In my opinion, the two worst candidates the Democrats could nominate are...

[kentuck]

Hillary and Obama. The Republicans will have very effective negative campaigns against both of them. Although they are the two "front-runners" at this time, that could change very quickly once either of them is chosen as the nominee of the Party. They are both fine Senators but either of them will give the Republicans a good shot at the White House once again.

Make no mistake, the Republicans will go negative on whichever Democrat is nominated, but they will be especially unmerciful against Hillary or Obama. Face it - the Republicans are better at politicking than the Democrats - especially dirty politicking.

I'll repeat, this is just my opinion. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the direction they will take against Hillary. There's just a lot of garbage left over after 8 years in the White House. I don't think the public is ready for the regurgitation of the same ol' crap they heard for the 8 years of the Clinton Presidency? The problem is that the Republican attacks will not unite the Democrats, it will only unite the Republican voters. Democrats will turn off to the negative attacks. They will simply refuse to participate.

With Obama, how low will the right-wing attack machine go to destroy him? You cannot even guess. Yes, his middle name is Hussein but we won't hold that against him. Yes, he attended a madrasas when he was in grade school. I fear the attacks will be relentless on Obama. There's just so much to attack with negative campaigns.

We could hope that the attacks would backfire or that the people would refuse to buy into another campaign like that, but isn't that a little to much to ask? The negative attacks would be so devastating that many voters would think Obama was a direct descendant of Saddam Hussein before the campaign was over.

In my opinion, the Democrats would be better served to nominate a less-exciting candidate for President - like a Biden, a Dodd, or a Kucinich.

[IndyOp]

1. The Republicans easiest target is Clinton - by a long shot...

Republican County Chairs around the country a routing for Hillary to fire up the Republican base.

The Republicans will go after Obama hard for sure -- but I think he can better withstand the attacks.

I believe Edwards is our best choice and least vulnerable to GOP attack -- if we can't have Kucinich.

[Jane Austin]

7. It seems like Edwards is vulnerable on flip-flops,

for some of his pro-war and anti-populist votes while he was a Senator.

[IndyOp]

14. Your concerns are fair - Edwards is not now a sitting Senator,

whereas Clinton & Obama are - thus Rethugs will make more of any inconsistencies in what they have said and what they have done recently in the Senate.

How long has it been since a sitting Senator has won a Presidential Election? (Other than John Kerry - the election was stolen in Ohio)...

[Pastiche423]

27. Oh great!

Another warmonger in the Oval Office. AND, one that wants republics in his cabinet, to boot.

Am I on Democratic Underground?

[Orsino]

66. Well, easiest to lie about, anyway.

True criticism of Hillary, though, would involve their undercutting their own platform.

[eyesroll]

2. Why do I get the impression that if white men with identical credentials/baggage to that of Clinton

and Obama were the frontrunners, we would not be having this conversation.

(Yes, I know it would be impossible for a man to have *identical* credentials to Clinton, but humor me.)

[Skittles]

25. oh that is SO f***ing obvious

who do those uppity wimmin and black folk think they ARE? Get 'em OUT of there!!!!!

[bellasgrams]

45. If Obama and Clinton were both white men

Neither would have a problem.

[dysfunctional press]

3. kucinich would be an even worse choice that obama or hillary.

he's already come out fully as a gun-grabber- which would motivate A LOT of people to the polls to vote against him.

but i do agree with you about obama and/or hillary being bad news as the nominee.

i believe that it needs to be Edwards.

[gateley]

9. I think BIden would have a better shot at decimating the Repub nom than Edwards would. nt

[cascadiance]

34. Those driven into bankruptcy will probably stay home in that election...

... though someone like Huckabee might pick up some of those votes with his more anti-corporate influence stances.

[dysfunctional press]

38. although i think highly enough of biden...i just don't see him lighting a fire under the electorate-

and his comments about "clean & articulate" obama never did sit well with a lot of blacks, especially.

[kentuck]

43. We have to be careful that when we light a fire...

that we are not the ones getting burned. It's easy to overthink a situation. However, this election is so very important that we cannot help but think long and hard about who would be the best candidate for our country.

[FatDave]

76. I don't know about better...

But I think both Biden or Edwards could give us Mondale's Revenge on election night. Clinton or Obama will be a narrow win at best.

[creeksneakers2]

30. Edwards would be the worst nominee imaginable

He's already at 49% negative and most voters don't even know him yet. His phoniness is easy to spot too. He can't even get enough votes from Iowans to be in first place in his own party and he's been in Iowa for years.

No matter who is nominated, the GOP will run unprecedented smears. They are so confident that they can win that way that they've allowed the presidency to take on near dictatorial powers.

[cascadiance]

33. 49% negative according to WHO?

The only candidate I've seen with negative ratings that high has been Clinton. You are making a lot of opinionated statements here without much to back it up, and most would be able to see that Edwards is still polling relatively well in Iowa, especially as the "second choice" which will pick him up a lot of support from the uncommitted delegates in the Iowa caucus.

Phony? Hmm... Another Clinton characteristic you are projecting onto him...

[creeksneakers2]

41. I back myself up all the time

Sometimes I use broad generalizations and if you want to challenge them I'll back them up. Like this one -

Although I'm certain it said 49% earlier it still says 47% negative:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_edwards_vs_giuliani_and_huckabee

Edwards is viewed favorably by 43%, unfavorably by 47%.

[dysfunctional press]

36. do you have a link or a poll to back up that 49% negative number?

or are we just to believe the smoke coming out of your ass? :shrug:

[creeksneakers2]

40. It said 49% earlier. Now it says 47%

Edwards is viewed favorably by 43%, unfavorably by 47%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_edwards_vs_giuliani_and_huckabee

I don't blow smoke out of my ass.

[dysfunctional press]

46. and of course rasmussen never blows smoke out their ass either...

:eyes:

the only polls that matter in choosing the candidate are the caucuses and primaries that will be happening in the next couple months.

we'll just have to wait and see...

but imho, edwards is the best all-around candidate that we have running.

[katandmoon]

4. I share your opinion

Obama turned me off for good when he aligned himself with that anti-gay preacher. That's something a REPUG would do. So fuck Obama. I hope he doesn't get the nomination because (1) he just doesn't deserve it and (2) I really don't want to have to vote for him. I also don't want to have to vote for the whichever-way-the-wind-blows Hillary Clinton. My picks are Kucinich, Biden, or Edwards.

[panader0]

5. A bold admission kentuck, but I disagree.

If even a 57 year old, white, construction guy can see the viability of both campaigns, why can't others?
Change is in the air. It has to be.

[TahitiNut]

6. As long as the "Democrats" are reactive and exploitative, ...

... effectively embracing a political codependency with the worst of the opposition, they will NEVER embody the higher aspirations of the nation. "Do The Right Thing" is how we all know to raise a child. When the FUCK! are the adults goning to do what they instruct a child to do??

Clinton and Obama aren't the "worst" because they're vulnerable to attack from the GOP. The worst candidates are those who seem to think it's OK to be "just a little bit corrupt" in order to placate the criminality of greed. The worst candidates are those who seem to think it's just reat to see the GOP damage the nation - because the "ONLY" alternative is a "Democrat," no matter how compromised.

[Cha]

23. Or a lot corrupt..in

some cases..

"Clinton and Obama aren't the "worst" because they're vulnerable to attack from the GOP. The worst candidates are those who seem to think it's OK to be "just a little bit corrupt" in order to placate the criminality of greed. The worst candidates are those who seem to think it's just great to see the GOP damage the nation - because the "ONLY" alternative is a "Democrat," no matter how compromised."

[Vincardog]

8. I don't care who will be attacked by the Greedy Old Pigs. I care where they want to lead us.

That said neither Hill or the O man have us pointed in the correct POPULIST direction. Give us KUCINICH

[Ravy]

10. I see your point, but I have to disagree...

particularly with HRC. So much has been out for so long, that I don't think they can do much more. They will go after anyone unmercifully. They are on record with attacks on HRC and Edwards already, I don't think there will be much "new".

Obama, on the other hand, will be rife with fresh smear attacks about Chicago dealings and his background, if nothing else. It will be bad, particularly if he tries to keep above it.

I have to agree with you on Biden and Dodd, but I think they will strip moderates and independents away from DK with some of his own words, taken mostly out of context.

[earthlover]

51. Tell you what...speaking of dirt....which is harder to do?....

dig a hole that is already half way dug? or start from scratch?

With Hillary, she already is in the hole. Of course, the Reps will still go after her, but they don't really have to as much...the damage has already been done. All they have to do is remind independents of memes that have been planted for years.

With Obama, they have to start from scratch. Plus which he has a more engaging personality.

I find it really puzzling how some seem to think that a candidate who already has been plastered with negatives is better than someone who has not. What is up with this logic?

50% of voters would not consider voting for Hillary. The damage has been done.

[Ravy]

75. Riiight...

What I am saying is that if Hillary's numbers are close, and as you say, she is already standing in the "hole", then she is the better candidate.

Do you think you can lower Bush's approval ratings today by telling people he missed a lot of NG meetings in the early seventies?

[earthlover]

81. 50% of voters would not consider voting for Hillary....

could you explain how she could dig herself out of that hole?

What is this....a contest to nominate the least electable canidate? The more the negatives the better?

HUH?

I thought the goal was to win? And we dont send someone up to bat who already has two strikes on her if we can send someone up there with no count.

[EFerrari]

11. I agree, for sort of bipolar reasons.

Pragmatic and ideological.

I wish (if I can't have Dennis who is a treasure) the Democrats would be smart enough to go with Edwards.

But they won't, because he's an outsider.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. I agree n/t

[ixion]

13. I agree, kentuck

Either one would mean a win for the GOP in 2008, IMO.

[chaumont58]

15. If Dems can talk Bob Shrum into staying home, they have a chance with....

whomever they nominate. Dems won't be motivated? Not fuckin' likely! Eight years of chimpie will motivated even the dead.

[emilyg]

16. There is nothing new they can drudge up on Clinton.

[EFerrari]

17. Do you really believe that?

[gateley]

20. It doesn't have to be TRUE -- they could dredge up FAKE stuff and still

do harm.

[ZinZen]

39. The Repugs loathe the Clintons

they will drag out every flipping bs scandal from the 90's, embellish them and give us even more smears and attacks. Hillary is not close to immune and I believe she knows it.

[emilyg]

50. The fact that they hate her makes me like her even more.

[Balbus]

18. Yeah, and we definitely wouldn't want to nominate someone the republicans wont' like...

[kentuck]

24. Your point is well-taken but...

the Republicans play the game differently. They are not as concerned about how many votes their candidate can get as much as they are concerned about how many votes they can keep their opponent from getting. They love to "Swift-Boat" their opponents. Although I agree with your sentiments, I just happen to believe that Obama and Hillary would be the best candidates for the Republicans to run against.

[earthlover]

53. Actually, Edwards is very swift boatable....

People hate lawyers to begin with. They also don't like slick. The Reps would paint him as a slick ambulance-chasing lawyer.

Obama has an earnestness about him that I think would be a strength.

Obama/Clark would cream Huckabee. Huckabee has a slick demeanor and very likeable-looking. Obama could make mince meat of him, and if he didn't want to dirty his hands, Clark would do the job with a passion.

[Warpy]

19. As much as I'd love to see a woman or a person of color

as president in my lifetime, I don't think Senator Clinton is the person or Senator Obama is running at the right time; he's just not ready for the job.

In my own state primary I will likely flip a coin, best 2 out of 3 for Biden, Richardson, Dodd, or Edwards. It won't matter, I live in NM and Richardson will take this state with or without my help.

I will, of course, vote for whoever the nominee is. I will just be very unhappy if that nominee is wrong about both the war and about healthcare.

[gateley]

21. I was thinking about this when I went to the store tonight. I'm from LIBERAL

Seattle and now live in a small NC town. Nobody here is in my face about racism -- and I naively thought there wasn't any anymore. Little by little people would tell me of others who were RABIDLY racist -- people of whom I NEVER would have believed it to be so -- and I just wonder how many more of those sleepers are around. The women here can't get past Hillary's 'baking cookies' remark.

So if it came to either of them as the nom, I'm not sure how such voters would choose -- It's something to think about. WHO can best win the GE?

[Occam Bandage]

22. 24% favorable rating. 40% unfavorable rating. 8% would vote for, 46% would never vote for.

Please do not attempt to link "electable" and "Dennis Kucinich."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

[TahitiNut]

37. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards ALL have higher unfavorable ratings.

It's Rasmussen, fer crissakes! :eyes:

[Occam Bandage]

52. Because they have higher name recognition. DK's net favorability is only above Gravel's.

[KittyWampus]

26. Add Edwards, the man has switched positions on so many issues he'd be ripped to shreds.

[kentuck]

29. I'm not sure I agree because...

they can attack Edwards but Edwards would be able to respond back with an attack of his own. I'm not sure that Hillary or Obama could respond as effectively as Edwards. It helps that he has a populist message. Just my opinion...

[babylonsister]

28. I like Kucinich, Biden, and Dodd. I would love to see one of them

get some positive reinforcement, votes, help, and money.

I think you're wrong about Obama. He has nothing to lose because he has nothing to hide. His youth could be a benefit, and don't discount intelligence and charisma.

And just think about the sterling rethugs running. They all have ghosts in their closets, even if stupidity can be considered ghostly.

[kentuck]

31. I would love to see Obama as President...

I think it would be good for our country. He, more than anyone else, could help us repair the damage that has been done in the Middle East. Why? Simply because of his name and background, the Arabs would be more likely to listen to him, I would think? However, it is the same name and background that is his biggest liability with the American voters. American voters are not wise or sophisitcated enough to see what is best for our country. They are easily manipulated, unfortunately. Look at the last election, if you need more proof.

[babylonsister]

44. I have to have more faith in the American voters. I agree,

Obama has many bridges to cross regarding bigotry, but I hope it's not insurmountable.

And as far as the last election, things have changed drastically since then, as has the mood of the people who are paying attention.

Oprah is a perfect example.

[JDPriestly]

32. Edwards is the best of the candidates.

[patrice]

35. I agree, except for your last sentence.

Edwards has solid Populist appeal, including the South.

I worry about Hillary not only loosing, but causing a Red Congress if she does win.

[Maven]

42. I agree with your assessment.

Although I think Obama is even more vulnerable because of his lack of experience, background, name etc. and the fact that the GOP has a lot more "new material" to use against him.

[Swamp Rat]

47. I agree n/t

[The River]

48. I Agree Completly

The Republicans have NOTHING!
They don't have a decent candidate.
They don't have any credibility
They don't have a plan beyond more of the same.

What they do have are two potential candidates who are ready made targets
for the only weapons they have: Racism and misogyny.
Their "Southern Strategy" can (and will be) be applied to either scenario.

[earthlover]

49. I strongly disagree with the OP

Obama will not be hurt by his middle name. that is just plain silly! People will laugh at those who make fun of a middle name the way people laughed at Hillary making fun of Obama's kindergarden dreams. This is a non-issue.

Same for the mandrases which translates literally "school". Back in the years when Obama was in school, the mandrases were not the same as those of more recent years. So the charges are easily refuted.

Obama presents a likeable positive personality. Kerry was hurt, not just by the swift boat but by his personality being able to be characterized as aloof or elitist. Obama has more charm and charisma. He has his faults as a campaigner....he needs to work on camera presence in the debates (look into the camera) and avoid saying "uh". But these are things that can be corrected, and are just mechanics.

I think America not only would vote for a black president, it WANTS a black president. Meaning, we WANT to see ourselves as capable of electing a black president. Obama is not divisive in the way Jessie Jackson or others would be. He has a conciliatory manner.

We also would like to vote for a woman president. The problem with Hillary is not that she is a woman, but her personality is more divisive. A woman with Obama's charisma and charm (or Bill Clinton's, for that matter)would win in a landslide. Unfortunately, Hillary disappoints.

Give Obama an older experienced foreign policy pro like Wes Clark as VP, and he would be unbeatable in my view.

I think Hillary is pretty much unelectable. Edwards has the message I love to hear, but I fear he would fight the "slick lawyer" charge. Biden, to me, is the safest bet in terms of electability by far.

[Maven]

54. Whether or not the charges are easily refuted is beside the point.

You think they won't turn a stupid thing like his middle name to their advantage? They'll send out a memo to their noise machine, and overnight TV pundits, radio hatemongers and douchebag columnists will be repeating over and over again, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Hussein Obama until it's a permanent part of the discourse. They'll do with his name the same thing they did with "Democrat Party," and "death tax," and "partial birth abortion," and on and on. And if that doesn't work they'll start rhyming his last name with "Osama" and...you get the picture.

I'm not saying that's why we shouldn't nominate him (I think there are better reasons) but after what we've been through the last seven plus years I can't believe you'd think that facts have a chance against the dirty tricks they'll pull to win.

[readmoreoften]

65. Of course, they already "accidently" called it OBAMA, Nebraska.

They are ruthless. I agree. I think America is ready for a Black president. I don't think it's ready--at all--for a Muslim president. Frankly, I think that's why Obama was so willing to inject hate into his campaign via "Gays-kill-children" Donny. He has a lot at stake proving that he more Christian than Christian. Why else would someone from an exceedingly liberal church run a campaign like he's a Southern Baptist Preacher? If the media does a non-stop hit piece on him, it's going to be a disaster.

We're talking about a nation where 70% of the voters thought Saddam Hussein was connected to 9-11 HOW MANY YEARS after the start of the war? The country can't even handle civil unions or undocumented workers, I doubt they can handle a president who attended a madrasa.

[earthlover]

69. Obama is not Muslim

It is absurd to think the Reps would get ANY traction from Obama's middle name. And as to the school, same thing.

These are the sorts of things that Democrats in a primary race would be upset about, but they are not something that will even be raised in the general election. Why? Because they don't have any traction.

They won't be able to drag out any witness of Obama going to a school with radical links because it was not that sort of a school when Obama attended. And, of course, anyone who did would be saying that THEY attended a radical Muslim school too! Come on...this is not a Swift Boatable thing.

[travelingtypist]

55. Not to sound overconfident or anything...

...but people in general, not just the Democrats, but the whole country
are so pissed off at Bush and the Republicans that short of staging another
Pearl Harbor/9-11 and suspending the election totally, there's no attack
or ad or anythintg that's going to defeat the Democrat.

I don't care who the Dem nominee is. I think Edwards is okay, would've
loved Gore, don't care about Obama or Hillary either way, wish Richardson
had more support, blah, blah, blah.

It doesn't matter. Truly.

[Blue_In_AK]

58. I wish I could have your confidence...

There are a lot of stupid people in this country.

[travelingtypist]

62. Even the stupid people are smart enough...

...to understand who is responsible for the pain they're in, whether
it be the mortgage/credit crisis, $4 gasoline, lost health insurance,
sucky education, bad environment, and on and on and on. They know it
ain't the Democrats.

And now we come out in such massive numbers that all of the election
fraud in the world can't ovecome that.

[KingFlorez]

56. We can't choose our nominee based on who the Republicans like

The right-wing attack machine will be in force no matter who our nominee, because they want to win and will do anything to ensure that they do. Who cares what they think anyway?

[Tejanocrat]

57. Worst - Hillary "Ballot Poison" Clinton; 2nd Worst - Joementum "Bankruptcy Bill" Biden

[eridani]

59. There will be negative campaigns against ANY Democrat

My problem with both is the way they suck up to corporations.

[Hidden Stillness]

60. This May Not Be a Problem Anymore

This may not be true anymore, because we are clearly starting to find ourselves in a new era, and I think Republican attacks/obstructionism/corruption, and even "spin" and "framing" itself, have worn so thin, and people have become so sick of the sound of it, and the manipulation of it, that even if there are slanders and innuendo, they may just drop dead, and not even work as before. With the increasing recession, debt, foreclosures, lack of health care, etc., and increasing hatred of Bush and Cheney, I think it is getting to the stage where people will just explode with anger if they keep having to listen to this shit--we have real problems! Also, it is not like we are fond of these people at all, anymore.

There can be many sly half-references to "corruption/dishonesty," etc., with Clinton, but even when Bill Clinton was President, and there was one investigation after another, charges, impeachment, etc., etc., on and on, Clinton's poll numbers and approval ratings only went up, and Republicans' down, because people knew what a ruthless power play it was, and were disgusted. Just because they attack, doesn't mean it will work; sometimes people are just fucking sick of the sound of it, and I believe we are at that limit now. You could almost laugh most of the attacks off now, or refer to Republicans' own corruption indictments, etc.

I also have real reservations about Hillary Clinton and her multiple corporate ties, the phony sudden-"populist" Edwards, with the hedge funds and the mansion they ripped up a forest to construct, etc. I would just as soon have the nominee be Sen. Dodd, who can be very impressive to listen to--Dodd fought against the horror that is the Bankruptcy Bill, and has told how others in the Senate then or now, Clinton, Edwards, Obama, voted for it. I don't think Republican attacks will have the same effect they had before, though. Once, they "demonized" us, as if they had authority; now, it is just the mean, ugly sound of the most corrupt group in history, on the way out.

[I work for workers]

61. I'd say the worst would be Lyndon Larouche.

[Perry Logan]

63. Cheer up, you silly billies. We could nominate a dog turd and still win.

[Snarkturian Clone]

64. The difference between Hillary and Obama is that

I would grudgingly vote for Obama in a Lesser of Two Evils vote if he got the nom. If Hillary got the nom, I'd vote for my cat.

Vote Mowberg 2008

[George II]

67. Why are people obsessing about the two "WORST" candidates?

Shouldn't we all be working together to get the BEST candidate, and not by bashing those we don't agree with? I would gladly take the WORST Democratic candidate and get him/her elected than the best Republican candidate. After all, in 2000 and 2004, the best they could do was george bush - pretty pathetic offering from their side.

[ThomWV]

68. Because we know good and god dam well that we can lose the election in 2008, that's why!

[earthlover]

70. TheReps are quite capable of putting a bad candidate in the White House

Yes, we can lose.

[nyc 4 Biden]

71. I think we should just vote for the most qualified, regardless of race/gender. n/t

[ThomWV]

74. More and more I'm comming around to that way of thinking and that makes Biden my choice

Not sure yet though.

[Martin Eden]

72. I've been saying pretty much the same thing since this race started

Deserved or not, Hillary's negatives are way too high -- too many people simply won't vote for her under any circumstances.

And sadly, I don't think the United States in 2008 will elect a man with African ancestry whose name is Barack Hussein Obama. On top of that, his lack of experience will convince many that he is not presidential material.

You might think by default this makes Edwards the Democrat with the best chance of victory. I don't think so, despite the advantage of being a white male from the South. Despite his fiery populist rhetoric (or because of it) and his background as a trial attorney, he will be seen as a political lightweight (in terms of governmental experience and gravitas) who transformed from a moderate in the last election to a hardcore progressive as a matter of political necessity rather than core principle. To tell you the truth, that is how I see him. He's on our side and I would vote for him over any Republican, but I don't see him as presidential material and I don't think the majority of the electorate will either.

My favorite Dennis Kucinich realistically doesn't stand a chance.

Although I hold his vote for the IWR in 2002 as a huge strike against him (Hillary and Edwards voted for it too), I think Joe Biden could be our best candidate in terms of electability in the general election. Despite his near-invisibility in the primary polls, I think he kicked ass in just about every televised debate I watched.

I could be wrong about my assessments above, but I don't think I'm wrong about the following:

The Democratic nominee is not necessarily a shoe-in as president in 2008, despite the disaster of the last 8 years.

[LWolf]

73. I agree. n/t

[PATRICK]

77. IMHO

Both Hillary and Obama reluctantly and with poor natural skill engaged in a more virulent debate that ended up piercing the more shallow support. I see both very loathe now to do likewise to the GOP. Both will try to rise above the GOP as Kerry did only milder and much more awkward. Consider the outrageous lies it took to pierce kerry's war record and general eloquence. Lies and misquotes and his legs were cut out from under him to a critical extent. Close enough to the ground to rob.

What we see in the HRC/Obama exchange is not heartening on the stump tactics of either to be better than Kerry. Not g-awful as the GOP of course, but then we know how this works out in corporate media.

[jillan]

78. Agreed!

And I am afraid that if Hillary or Obama win the nom - we will end up with Rudy in the WH.

[Gloria]

79. They really are quite similiar in how they operate...only Obama

may be winning on style and the use of more obvious GOP talking points. NEITHER ONE represents change. His slick use of the word "Present" is really not very attractive, either.

[bluhoodie]

80. I'm in complete agreement with the OP

and have been thinking a lot along these lines lately. We really need a candidate who can WIN.



edit: to add OP