Comments on: Democrats Are Still Losing Because They Don’t Use Their Guts

By: fredfarkle

fredfarkle — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:00:05 +0000

“President” Kerry had a lower college GPA than President Bush….so your theory about the most intelligent candidate winning is at least half right….

By: C.S.Strowbridge

C.S.Strowbridge — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:11:04 +0000

“Soooo…HRC and Edwards are lifting plays from the GOP, and you think that’s a good thing?”

You have to win before you can make a change.

Sad but true.

By: Callimaco

Callimaco — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:24:54 +0000

I’d much prefer a candidate who treats my intelligence with respect AND appeals to BOTH my baser instincts AND my highest aspirations.

HRC and Edwards will never do that. But there’s still time for Obama – but it’s running out.

When I said after his keynote speech at the Democratic convention that I’d just seen a future president, it wasn’t my rational brain making that assessment. Problem is I haven’t seen that keynote speaker in a while.

By: Tyro

Tyro — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:02:38 +0000

I would much rather prefer a candidate who treats my intelligence with respect and doesn’t talk down to me or appeal to my baser instincts.

Same. But if that candidate does so and loses, then he can’t do me any good, now can he? Political activism is not an exercise in self-expression. It is a means of using and taking power. If it does not accomplish those goals, you’re up the creek, no matter how good it might have made you feel about yourself.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:32:37 +0000

Soooo…HRC and Edwards are lifting plays from the GOP, and you think that’s a good thing?

I saw a report on MSNBC this morning about how Obama skipped the vote denouncing the MoveOn ad, not because he’s lazy or irresponsible as a Senator (as Contessa was implying), but clearly because he thinks it’s silly and a waste of the Senate’s time.

I would much rather prefer a candidate who treats my intelligence with respect and doesn’t talk down to me or appeal to my baser instincts.

The Fear platform is flawed, you’ve said so yourself. Why should I trust HRC or Edwards if they are going to continue to stand on it?

By: Chris Andersen

Chris Andersen — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:32:17 +0000

It’s a common mistake people make to think that middle-of-the-road voters are middle-of-the-road voters because they have policy positions that are in the middle-of-the-road. The truth is that middle-of-the-road voters are middle-of-the-road voters because they don’t follow politics closely enough to have firmly defined policy positions. They just have their gut.

The undecided aren’t undecided because they haven’t found the candidate who pushes their particular issue. They are undecided because they don’t have any particular issue that drives their political activity.

Their not apathetic. They just don’t care enough about politics to have a strong opinion.

What they want is someone who will push them emotionally.

By: SpiderJ

SpiderJ — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:31:41 +0000

Which I think is part of the problem with politics and society in general, even though I understand your point. I’d much rather Americans get back to using their brains instead of their emotions…or, in an ideal situation, using the two in tandem. This isn’t going to happen if nobody has the strength to go against our continuing tendency to respond without thinking to sound-bites or catchphrases.

I understand you have to win, first. But how does one stop the cycle of our dumbed-down discourse if nobody’s willing to make the effort of elevating it?

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:12:48 +0000

HRC and Edwards are appealing to emotion. Obama is appealing to brains.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:06:50 +0000

This is one area where I feel the Clinton and Edwards campaigns are beating the pants off of Obama.

Example?
Why, because Edwards and Clinton say what they think voters want to hear?