We don't need another establishment candidate

I don't want another establishment candidate in 2008. I want someone who will think outside of the box and challenge the status quo (like Obama did in 2002). You see the reason people are pushing this inevitability thing with Clinton is because she's the only person you KNOW what you're going to get if she becomes President. You know you're getting Bill Clinton V.2, and Clinton was very much pro-establishment (look at NAFTA). Obama and especially Edwards will challenge the status quo if need be, and the establishment feels uncomfortable about that. Who knows what they could do if they get elected. Obama has already put a dent into the idea that no one could outraise her, I'll look forward to when he dents the inevitability factor. What I'd really like to see is Gore/Obama...but I have my doubts that Gore will run.

But interesting that you see him in the traditionally do-nothing impotent spot. Or do you suppose the next Democratic Veep will be emboldened to use Cheney's power?

The Texan chimp has been real hard on the horses. Jefferson and Paine and Madison would be puking in the streets if they could see this administration. And nevermind that BushCo cheated to win. Twice.

I like my Democrats as most of us do, in degrees of appreciation, but there's no one around who can persuade me that all of ours aren't loads better than any of theirs. The GOP had its chance and it squandered it big time.

For 2008, hang the blue balloons and let's get to work.

since he's been away from DC long enough. He'll shake things up, too.

This state never had experience with mass transit beyond inadequate bus service. He got a commuter rail service up and running along the Rio Grande to exurbs north and south, eventually to connect with Santa Fe, over the howls of conservatives who'd never heard of such a thing. Gas prices are up and ridership is up and that's about what it's going to take to save all the little towns north and south of here along the river.

He was as pro rich, pro business a DLC guy as we'd ever seen during the first two years of his first term. He has grown into his job, though, and would now make a fine President.

I was one of his severest critics, as some folks on this board do remember.

I think we need to get somebody who has been outside the Beltway Bubble.

and more toward Richardson. I'll always love Kucinich, but in the real world I believe that Richardson is the best candidate that can win.

One candidate you mentioned is arguably to the right of "status quo" HRC. We should not vote against HRC simply because her husband was president. That is as absurd as someone voting for her because of her last name.

If you do not want an establishment candidate in 2008, vote Gravel or Kucinich.

That is going to take a long-term plan. Set a goal for about 2020, 4 more cycles. Go to work convincing enough people that anti-establishment is what they need, and maybe you'll get there. In the meantime, you could make some progress by getting anti-establishment state reps and senators elected, should be much easier than going national all at once. Then start working on Federal reps and senators. Once the message is widespread and ubiquitous you'll be there.

One might say that after doing all of this that the anti-establishment party will BE the establishment, and that may be true. In that case, you could work outside the system and find some charismatic anti-establishment leader to support. There's plenty to choose from. It could be that expecting a white knight to ride in and blow-up the system for us -especially when everybody knows s/he's coming- might be a bit much to ask.