Broder's WPost column has + things to say

[spooky3]

about several of our remaining candidates and views their platforms as similar in many ways.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14290-2004Feb4.html

snip

"Where they differ most is in their biographies. Kerry is the political veteran, the man with a record in public office stretching back three decades. He is also the most patrician of the trio -- the son of a diplomat, a product of Yale and the husband of an heiress. Democrats often have nominated and elected such wealthy friends of the working class (think FDR and JFK), so there is plenty of tradition for Kerry to evoke -- and plenty of reverse snobbery for his opponents to exploit.

Edwards and Clark are much more self-made men, climbing out of modest family backgrounds thanks to education at public universities (West Point for Clark, North Carolina State for Edwards) and distinguishing themselves from thousands of others in their chosen fields of the military and the law by their braininess and their work ethic."

snip

[tishaLA]

1. Last paragraph

But the main point is this: If the Democrats can't form a competitive ticket by combining two of these three, then they're not smart enough to deserve the White House.

[blm]

2. That's why I would never dump on Edwards or Clark.

I'm not stupid enough to try and blow any chance at getting rid of Bush.

Hopefully others here at DU will see their folly and SNAP OUT OF IT!

[tishaLA]

4. I try to make my critiques

policy-based only. I think those critiques are fair. Those who reach over that and try to impugn someone's integrity, character, etc. are full o' folly, IMHO.

[blm]

5. heheh..."full o' folly"

good one, tisha.

[BurtWorm]

6. I resemble that!

:hi:

[BurtWorm]

3. Broder is a closet Republican

Read Eric Alterman on the subject of Broder's constipated views about the presidency. I take what he says with a grain of salt.

But congrats to the candidates he praised.