Good candidates don't always make good presidents--

and vice versa.

Too damn bad, and in fact one of the major flaws in our system--that and the purchasability of both politicians and the elections that create them.

The DNC sure as hell won't touch them. Case in point: Lincoln/Halter 2010. Better to go down in flames with a Blue Dog than actually offer any real choice.

Oh, yeah, I just LOVE Rahm for that one.

One must begin accepting bribes from the start in order to even become a candidate.

They are all essentially corrupt by the time we get to choose from them. Hillary Clinton is more DLC than Obama, for example, and John Edwards is a rubber-faced phoney. Those were our choices, and our ONLY choices.

Well actually I originally supported Bill Richardson--a two term governor with tons of diplomatic experience--he didn't last too long.

Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq war. I was not comfortable with her or John Edwards judgment on that matter. I was not comfortable with John Edwards at all, something about him made me queasy--turned out I was right.

He's not perfect. Right now I'd give him a "C" but if anyone thinks any of these other "serious" candidates would have done anything different they are probably mistaken.

Someone said Bernie Sanders would have handled the Teabaggers better.

Exactly HOW?

On paper, he's on the opposite end of their ideological spectrum. And he would get them to be reasonable...how?

It's easy to make revisionist statements when there's no basis in reality.

I'd like to hear someone think through an alternative to getting anything better from a caucus that's fully willing to do serious damage to the nation's economic structure if they don't get what they want.

Could it have been done in 2009, when there was no 'Tea Party Caucus'? When the Dems still controlled both houses?
If so, a President Bernie Sanders could probably have gotten alot more progressive domestic policy passed than what we've ultimately seen, and likely there wouldn't have BEEN a Tea Party Caucus in 2010/2011 ...


:shrug:

There's plenty of quivering and quaking to go around--instead they handed the Republicans a sledge hammer to hit them with.

I really doubt Bernie Sanders could ever get elected in this country--the powers that be would destroy him with a thoroughness that would make what the did to Ross Perot look like a warm wet kiss. The fact that he calls himself a socialist alone would be his death knell.

other factors, including support in congress and across the country, and the events of the times are huge factors.

fdr was great, but the astoundingly huge majorities in congress in support of him were a big help. arguably, he helped create them, but arguably, fdr could not have handled today's congress any better than obama.

A bad President is one who has a bad Presidency. It's definitional.

especially when criticizing, trying to identify a problem or advance a solution.

if people faulting obama are idly complaining about his presidency, fine. they are bemoaning the result without specifying a cause.

but if people faulting obama are suggesting that he should be replaced by a "better" candidate, then perhaps not so fine. because then they are saying that the problem is the person, not the circumstances, and that a different person in the white house could have done better.

if the problem really is that congress is too corrupt and too bought by right-wing corporatists and the media serves their interests, then obama could have a lousy presidency and yet still be the ideal person for the job. the problem requires some solution other than finding a better candidate.

could indeed accomplish a great deal of the traditional Democratic agenda than has President Obama. However, I think you're frame is off inasmuch as I think that President Obama isn't an ineffectual President. In fact, he has accomplished basically everything he's set out to do. There is no hidden Obama agenda; the wars, the bankster bailouts, the tax cuts--all of these are the true Obama agenda.

"because then they are saying that the problem is the person, not the circumstances, and that a different person in the white house could have done better."

Could be, and is, both. That Congress is corrupt is in no way a good argument in defense of a corrupt President.

Recommended.