Dean (too angry), Kerry (too wooden),Clark (repub), Edwards(newbie) trend?

The trend is clear from the media ...nobody but bush.


What does this mean, is the real question?
-------------------------------------------
* does it mean more of the same for the GE

* does it mean the media will be used to lengthen and drain precious $$ for the GE

* does it mean that these candidates are that bad?


IMHO...it means that "whoever" gets to go "one-one" with bush better be able to "take it" and to "dish it - with facts".

Right now america is being "snowed" by this admin "bigtime" and I dear say that we better have a courageous SOB to stop four more years of GWB.

Have already decided on how they will play the negative spin on all of the candidates.

I'm often struck by how their evidently early demolition of Howard Dean seems like premature ejaculation.

The good news is that the candidates know that its coming (so to speak) and should be able to counter it. The only question is where?

is responsible for a lot of the trashing of our candidates, and it is not so much Democratic infighting. So both the media, and the RNC, are at work undermining our guys. We'll need a candidate who will take on the press, and a lot of Soros money, MoveOn, calls and emails from Democrats, strong support from the DNC, etc. It's going to be rough.

attributes. I say, lets get *bush ...by the people, for the people. Dean has cleared the path .....I wish all the democrats would unite and fight.

How Rove or his spiritual minions will paint the candidates:

Dean-->too angry (unstable even, Howard Beale analogies), too partisan
Thankfully, Dean did what he needed last night to neutralize alot of this attack by appearing on TV. He may soon be the frontrunner again.

Clark--> too smart, untrustworthy, because of his quiet intensity they're trying to make him into Nixon. He has to do what Dean has done and do some comedy on national TV to take the 'edge' off.

Kerry--> stereoyptical Northeast liberal. They'll try to Dukakis him. Boring is not in this pallette. Needs to do more comedy too to.

Edwards--> slick (welcome Clinton II). Will be fine with this, after all Clinton was popular.

Isn't it just plain f*#@+^g sad intelligence has somehow been cast as a bad thing? Blunderboy* is portrayed as wonderful and he's a doofus. He's not curious about much of anything. Sorry, sad state of affairs.

mini-rant over

They give us Reagan, Quayle, Shrub and Schwarzenegger.

to assist them in tearing each other down. I kept hearing on Hardball last night the chattering heads say that at some point "they have to go negative again" to narrow the field. I don't buy that. I think that, as a party, we should not be doing the Rs work for them and we are capable of elevating the level of discourse amongst our own. The media wants a smackdown and bloodletting. We don't need to pander to their machinations. I think that the Fox debate last night ended soon because our guys refused to play the game so Fox pulled the plug and went to their own chatterers to try to spin a circus.

They're going to attack and ridicule whoever we nominate, no matter what. Get used to it; it's been this way since the days of Andrew Jackson.

but I don't think one side has ever had so much power, and been so intent on malevolence.

For such an extreme and unscrupulous administration.

That is, I think, a crucial difference.

and is, indeed, a crucial difference.

a hell of a lot better than

TOO STUPID!

:)