Ever ask yourself why Democrats are so emotionally tone deaf?

[TeddyKGB]

Let's look at the last few batches of Presidential nominees, shall we?

Jimmy Carter: honest, sunny, authentic = WIN.
Carter & Mondale then LOSE to Reagan, a singularly unique politician; not so much their fault.

Then we nominate Michael Dukakis: smart, yet deadly dull; makes George H.W. Bush seem exciting. LOSE.
Then another singularly unique politician, Bill Clinton, arrives; even we can't screw that up.

2000, Al Gore: smart, yet lacks the conviction to be himself; LOSES to a moron.
2004, John Kerry: smart, yet like Dukakis, deadly dull, lacks conviction, period. LOSES to a moron.

2008: Everything that could possibly go wrong for the Republicans goes wrong, and we're on the verge of nominating...
Hillary Clinton: smart, yet divisive like no other candidate in recent memory.

Bottom line...we're about to screw the pooch again, folks.
I'll dig this up again next November to say I told you so.

We seem to have a habit of nominating smart yet not-compelling people.
People vote their hearts, not their heads - and that goes for Democrats, too...whether they realize it or not.
(In short, we get emotional gratification from intelligence and logic in a way that our wingnut friends do not.
Go pick up a copy of "http://www.amazon.com/Political-Brain-Emotion-Deciding-Nation/dp/1586484257/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-5559870-7669552?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187096449&sr=8-1">The Political Brain"; it's quite enlightening on this subject.)

[leftchick]

1. it isn't over yet

Hil is the obvious media choice. It remains to be seen how many democrats will fall for it. I know I won't.

[aeronca7ac]

2. 47%...

... say they will not vote for her under any circumstances (per Zogby). How can we overcome this?

[bigtree]

4. get ANY one of the pack of republican losers nominated

to run against her.

[Richardo]

3. Well.... (warning: history lesson ahead)

1) Carter ran in the post-Watergate backlash against Republicans. Ford also self-destructed to a degree with the "Poland not under Soviet influence" remark.

2) Carter lost to Reagan because the US economy was in horrible shape, there was a reprise of the gasoline shortage of 1974, and, ironically, he was almost as much a hostage of the Iranian crisis as the actual hostages were.

3) Clinton: much could be said for the vote-sucking presence of Ross Perot to account for Clinton's 1992 victory. More people voted against him than for him. Thank Ross Next time you see him.



Myself, I'd much rather we went back to the nominating convention process - floor fights, iterative votes, backroom deals and all. It seems we got a lot better candidates with that system.

[TeddyKGB]

8. Of course, I'm forced to generalize somewhat.

We are talking about decades of politics here, after all.
But overall, I think it's a valid argument.

Again, I really wish more Democrats would pick that book up and look in the mirror afterward.

[porphyrian]

5. WE are not on the verge of nominating Senator Clinton - the republicunt media is.

She has been framed as our nominee for years now by them, and for that reason alone we should avoid her like the plague. They are either confident they can beat her, or she's somehow in their pocket.

[Totally Committed]

6. Yep!

I could not agree more.

TC

[LiberalEsto]

7. Hillary is also dull

She does not exactly radiate charm or humor. She is more of a policy wonk than a genuine politician. If she had more of those traits -- if she came off as more good-natured and full of humor, I think she could be unbeatable.

From what I see, she seems to have a script rolling in her head - "Now smile, Hillary, so it looks like you're happy to be here." It's not her nature, unfortunately.

[MilesColtrane]

22. I believe the word is "disingenuous". n/t

[broadcaster]

9. I'm not a HRC fan at all. But "Big Democrats" are...and so is GOP..

My 'Chertoff-gut feel' is that if she is elected, we will see
lots and lots of obfuscation, triangulation, and a noticable
pro-corporate stance; people will end up asking themselves
why they voted for her.

OR: alternate gut-feel, people will stay home and the Dems will lose
in 2008 to Romney/Guiliani, or Huckabee, who I understand has great
support from right wing Christian groups. (source: Mon. evening Countdown)

She was asked about health care and said that 'we need to develop
the will' to do it, which brought Elizabeth Edwards to say that
a comment like that meant Hillary did not understand the mood of
the country.

I think corporate and GOP interests find HRC a very attractive
candidate. I do not, but I'm not a corporate CEO, or a Republican,
so my views are biased toward progressive politics.

[bunkerbuster1]

24. All that, and I'm fearful the Clintons are just too damned chummy with the Bushes.

I do not like the idea of a president Hillary deciding that what's past is past, and that we silly Americans don't have to worry our little heads about what really happened during Bush's reign of terror.

[UTUSN]

10. from "next November" our potential nominee will still have a year to work n/t

[Stuckinthebush]

11. If HRC wins the nomination, then we lose

Although many don't want to believe it, it is as simple as that. The American voters are fools and will not be able to elect an intelligent, gifted person like Hillary because of the negatives surrounding her. I hate it, but it is true.

[msongs]

12. there ya go, criticizing clinton and obama again nt

[Done]

13. 300 million people in this country.

Why can't we find someone who is as smart as Kucinich, and as charismatic as Clinton? (Bill not Hillary). I don't see that among our current candidates.

[Clark2008]

21. We had that last time in Wes Clark - and the media ignored

him to the point that people didn't know who he was to vote for him (and he still did well - he beat Edwards five of the nine times they competed against one another.)

[blm]

14. BULLSH!T. Gore and Kerry WON. Revisionists want election fraud to be swept under

the carpet.

Revisionists want to be able to preserve the Oval Office for ACTORS And LIARS who can speak the proper lines for the fascist masters.

Revisionists will attack any anti-corruption, open government Democrat while boosting the credentials of the corporatists' favorites.

Revisionists need to blame Gore and Kerry while they let the corporate media lie complicitly for the Bushboy.

Revisionists won't say that Kerry won all 3 debates DECISIVELY and appeared FAR MORE PRESIDENTIAL while leaving Bush looking like a drooling fool.

Nope. Revisionists say - we want to have a beer with Bush.

Revisionists can go eff thmselves - they LIE to protect the game, protect the corporate media from accountability, and protect the GOPs election fraud tactics.

[KittyWampus]

16. Indeed, do we have election fraud or did Dems actually lose? DU'ers can't have it both ways

[wicket]

19. Exactly!!!!

:yourock:

[KittyWampus]

15. there is NOTHING, nor was there ever, anything compelling about either Bush. The Media makes Dems

seem like whatever Rove wants them to seem like.

That said, I agree it wouldn't hurt to have a candidate dripping with natural charisma. So much that even the Media can't diminish it.

Although they just turn to another pejorative story line.

OIbama may have charisma but he's too ....................... (fill in blank)

[TwilightGardener]

17. Agree completely. We have a real knack for picking smart policy wonks--

but except for Bill Clinton, who also had considerable personality and charm, the public doesn't LOVE smart policy wonks. They love someone who comes across as either a leader or a man of the people. Sheesh, we never learn.

[BlooInBloo]

18. Because the electorate is so stupid.

[Mythsaje]

20. Edwards. n/t

[bbgrunt]

23. I'm not sure the voters have been doing the

nominating for a while now. The big corporate media has been obviously skewing the field for a while now. Look what they did to Dean.

[theNotoriousP.I.G.]

25. whatever n/t