"Wouldn't an election with McCain in it be far superior to one without?"

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

Not my words. That's the latest from CNN's 'liberal' correspondent, margaret 'the chipmunk' carlson

you know, the one who shows her progressive credentials by sucking up to novakula on capitol gang, begging for the u.s. to invade iraq, and writing clinton-bashing books (and not from a policy standpoint-the usual hack peronality-driven stuff)

gotta love the lib'rul media

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=a1_6qou6_s80

[saltpoint]

1. By comparison to a Sam Brownback, maybe. But not much, and not

nearly enough.

A Democrat in the White House and Democrats in the majority in the House and Senate would be the desired outcome.

Ms. Carlson is better than some of her co-panelists on that program, but there's room for improvement.

[GainesT1958]

2. Well, he'd be superior to any other Repub currently thinking about running

But that's still not saying much!:eyes:

B-)

[MrModerate]

5. Less noxious, perhaps -- certainly not superior . . .

He's unprincipled, in bed with the religious right, homophobic, and a "compassionate conservative."

Where have I heard this before?

[rocktivity]

3. For us, it would be

because all we'd have to do is tar him with "the Bush brush," especially now that McCain seems to be embracing him again. In other words, we talk up McCain the way they're talking up Hillary. Leave Margaret alone--she knows what she's doing!

:evilgrin:
rocknation

[MrModerate]

4. Can't bring myself to read the article . . .

I've reached my bloviation-saturation level for one week.

However, she IS talking about what many people consider a very sincere attempt to avoid the situation that's handed us Schimpanski in the White House two elections running.

Myself, I'm not willing to experiment with cyberdemocracy when analogdemocracy is in such desperate straits. Reading Kennedy's piece about the stolen 2004 election fills me with despair. Not so much the pure evil of the theft, but the fact that the issue was just left to die in the gutter, never taken seriously by the media, when in all particulars it was a huge scandal.

I've been saying that the only way to take back the country in November is to engerize dem/progressive/undecided voters so that the sheer numbers make it impossible for the 'Licans to steal it this time. Now I'm convinced that no number of actual votes will be enough, and they'll steal it no matter what.

And the media will let them get away with it. They're all complicit now: if Dems were to take back the house and begin to investigate the irregularities of the last 5 years, hundreds of politicians, media people, and their assorted enablers would all be looking at long jail terms.

So they won't let the Dems take the House, no matter what.

We're screwed in 2006, and it doesn't matter who runs in 2008 -- the Republican will "win."

[kerry-is-my-prez]

6. Only if he beats up on the other candidate who ends up getting the nom.

I don't think he has the ovaries to do that though. Those crazies won't vote for him because he's pro choice and he beat up on their savior Dumbya.

[SheilaT]

7. What ever makes you think he's pro-choice?

He's not. He's very anti-choice, favors overturning Roe v. Wade.

The real problem about McCain is that he's extremely conservative and has been sucking up big time to W and the entire religious right wing recently. Unfortunately, a lot of people who should know better think he's liberal. With that perception out there, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see him win the Republican nomination (because the R's understand quite clearly that he's very conservative) and now just imagine what Democrat could possibly run against a "real war hero" -- which is exactly how he'll be portrayed.

Think about it. Think about your favorite candidate vs McCain. Think about all the second and third tier possibilities. Scary, isn't it?