Lieberman dropped.

[Mort from NewYawk]

I, for one, am very sorry about that. Lieberman was something very rare in this country, a candidate who really works for America and not his respective party. Also a very classy fellow, specifically mentioning all of his fellow candidates (in sharp cntrast to Dean) and congratulating the winner. Except for the one line about denying Bush a second term, I agreed and was deeply moved by everything he said. He will never be president, but I think dems and GOPers alike should salute the continuing service of a great, bipartisan, and I belive, a truly good man.

Very well stated.

It's startling how much the Democrats are in disarray only a single term after they held a two-term presidency.

Clinton himself threw away much of what he had brilliantly accomplished for the party through his personal flaws (not only his sex addiction, but his unfathomable inability to work things out with Gore and campaign for him in some mutually agreed capacity).

All this leaves the Democratic party so disaffected by Clinton-Gore that they have totally rejected that part of the party's winning formula: the moderate, third way political philosophy that is so appealing to middle class and working Americans.

Democrats do not understand that it's been 40 years since a Democrat has been elected with a political philosophy resembling the current remaining candidates. Those elections in which they've run someone like any of the remaining candidates (72, 84 and 88) have resulted in crushing landslides for them.

I'll wait until the Democratic convention, but my color is likely to change to blue for this cycle. I'm sure I'm not the only Lieberman supporter that the Democrats may lose this year.

[Mort from NewYawk]

It's startling how much the Democrats are in disarray only a single term after they held a two-term presidency.

Clinton himself threw away much of what he had brilliantly accomplished for the party through his personal flaws (not only his sex addiction, but his unfathomable inability to work things out with Gore and campaign for him in some mutually agreed capacity).

All this leaves the Democratic party so disaffected by Clinton-Gore that they have totally rejected that part of the party's winning formula: the moderate, third way political philosophy that is so appealing to middle class and working Americans.

Democrats do not understand that it's been 40 years since a Democrat has been elected with a political philosophy resembling the current remaining candidates. Those elections in which they've run someone like any of the remaining candidates (72, 84 and 88) have resulted in crushing landslides for them.

I'll wait until the Democratic convention, but my color is likely to change to blue for this cycle. I'm sure I'm not the only Lieberman supporter that the Democrats may lose this year.

Neither Kerry or Edwards has any of the huge problems that McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis did.
For a start they can actually run a good campaign...

A Kerry-Edwards or Edwards-Kerry ticked would be formindible.

And Carter is no more right wing than either of 'em.

McGovern and Mondale were not mushy, they were great campaigners. They both gave energetic, rousing speeches, neither had character issues or any taint of scandal. Mondale was a former VP who was the heir apparant of the liberal wing of the Democratic party (although he would have lost the nomination to pre-DLCer Gary Hart except for the Donna Rice scandal - what is it with these Democratic centrists?).

The problem with McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis was that they failed to bring out more than the Democratic left, because they were successfully and accurately labeled by the GOP as too left for the American people in foreign affairs (McGovern), domestically (Mondale), or both (Dukakis).

I see Kerry-whoever fighting the same philosophic and electoral battle as any of them.

As far as Carter's political philosophy, his appeal in 1976 was similar to Clinton's in 1992: after devastating losses with liberals, the Dems successfully went with the governor of a Southern state, a church-going Southern Baptist seen as "progressive" on civil rights, but with moderate fiscal views.

[Mort from NewYawk]

It's startling how much the Democrats are in disarray only a single term after they held a two-term presidency.

Clinton himself threw away much of what he had brilliantly accomplished for the party through his personal flaws (not only his sex addiction, but his unfathomable inability to work things out with Gore and campaign for him in some mutually agreed capacity).

All this leaves the Democratic party so disaffected by Clinton-Gore that they have totally rejected that part of the party's winning formula: the moderate, third way political philosophy that is so appealing to middle class and working Americans.

Democrats do not understand that it's been 40 years since a Democrat has been elected with a political philosophy resembling the current remaining candidates. Those elections in which they've run someone like any of the remaining candidates (72, 84 and 88) have resulted in crushing landslides for them.

I'll wait until the Democratic convention, but my color is likely to change to blue for this cycle. I'm sure I'm not the only Lieberman supporter that the Democrats may lose this year.

Neither Kerry or Edwards has any of the huge problems that McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis did.
For a start they can actually run a good campaign...

A Kerry-Edwards or Edwards-Kerry ticked would be formindible.

And Carter is no more right wing than either of 'em.

McGovern and Mondale were not mushy, they were great campaigners. They both gave energetic, rousing speeches, neither had character issues or any taint of scandal. Mondale was a former VP who was the heir apparant of the liberal wing of the Democratic party (although he would have lost the nomination to pre-DLCer Gary Hart except for the Donna Rice scandal - what is it with these Democratic centrists?).

The problem with McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis was that they failed to bring out more than the Democratic left, because they were successfully and accurately labeled by the GOP as too left for the American people in foreign affairs (McGovern), domestically (Mondale), or both (Dukakis).

I see Kerry-whoever fighting the same philosophic and electoral battle as any of them.

As far as Carter's political philosophy, his appeal in 1976 was similar to Clinton's in 1992: after devastating losses with liberals, the Dems successfully went with the governor of a Southern state, a church-going Southern Baptist seen as "progressive" on civil rights, but with moderate fiscal views.

Which brings us full circle, and I'm back to my original question, why does Kerry get such high ratings for electability? You would think that after the '70s and '80s experiences people would have learned something. At the very least, Kerry is not more electable than Edwards.

It's the Democratic primary voters who have conferred the "electability" title on Kerry, after Dean forfeited it with The Scream. Kerry is seen as the candidate with the most gravitas and experience out of this remaining sorry crew. Of course his gravitas and experience doesn't hold a candle to Joe's.

But even if it did, it's POLICY POSITIONS, POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY that the electorate wants to hear - where you stand on taxes, the war, social issues, that's the bottom line. That's why Joe Lieberman was the most, perhaps only, electable Democrat.

I think the Democrats are still looking to the  60's, the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement, and Watergate for their glory, when they were successful as an opposition movement (but not in getting elected!).

Even though Dean's out, they still want someone to "take back the party", i.e. make the liberal philosophy work.

So, unfortunately, the Democrats are in disarray. This happens every time they're facing a popular GOP incumbent.

This persistence in steering their ship to the left is destroying their party, and with it, resistance to some of the more obnoxious positions of the hard right.