You got THAT right Michael!

Forgive me for my redundancy--and this certainly won't be the last time I state this in some form or fashion--but Democrats have to wise up and grow up. One could very well argue that the world depends on the outcome of this election and nominating the wrong candidate will elect a republican (that's the redundant part). We can't allow the Party to get sucked into focusing on the latest trendy flavor. This election is for keeps.

Obama? Great guy, very intelligent, gave one of the best speeches during the 2004 Democratic Convention, tons of potential, but he doesn't have the experience to be president. He hasn't proved himself yet. We gambled on Iraq and lost. We simply can't afford to take another high-stakes gamble on the future of our country. He may win the nomination. He won't win the presidency.

Half the country doesn't like Hillary now, and in my opinion that's mostly for the wrong reasons. Come election day, she'll be very lucky if 45% of the voting population still likes her. That's not enough to win the election. Given a choice between her and Rudy, or her and an actor who allows voters to pretend he's the 2nd coming of Ronald Reagan, the independents and disillusioned moderate republicans will vote republican. She may win the nomination. Hillary will never be POTUS, though she makes a fine senator.

It will be a brutal battle for any of the other Democratic candidates, but an objective analysis of the field will best favor the chances of Joe Biden. To look at it another way, Biden would have the advantage in the general election because of his thorough understanding of Iraq and the only feasible plan to get us out of there while minimizing the fallout. He also has the honesty and personality that appeals to independents and enough moderate republicans to take the election from the republicans, no matter who they nominate.

It's the Democratic Party faithful who are the problem. They want change so bad that they're ready to throw out the baby with the bath water. What they need to do is want change bad enough to do what it takes to win, or there will be no change.

Democrats are better with ideas; republicans are better at pushing the electorate's emotional buttons primarily using fear. Right now, probably because of 9/11, fear is trumping ideas. It is why Rudy Giuliani will probably win the Republican nomination, because of his perceived roll on 9/11. The Democratic candidate has to convince the voting public that they can keep us safe at least as well as the republican contender, and then take the election from him on ideas, like a viable plan for getting us out of Iraq. The Dems have to be able to look at the big picture and do what it takes to win. For example, there are a lot of voters who support Hillary because they like Bill so much. It would almost be like having Bill Clinton back as president. The problem is, it won't happen. Forget Bill Clinton, or say hello to at least 4 more years with a republican president and at least 4 more years in Iraq.

We've got a winner in Senator Joe Biden. Democrats need to take another look at the Senator and give him the serious consideration he has earned. He's a smart guy, and he's tough. And that's what we need.

ginch...

Thoughtful, thorough analysis. If I may make some corollary observations -

Whatever his qualifications, a black man is not going to be elected president in Amerikkka.

Whatever the reasons for it may be, and whether or not it is justifiable, the bile that many Americans have for Hillary Clinton since her husband first ran for president, and the number of Americans who feel it, is insurmountable. Besides, as far as the Middle East goes, she's Joe Lieberman in drag.

But here's the real problem. When Democrats were given majorities in both houses, we had 30,000 fewer troops in combat theaters than we do now. Americans' message was clear - "We want that changed."

Despite receiving a clear reprimand in the election, Bush increased the troop levels by 30,000, after suggesting strongly that the increase would be "only" 20,000. Elected Democratic leaders' response? Big frowny faces, fat wagging fingers, and empty threats of doing something about it...well, maybe some day.

Here we are a year later, and Bush is telling us we'll reduce troops by, oh, I don't know...gee, let's see...how about 30,000? Sometime next year.

And what is the response of the elected leadership of this party? More talk of compromise now, future confrontations and future political consequences. More empty threats that some day, perhaps, the Democratic Party will use their majority to move the Congress back into assuming their Constitutional responsibility of when this country goes to war, and when it ends wars.

Anyone who believes them anymore than they believe Bush is a hopeless sap.

The American people sent a clear call to action to the Democratic Party, and the party's response was a resounding "Nahhhh..."

So, my analysis is this. In 2008 the Democratic Party will pick up a few Senate seats because sheer the numbers of seats at risk and the numbers of retirements in the works favor them. The House may or may not move in their favor again.

But president? Forget it. It doesn't MATTER who the Dems run. The American voters will remember that the Democratic Party didn't listen to them. They'll take their chances on a "fresh" Republican face who runs as a Washington "outsider" who wants to cut taxes and stay strong on terrorism, investing their vote one more time in the myth that a Republican president is a stronger, more reliable wartime leader, and exercising the crass selfishness that allows them to publicly proclaim themselves "social liberals" while privately counting the bits of change that Republican fat cats put into their pockets.

And who will be to blame for that? Gosh, there are so many guilty individuals, it's hard to pick. Reid, Hoyer, Pelosi - any of the elected party leadership. Sure. How about any Democratic Senator who voted for this war in the first place and now has the chutpah to run for president as an "opponent" of the war? Absolutely. How about any Democratic Senator who supported the Gang of 14 when Democrats chose not to filibuster to, you know, preserve their right to filibuster? Sure. and how about any Democratic Senator who now thinks the most important issue in which they should invest their political clout is the safety of Chinese manufactured toys. You bet. They're all to blame.

Baby in the bath water? Where? Where is the "baby?" All I see is swill in that tub. The weak, gutless, triangulating, compromising, capitulating, unprincipled elected leadership of this Party got a freebie in 06. It ain't happening again no matter who we Democrats nominate.

"Fresh Republican face?" What fresh Republican face? All I've seen from the Republicans are a bunch of boneheads cluelessly repeating the same tired rhetoric.

The DNC does need wake up, though. Neither Obama nor Clinton are good presidential candidates, they're too Repubi-lite. The American people are tired of being sold down the river for K-street and their corporate bosses.
I'm just afraid that one of them will get nominated, and there'll be nobody to vote for.
Then I'll have to write somebody in, probably Edwards.

Bohner has is right. We must think about the future for our kids and their kids. But that's the only thing he has right.
Sending our kids to a unilateral "war" started by lies to die for rich oil companies has to stop. Spending trillions on a whack a mole conflict that has no outcome, and saddling our grandkids with backbreaking debt has to stop.
These are NOT small prices to pay! They are HUGE prices we are paying, and in the end all we are doing is antagonizing the people who Bush is claim we are "saving" and increasing, not decreasing terrorism.
We have to stand up and call a halt to this ever increasing disaster now!
STOP THE WAR!!!!
IMPEACH BUSH/CHENEY!!!!
GET US AND OUR KIDS OUR OF IRAQ!!!!!

Butte -

Please, my friend...give me some credit. I was talking about the Republican candidate, whoever it might be, ***from the perspective of the brain dead-electorate that gave Bush a second term***. To that electorate, any candidate who comes from outside the Beltway is seen as being a "fresh face," particularly when the TV talking heads delight in painting them as such.

As for Iraq, there are two essential problems that any Dem candidate for president has. First, few of them had the opportunity to vote against the war and did so. Obama can rail on about what he might have done, but in light of his recent comments on Iraq, I think the lie has pretty well been put to that claim. So they come to the party as hypocrites...every single one of them, with the exception of Kucinich.

Second, and this is the tough one. In order to commit to leaving Iraq, a leader must come clean with the American people and the world and admit that, once the troops leave Iraq, that poor country will descend into a horrible maelstrom of bloody civil war, sectarian reprisals and massive, political and economic chaos on a scale that no one has seen in that country yet - REGARDLESS of how long we stay in Iraq before leaving. It is inevitable. But no one wants to admit that we can't fix what we broke, no matter what that chickenshit Powell said. So, even if a Democrat takes the White House, which I have already stated will not happen in 08, the prospects for our involvement in Iraq are fundamentally the same as if a Giuliani or a Romney takes office. It doesn't matter. There isn't one politician running for that office in either party who has the inclination and the courage to admit to the world that the US has perpetrated an inexcusable and irreversible atrocity.

Won't happen.

wow!! spoken by someone who hasn't sacrificed anything in the war! Besides putting "support the troops banner on his bumper. I was in Iraq last year and people like this, the war supporters just stump me. Go over to iraq, get shot at, see deceased children and suicide bombers, incoming mortars and rockets and then come home and tell me you still support this "WAR" against an invisible enemy that will "follow us Home" if we don't get them there! Bull.... I say! The "consumerist" party as i like to call them are made up of bunch of people that think supporting the troops and their country means driving Hummers H2's and using a hip bumper sticker "support the troops". All so wrong. I have served in the middle east twice! and many others have given a lot more than i have, when are these "conservatives gonna put their money where their mouth is and actually do something to help the troops and SERVE their country? Taking down the Taliban was justified, This Iraq mess is not.