randomWalks

Doesn't bother me a bit. For numerous reasons, I heartily endorse John Kerry for President and believe everyone reading this should support him. If our corrupt media baronage happens to focus on Kerry early to cover their asses, all the better.

I'll vote for Kerry in November, but I do feel like we went from 7 interesting candidates to 3 awfully quickly. There's nothing wrong in having a longer conversation about who was the best candidate, especially since some of them are actually pretty good.

So as long as the media is pushing your guy, you don't mind that they are shaping the race? Or do you disagree with that idea?

I also think it's a major issue that the candidate is being chosen on a fake debate around "electability" rather than on who people want to support. Electability is an inherently conservative argument. It subscribes to the idea that you have to go to the Middle to win.

The presidential election is shaping out to be one stammering, pro-war patrician first-born white male dingbat who attended elite private prep schools, attended Yale University, and is an (ex?)-Skull and Bones versus another stammering, pro-war patrician first-born white male dingbat who attended elite private prep schools, attended Yale University, and is an (ex?)-Skull and Bones.

(I swiped most of that from Matt Taibbi)

I do mind, and I said that clearly. I feel a little like your picking a fight and I'd rather not get into one.

I was responding to xowie, not to you dj. I hadn't seen your post when I posted that.

As for my Kerry dig, that doesn't really belong in this thread I admit. I liked the line and trotted it out. But I am not trying to make an argument for any other candidate in his stead.

It distracts from the real issues I was trying to raise how two big things are shaping the race 1) the Media creating the perception that Kerry is much further ahead then he is and 2) the argument of electability.

Both of dj and xowie picked Kerry cuz you liked him on the Issues, if I recall correctly. That's the way it should be, right?

I do like Kerry on most issues. But, like others, I'd also like to get these war criminals out of office; I am frightened of things that may occur during a second Bush administration. I'm happy that a candidate has emerged who is both viable and attractive on the issues. I say this as one who loathes the Democratic party and has no interest whatsoever in its recrudescence.

Kerry's acceptance by the media is an important component of his viability. I don't see any point in resisting that. If anything, I think the media have been propping up Clark and particularly Edwards for the last few weeks.

Also, it is not at all accurate to call Kerry 'pro-war'. He is a warrior though; I like that. I personally expect him to kick George Bush's ass in November.

I am frightened of things that may occur during a second Bush administration.

My main problem is that I don't trust the Democratic Party AT ALL in diverging from much of what Bush has done.

I'm sure they'll go after some things, but I don't think they'll reverse course. On a lot of issues they haven't fought Bush in implementing them. They've often given him the margin of victory. So I don't see why if they're in the White House they are going to suddenly change things.

We're going to be betrayed, as we always have been.

If the Left throws away all its stances to back the Lesser Evil, we're gonna be completely disarmed to fight the Lesser Evil when it does its damage.

I don't want to get into an argument about Kerry and where he sits on the issues right now. But I'm gonna respond to one thing:

Also, it is not at all accurate to call Kerry 'pro-war'.

He flip-flopped on both Gulf Wars. He voted against the the first one, but then after it was over he said he supported it. This time around he voted for it, but now he's criticizing Bush.

If anything, he's neither pro- or anti-war. He changes a lot.

His record as an anti-war protestor is also interesting. He did two tours, then joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW).

But he refused to speak at the VVAW’s January 1971 Winter Soldier Investigation, a series of hearings in Detroit in which soldiers spoke out against the atrocities that they witnessed in Vietnam. But then he did agree to appear at a much-better publicized Senate committee hearing where he put himself front and center. He also was at that famous protest where soldiers tossed their medals at the White House, but Kerry kept his medals. Instead he tossed ribbons and medals that other soldiers had given him.

Now that we're on dog pee, we can have an interesting conversation about that, Dean said.

On a lot of issues they haven't fought Bush in implementing them. They've often given him the margin of victory. So I don't see why if they're in the White House they are going to suddenly change things.

But couldn't the power that accompanies gaining the presidency make it easier for the Democrats to act more Democratic? It certainly gives them an upper hand that they now lack. I'm not saying their toothlessness should be excused, but battling the President and both the House and Senate can be a formidable task. I'm not sure what history says about this, though.

But couldn't the power that accompanies gaining the presidency make it easier for the Democrats to act more Democratic?

What I'm saying is that they were acting Democratic. This is the historic pattern of the party. People often talk about taking the party "back." But it never was ours.

Yoo-hoo... The Teamsters and 18 other unions that form the Alliance for Economic Justice have voted unanimously to endorse John Kerry.

At this point, that doesn't mean much. Who in the endorsement game is going to step forward and back anyone but Kerry?

Apparently Dean.

No, only kidding: Dean only says he prefers Edwards to Kerry; Dean's not literally endorsing Edwards. To do that, Dean'd have to drop out.

I'm with zagg. I hope to $DEITY I'm wrong, but I feel our "slouching toward electability" is going to come back and bite us in the ass.

The naive version is Bush did it solo right? And, well, maybe Cheney helped. But essentially Bush is the quarterback, so if we drop him in November we win. Only by this time you'd have to have your head up near your lower intestine to believe that.

The idea that George Walker Bush is capable of scamming his way into the White House, pretty much on his own get-go, is dangerously absurd.

It does beg the question of who put him in office, which no one seems to want to answer.

And what a nice surprise it is to find how easily he can be removed.

In fact the same fawning media that salivated all over him for the last four years is now suddenly helping us take him down, and enthusiastically putting Kerry up in his place.

Thank You, Media!

Only there was that completely surreal moment when Dean became a non-person, remember? Ohio? Iowa? And now even though he's running second he never gets a mention anywhere. There is that.

But don't think too hard about it. It'll interfere with your digestion.

Whatever happens, don't listen to Democrats or Republicans for that matter that insist that job problems are the fault of foreign trade difficulties caused by other countries. We have created our own problems in the United States with a ludicrous currency ideology. There's something slouching this way, and it's the inevitable recession developing in China, and that's not because of anything but the fact that businesses directly invested over $75 billion dollars last year in China without worrying about whether or not China could do anything with it.

I'm tired of Democrats, like Edwards, pulling that old saw about job losses being the result of unfair trade practices.

I'm going out on a limb here, but has anyone heard that Hillary Clinton might have thrown her hat into the ring?

I haven't heard that. But if she does, could you imagine how fast the story would change from Kerry "having the nomination in reach" to, "Hey look! There's all these delegates still out there!."

In all seriousness, I don't think Hillary's running this year.

No way.

I've heard it over and over. But if no candidate gets a majority, I think it becomes more likely. I've been selling a John Kerry/Anne Richards ticket to anyone who will listen.

KING: Redondo Beach, California.

CALLER: Hi, Larry and Ann Richards. I have a comment and then a question. Ann Richards, I want you to know that I respect your honesty and your smarts as a politician. I think you're lovely and the naive Americans, they need to listen to your smarts, because you're just great.

You're wonderful. My question is, have you ever thought of running for president and if not, why not, and you know what, we need you. We really need somebody like you and I really wish you would, because I'd sure back you 100 percent. Thank you.

RICHARDS: Well, that's really nice, and no, no, no. I've never thought about being president. Just not something on my dance card, you know? I've always said the worst thing that can happen to you when you run for something, you might win and then have you to do it. I can't imagine anything worse than being president of the United States.

KING: How far are we from a female president?

RICHARDS: Not far at all. I don't know whether it's going to be Hillary. I certainly would support her if she ran. If she was running today I'd probably would support Hillary, but it isn't going to be long, Larry. There are too many smart and able and experienced women now that are coming up that have the ability and, I think, will have the desire to be president.

"CNN LARRY KING LIVE: Interview With Former Texas Governor Ann Richards," Jan. 15, 2004