasis]

122. Contract killers have experience. But that's not the kind I was talking about either.

But then, you knew that.:eyes:

[ginchinchili]

172. It would be a critical mistake to make the lesson from the Bush disaster...

to be that experience is bad/the less the better. No offense, but that's a fool's conclusion.

[ellisonz]

124. Wisdom.

[oasis]

125. Don't need a Dhali Lama to run the country. A savvy administrator will do. (eom)

[aein]

141. How about Judgment?

[ellisonz]

164. Hah...See the Iraq War.

I wonder whose interests that served...

[Essene]

123. The last time we elected a congressman was 1960

There is a reason Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee keep ranting about "executive experience." The trend has favored such candidates for 47 years. There are deep reasons for this trend.

It's scary that the top Dems are all out of Congress. Obama or Hillary will likely be up against Rudy or Romney, both capable of shifting to be populist centrists banking on tough executive talk.

Frankly, the dems often sound like they are running for Legislator-in-Chief rather than Commander-in-Chief. Hillary CANNOT BEAT THE REPUBLICANS IN 2008 unless they make a mistake, folks. Obama's energy is the only thing that could buck this trend because he's attractive to independents and moderates (so far).

I personally wish there was a strong democrat governor in the race. Richardson's not very compelling.

The last time we elected a Congressman was 1960 and that didn't end so well...

[youthere]

132. If the trend holds true..

Richardson is our only hope in this race...or we can forget about the Whitehouse. And I say that as a strong Biden supporter.

[sampsonblk]

126. Nonsense

Any of our candidates could beat any of theirs. All we need is a competent, gaffe-free campaign.

[gateley]

138. But what we'll get is a campaign full of GOP smears and falsehoods that stir

up fear in the people.

[bdamomma]

159. and not to open a wound gateley our man Biden said that about

the GOP, that they will use fear again, and the Dems have not done anything.

[gateley]

160. I understand the enthusiasm with which we support our candidates. We KNOW

they're good people and we KNOW they would be excellent as Prez.

We're naive in thinking that everybody will view them in the same light. And we're naive in believing their truth and goodness will prevail despite the GOP tactics that are sure to come. That's how I believed in 2000 and 2004, but almost half of the voters bought into the fear and lies the Reps were spreading.

That's my concern this time. I have no reason to believe they WON'T do the same crap this time.

And you didn't open any wounds, alyce, there are a LOT of things Joe has said that I think we'll be alluding to in the coming days. :hi:

[robbedvoter]

135. Last time GOP-ers WON a national election was in 1988...all Dem candidates, always

were miles above than all of theirs - intellect, ethics, experience. For the rest, see my signature.

[AX10]

140. Celebrity is ruining the nation.

No question about that.

[NaturalHigh]

145. Maybe we should just turn it all over to you.

You obviously know better than the rest of us. :sarcasm:

[ginchinchili]

171. That wouldn't work. This is a democracy, remember?

Besides, I'm an American too.

[in_cog_ni_to]

149. Yup. We're all stupid.

:eyes:

There's NO WAY repukes will win this election without stealing it.....even against Mr. "Keating Five" McCain.

[ginchinchili]

186. Just keep telling yourself that and you'll be fine...

until election night.

[Martin Eden]

151. You contradict yourself

On the one hand you say the more experienced/qualified candidates have to drop out first and Obama will get the nod because Americans are stupid and vote for celebrity appeal.

Then you conclude Obama will lose the general election if the Rethugs nominate McCain, presumably because his experience/qualifications will win out.

Are we to assume that voters will undergo a transformation between the primary and general elections -- that all of a sudden they will vote for experience rather than celebrity appeal -- or is it only the Democratic voters that are stupid?

[Mz Pip]

154. Ah, I see

if we don't agree with you we are stupid.

It's amazing the things I learn on DU. :eyes:

Mz Pip
:dem:

[StefanX]

162. I wrote a very similar, cynical post the other day on DU

It's kind of a long rant, so I guess nobody really read through it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2620408&mesg_id=2620408

But I feel the exact same way as you.

We ignore the issues and we focus on celebrity and glittering generalities, and we get screwed.

I shouldn't really blame ourselves per se. The media has decided they want either Hillary or Obama, because Edwards would cut into their billions of profits. So the media is doing their best to destroy Edwards (basically by not mentioning him).

But we are very gullible because we keep letting the media play us like this. We almost always vote against our best intestests.

[coalition_unwilling]

168. McCain said he would be happy if the US were in Iraq for "1,000 years".

Whoever the Dem nominee eventually is, that nominee ought to be able to crucify McCain with that comment.

Saw McCain say it this past Sunday on "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert. My jaw almost hit the floor.

[ginchinchili]

170. America reelected the man who put us there for a 2nd term.

What strikes you and me as outragous will not necessarily evoke the same reaction from many in this country. McCain, a vet with lots of foreign policy experience might very well do a better job of convincing Americans about how to perceive Iraq than a man who has zero experience with the military and in foreign policy. Be prepared.

[bluedog]

174. and thats exactly what will happen

a seasoned pro in congress.a vet....an "older" man with experience..........its coming wait for the dam toburst...when the MSM goes after Obama..........as was stated on a show think it was CNN.
Obama has not SCRUTINIZED yet! They are waiting for him to get the Democratic nomination

[coalition_unwilling]

176. I was envisioning the TV ads that any Dem nominee (even Hillary)

could run with that little bitty sound-byte. Reminiscent of LBJ's daisy morph to mushroom cloud TV ads against Goldwater in 1964. NB: Goldwater also from Arizona.

[MichDem10]

173. History repeating itself...

2000 - Gore painted as talking down to America - THIS WILL HAPPEN IF OBAMA IS OUR NOMINEE

2004 - Kerry was the "sexy" pick for his military back ground. OBAMA and CLINTON are the "sexy" media story.

Dems always cut off their noses in spite of their faces.

[Joe Chi Minh]

175. An all too insightful thread. I feel your pain on the other side of the pond.

[ginchinchili]

182. Thank you. Mind if I come stay in your country?

Mine has lost it's collective mind.

[Joe Chi Minh]

184. Of course. At least many middle-class people in your country are energised

to overcome the corporatists. We, however, no longer have an Edwards or a Kuchinich to lead a progressive party. Indeed, the left was long ago degraded by self-serving hirelings, and was finally suborned into collusion with the far right.

[demo dutch]

180. My husband and I have been saying this all along. One scare and it's over all the

indies will flock over to McCain if he's the nominee, and the repugs will have once again pulled the rug!!!

[ginchinchili]

183. Yup, the independents like McCain.

It will be easier for them to accept the picture of McCain hugging Bush than the picture the Republicans will paint of Obama. This is going to hurt.