I'm not going to whine about it, since Bush was lucky to have been elected twice (Kerry was a gift to Bush in 2004, though Bush would have done okay against most Dems) and even more importantly, his candidacy in the first place was a symptom of something we still see in full force today, the weakness and even the dysfunctionality of the GOP.

I've told my rad-lib friend in DC that libs shouldn't be overconfident, because after all, look how Gore managed to lose in 2000 just as it seemed it was merely the end game of something already won by him. I also told her, though, that I realize it's hard not to be overconfident and even start gloating already, given how strong the Dems look to get the White House this year. An earlier thread started by a liberal on here (Paul Silver) illustrated the “tough” situation he and other libs are in. Which of the two practically-guaranteed-to-win candidates does he choose, Clinton or Obama? Call me pessimistic and a conservative “because” I am, but even with all of Clinton's negatives, I believe she can defeat McCain. To me not only evidence but proof of that is in how many non-liberals reject McCain and how the (truly) conservative sites with chatter like Town Hall imploded once McCain had become obviously the presumptive GOP nominee. While Clinton haters may say McCain has a better chance against Clinton than some would think, I'm among the some (actually the many) who believe McCain is not guaranteed to defeat Clinton. Not at all. And given what's moving so many people to choose their favorite this year, I don't see how McCain stands a chance against Obama. In fact, many who protested the emergence of McCain have said they'd vote for Obama instead.

I'm not going to whine about it, since Bush was lucky to have been elected twice (Kerry was a gift to Bush in 2004, though Bush would have done okay against most Dems) and even more importantly, his candidacy in the first place was a symptom of something we still see in full force today, the weakness and even the dysfunctionality of the GOP.

I've told my rad-lib friend in DC that libs shouldn't be overconfident, because after all, look how Gore managed to lose in 2000 just as it seemed it was merely the end game of something already won by him. I also told her, though, that I realize it's hard not to be overconfident and even start gloating already, given how strong the Dems look to get the White House this year. An earlier thread started by a liberal on here (Paul Silver) illustrated the “tough” situation he and other libs are in. Which of the two practically-guaranteed-to-win candidates does he choose, Clinton or Obama? Call me pessimistic and a conservative “because” I am, but even with all of Clinton's negatives, I believe she can defeat McCain. To me not only evidence but proof of that is in how many non-liberals reject McCain and how the (truly) conservative sites with chatter like Town Hall imploded once McCain had become obviously the presumptive GOP nominee. While Clinton haters may say McCain has a better chance against Clinton than some would think, I'm among the some (actually the many) who believe McCain is not guaranteed to defeat Clinton. Not at all. And given what's moving so many people to choose their favorite this year, I don't see how McCain stands a chance against Obama. In fact, many who protested the emergence of McCain have said they'd vote for Obama instead.

The hatred of him and downright degeneracy associated with this (it truly is deranged sometimes — only hatred of Reagan came close to this, and falls quite short of the worst of the Bush hatred) has no excuse. However, he is not liked and to ordinary non-liberals like me he is definitely a disappointment. Mine is tempered by my knowledge from the start of his 2000 campaign that he was the GOP's “brand name” or “designer label” (famous name) desperation candidate. Until Gore proceeded to begin losing the election beginning with the debates (losing them to Dubya!), I expected Bush to be routed in November 2000.

The hatred of him and downright degeneracy associated with this (it truly is deranged sometimes — only hatred of Reagan came close to this, and falls quite short of the worst of the Bush hatred) has no excuse. However, he is not liked and to ordinary non-liberals like me he is definitely a disappointment. Mine is tempered by my knowledge from the start of his 2000 campaign that he was the GOP's “brand name” or “designer label” (famous name) desperation candidate. Until Gore proceeded to begin losing the election beginning with the debates (losing them to Dubya!), I expected Bush to be routed in November 2000.

Bush is a special case. I can see no reason why moderates can't rip on Bush as loudly as they want. He's screwed up this country with both hands for the duration of his presidency. When you do everything wrong, when you blow trillions and weaken the nation, when you start a useless war for no reason and can't bring it to a close, you deserve all the ridicule you get. Also, he gets credit for replacing pretty much the entire executive branch with unqualified appointments that gum of the day to day workings of this country. A much less visible but certainly important part of being president.

dr.e

KIDDING, just KIDDING. Really. You and others be King. Me and others'll be Sou Kingessa and help.

dr.e

“moderates” [sic] and “centrists” [sic]

You keep using that word. However I do not think it means what you think it means…

It's not only the Left that has loons, certainly.

Normally the Righties are okay, although I have taken issue with how some are fervent defenders of torture and even go so far as to make support for torture (or refusal to criticize one currently newsworthy form of it) as some kind of political-acceptance litmus test. ??? !!!