Worked hard for Dems since '72 and still haven't earned right to tell ANYONE they shouldn't run.

[blm]

And I would be an IDIOT to even WANT to pretend I had that right.

The Democratic party would not benefit from closing the field to all the voices who have positions of strength that can be worked into the eventual nominee's general campaign.

Anyone who wants to implement the authoritarian view onto the Democratic primary campaign is in the wrong party - and those Dems who want to play the GOP game of 'inevitability' will just out themselves as establishment protecting authoritarians. Not a good thing to be when the overall public is looking to get rid of the corrupt, the secretive, and the profiteers.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Let MANY voices be heard. Let the eventual nominee GAIN GREATER PERSPECTIVE AND STRENGTH from those voices.

[TayTay]

1. Those doors can't be closed

It is also a function of willpower. Many different pols have had existing weaknesses exploited. Some have fought back against this, some gave in. Depends on the person. If someone feels it in their bones and if they really have the will to run, then they will.

There are all kinds of tests on the road to the Presidency. One of the most obvious, cruel and necessary is the weeding out of those who think it might be a great idea to run for President and those who really, really want the job. Only the latter will survive the process, albeit somewhat maimed for the experience. (Or transformed. Which you choose depends on how you view these people.)

[dsc]

2. actually you have every right to say who shouldn't run and who should

and the people in question have every right to ignore you. That's the great thing about the 1st Amendment.

[blm]

3. Point being that no American should be told by ANYONE that their voice should be silenced

and NOT part of the political debate.

Those authoritarians among us have mirrors.

I guess the more accurate wording is that no one has earned the right to say someone CAN'T run.

[wisteria]

11. Those who seek to silence others usually have their own self-interest and agenda in mind. n/t

[Capn Sunshine]

4. I can certainly strongly WISH that some wouldn't run

But wtf, it's a living. Ask Ralph Nader.

[MH1]

10. ..

:rofl:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. You don't need a "right" to tell someone they should do something.

You don't have the right to *forbid* someone from running, but advising them against doing so isn't something you need a right to do.

[blm]

6. Big difference from demanding declarations and 'advising' someone.

.

[salin]

7. a huge

:thumbsup: !

I said this last cycle. I say it again this cycle. Heck, I would guess that there is a chance that a name that has not yet been floated will enter the race - and win or not will make a very big impact upon the primary race, and by result upon the general election.

[welshTerrier2]

8. here's the real problem

if i'm understanding your main point correctly, you're saying that no one should have the right to muzzle a candidate by suggesting that it would be wrong for them to run for President ... i completely agree!

but i don't think that's the real problem we're facing ... sure, some may say candidate X or candidate Y shouldn't run but their words have no real power ... candidates X and Y are still free to choose to run regardless of what a few meaningless critics might say ...

in keeping with your important theme that all voices deserve a chance to be heard, we've already seen that our process picks winners and losers without the voice of the people getting a say ... look specifically at two who have already dropped out: Warner (who may still run) and Bayh ... what does our current process do to support their voices so their ideas can be contributed to the process?

we are drowning in big money politics and kingmakers ... that's today's reality in the Democratic Party (and probably the republican party as well) ... this is the real problem ... how can we have people dropping out or choosing not to run because the kingmakers have told them "no go"??? and what "contribution of ideas" can we expect from relative unknowns? the process is so poisoned by money that dark horses have virtually no chance of really being heard ...

without proposing specific solutions here, something has to change if we are to implement the theme you've proposed ... one specific i'm considering is not allowing candidates to retain campaign funds they've raised after they've paid off their campaign debts ... maybe that money should go back to the party ... many other changes are required to properly reform the process we have ... perhaps some reforms can be made within our own party rules if we can't pass new laws that would bind candidates of all parties ...

[wisteria]

9. Excellent comments! n/t