If you strip away the media and the money, aren't the lower tier candidates our best qualified?

[JohnnyBoots]

Biden and Richardson are awesome on foreign policy. Richardson has executive experience as a Governor. Biden is very good domestically too as well as a Constitutional scholar. He also has the most experience on SCOTUS appointments, as HRC said last night. Kucinich was against the war and the PATRIOT Act from the beginning. He is always a just and moral voice. Dodd is a finance whiz and fluent in Spanish(as evidenced last night). He also has a storied career in the Senate as Biden does. I don't see what the top three have over these guys other than they are the media darlings with the most money. HRC is a solid senator from NY. Boxer has more years in than here, why not run her if we want a "progressive" woman candidate. Edwards was a DLC Senator with a lot of contradictory votes to his positions now. He has been out of work for a while an was not hired for the last job he applied to. However he did have a great career as a trial lawyer( in the media that plays as a bad thing) Obama is a great orator and very charismatic. He is also a Constitutional scholar. I just think he is too green to be President. I would love to see him as a VP. I think he would be unstoppable in 8 years. It just seems to me if we went on resume and experience alone these top three would not be the front runners. They are because of media and money. I just really wish the Dodds, Bidens, Kuciniches, and Richardsons got more play in the media.

[MGKrebs]

1. But we're not electing a resume.

To the extent that "money" can be equated with "trust" and "media" can be equated with savvy leadership, then those are decent parts of the qualification mix.

[Stop Cornyn]

24. Bingo! Dick Cheney has "qualifications" out the ass, and yet he's completely evil. I'm voting for a

platform I agree with and a candidate who I believe can and will achieve as much of that platform as possible.

I hate to single our second tier candidates, but

Richardson has had many high positions, but he hasn't always done a particularly good job in those positions (e.g., he didn't do all that good of a job as Secretary of Energy).

Biden has run the judiciary committee, but he's done a poor job of questioning some of the candidates who have come up before the committee and he's voted for some disgraceful judges.

Dodd has chaired the Senate banking committee, but one of the few areas where I think Dodd has done a really poor job has been his failure of leadership on the downpayment assistance program.

Kucinich was one of the youngest big city mayors in recent history, but Cleveland went bankrupt under his guidance.

I really, REALLY like Kucinich.

I really like Dodd.

I like Biden (but not as president).

I sort of like Richardson (but not as president).

I don't mean this as criticism (I'm probably going to vote for Kucinich), but experience doesn't equal excellence or leadership.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. That is because money and media attention only go to those who kiss up to Big Corps

Those who prostitute themselves to the Corporate Masters who own the media and have the money do not have the personal integrity to run the country. Those who refuse to sell themselves to the highest bidder are by definition more qualified, but they do not get the money and media attention.

[SteppingRazor]

4. Except that theory doesn't pan out when you consider...

that Biden, et al. have also done their share of corporate asskissing.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. But nowhere near as much as the "first tier" front-runners

Otherwise, he would be up there with Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

[SteppingRazor]

12. I dunno about that.

Biden's a brilliant guy with tons of experience and perhaps the only real viable plan for leaving Iraq and not leaving total anarchy in our wake. But he's also completely beholden to banking interests -- credit card companies are one of the largest employers in Delaware, after all. Biden was on the bankruptcy bill like flies to shit.

On edit: In fact, if I recall correctly, the two senators from Delaware are actually No. 1 and No. 2 on the list of senators who receive cash from the credit card industry.

[youthere]

14. it depends on what you mean by beholden...

with CC being the largest employers, Biden has no choice but to represent his constituency. Put him in the Whitehouse, his constituency changes. I hardly think Biden has the credit card companies in his back pocket...if he did, his campaign coffers would be a lot fatter.
I disagree with his vote on the Bankruptcy bill...just like I disagree with the other 17 dems that voted for it, but in Bidens case it's at least understandable. As much as I hate that vote, I will still support him in the primary because I think we have more to gain.

[SteppingRazor]

17. Oh, don't get me wrong -- I think he's a great candidate.

I just think its fallacious to suggest that even the second-tier candidates don't take large amounts of money from corporate interests. It's the nature of the beast that is American politics.

[youthere]

21. I think it's because...

the "top tier" candidates take so much more money from corporate interests. You are correct, corporate $$ is the name of the game.

[saltpoint]

3. For me it's a question the Pukes have to ask themselves: Do I want to

debate foreign policy with Gov. Richardson or Joe Biden?

Do I want to set my organizational team against Chris Dodd's in border states like New Mexico and Arizona, with Dodd bilingual in Spanish?

Do I want to stand in front of a union audience and tell workers there assembled that I and not Edwards should be in charge of their well-being?

Etc.

The Republicans have a couple candidates with limited appeal. Huckabee can whip his Bible out for the gratification of the fundies, but generally speaking I don't see him winning the hearts of moderates and progressives in our party. He poses no "Reagan Democrat" defection threat, IMO, or a minimal one.

Thompson is slow-witted and apparently uninterested in campaigning. Has anyone even called his hotel room? He might have died. Not that that would constitute a significant contrast to how he is most of the time.

One of our 8 Democrats is likely the next president. I like any of them, no matter the tier, over any of the Pukes.

Also I think the "tiers" will shift and change in the next 6-8 weeks considerably.

[JohnnyBoots]

7. I agree with all of your points. I think Iowa will mix things up a bit. n/t

[bigwillq]

5. Yes

Biden, Dodd, Richardson and even DK are more qualified and experienced than any of the "top 3"

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. If We Were Electing A Resume It Would Be Ted Kennedy Versus Richard Lugar

DSB

[JohnnyBoots]

9. Are you saying a candidates resume should play only a small role if none at all?

I don't really follow your point. Are you saying it is all personality, all money or what. What is your criteria for electability?

[Armstead]

26. It should be -- A great Democratc versus a decent, intelligent Republican

[doc03]

8. I agree. Look at 2000 Gore had a dream resume

for President and we ended up with the Chimp. Even with the problems in Florida it still shouldn't have ever been that close in the first place. In 2004 we had Kerry with another great resume and we get the Chimp again. My neighbor and I were talking about the same thing this morning, we both agreed the three top candidates again are the least qualified of the group. It comes to who looks best on TV and who has the dollars.

[robbedvoter]

36. GORE won. So did Kerry. Your point was?

[doc03]

37. It doesn't matter the Chimp is the pResident

If Hillary is our nominee it is going to be another nail biter, I really don't think she can win.
There is nobody that can get the Repugs out to vote more than Hillary Clinton. There is also nobody that can turn away more Democrats than Hillary Clinton.

[robbedvoter]

38. There were NOT nail biters - but outright thefts!

If there's fraud, who our candidate is is hardly relevant - it will be stolen anyway. Do you know HOW MANY VOTES they stole? Do you subscribe to the idiocy that "they can only steal it if is...close enough to steal? (as smart as "we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here"
What makes you think that your chosen candidate is theft proof?

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Best qualified tio have thier asses handed to them in the General Election?

If you can't win a lot of games in the regular season you probably won't do well in the playoffs.

[JohnnyBoots]

13. The regular season means nothing if the refs give you every call, in

GE the Refs won't be giving the calls anymore. The team that coasted to the nomination will be the one to have their ass handed to them. We're being set up for failure.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Who are the Refs?

Democratic Primary voters? :shrug:

[JohnnyBoots]

16. The media and talking heads. n/t

[Think82]

40. Actually, primaries pull everyone to the base, whereas the most electable is usually more moderate

so your argument doesn't really make sense.

[Strawman]

18. Here are my impressions of the candidates after the debate

Richardson didn't impress me. Dodd really impressed me with his command of the issues, and his clarity. I thought Richardson couldn't articulate how to balance human rights and national security concerns and Dodd nailed it. Later on Dodd pointed out that it was a false choice.

Biden impressed me as well. His personality has always rubbed me the wrong way and I've never cared for his idea that Democrats ought to be more "muscular" on foreign policy, but he seemed better than I thought he would on the issues. I do question his statements about the problem with our trade agreements and the Patriot Act being primarily enforcement related though.

Kucinich just didn't have a fair chance to speak. It seemed like his strategy was to go after Edwards' voters and present himself as the more genuine liberal. His biggest challenge is to overcome the perception among Democrats that he is not viable and the best way to do that would be to try to win over Edwards voters. So his strategy made sense to me.

Dodd, Biden, and Clinton seem like they would be the most surefooted in office from Day One. All three would provide a kinder, gentler version of the status quo as we have come to know it over the last 20 years. Richardson is in the same establishment category, but just doesn't seem as sharp as the others. Bottom line: Low risk, slight reward.

A Kucinich presidency would be the genuine social revolution so many of us long for, but are pessimistic about ever happening. It would be a time of extreme conflict, and it would not always be pretty. If the kind of momentum necessary for him to win the nomination actually came to pass, there would be an elan that is missing right now from liberal-left social movements. Either there would be a whole different set of possibilities or he would get crushed by better organized reactionary forces. I don't know how it would turn out. I have little confidence in him as an administrator or as a leader of a political coalition. I suspect that he would be overwhelmed. But I might vote to unleash those forces anyway. A vote for Dennis Kucinich is essentially a vote for a different, better world. A vote to take the fight to reactionary forces that have held the upper hand since the end of the 1960's. At it's worst it is a hopeless, wasted effort, at it's best it is a risky proposition, but one worth taking. Bottom: line: High risk, high reward.

Edwards would try to be a strong reformer, but what would he do when he had a hard time getting his programs passed? Would he contunue to push for genuine reforms or try to sell us watered down proposals as genuine reform. What I wonder about Edwards is if he is as committed to genuine change as much as he is committed to John Edwards' political career and the illusion of success. I don't completely trust John Edwards. Is he in love with ideas or is he in love with getting his photo taken in Bobby Kennedy poses? If he delivers, I don't really give a damn, but I'm not so convinced he can. Bottom line: Moderate risk, slight to moderate reward.

Obama seems like he doesn't know who he is yet other than whatever he is, he is the national savior. He seems like a guy who is trying to figure out which horse to bet on. Is he an establishment pol, is he an outsider, is he a liberal or is he center-right? I think his appeal is a celebrity appeal. I think the bet with Obama is that the sheer power of his celebrity will generate an elan that will lead to long overdue liberal social and economic reforms. I'm not sure I trust that either. Bottom line: He is a question mark to me.

[JohnnyBoots]

22. I really think you under rate Biden and Dodd. Especially Biden I think

he could really bring the country together and his VP would have a source of sage advice for running the senate. I agree with a lot of your other points though.

[goodgd_yall]

30. Pretty good analysis

I don't think I can really argue with anything you say and, at this point, I'm supporting Edwards, but I have your same doubts.

Kucinich is my ideal candidate, and I think your observations are right on.

I've liked Dodd for a while now. I wish he had more support to make him a viable candidate.

[Stinky The Clown]

19. I'm with you 100%

I would add that there are even more equally and more qualified people out there who are not running.

The media and the money. Indeed.

Break up the media and get corporate money out of politics and we get a MUCH better chance to have great presidents.

[ihavenobias]

20. Because we don't have Publicly Funded Elections

until we do, nothing will *really* change nearly as much as it should.

With that said, odds are that only one of the "major" candidates will win, and of those, Edwards is BY FAR the most populist (Thom Hartmann who is incredibly progressive and well informed endorses him). He's also the only major candidate who openly supports publicly funded elections to my knowledge (see that Tuesday video in the video section).

I don't care if you say he didn't *used* to be that way, that's as useless as someone convincing me Hillary will be great for health care because she *used* to fight for it in the early 90's...that was *before* she took more money from the health care industry than any other candidate, democrat or republican. People change, as do circumstances.

PS---If we want foreign policy experience, make sure Biden is a cabinet member (he'd be brilliant).

The End

www.thomhartmann.com

[MH1]

23. Absolutely, the "lower tier" are more qualified.

Hopefully as more people start paying closer attention, the tiers will shift.

[goodgd_yall]

31. Unfortunately time is running out

And I'm not seeing much movement, looking at polls.

[JohnnyBoots]

33. I think things will change after Iowa. N/T

[jmatthan]

25. Poll of the intelligentsia

Every poll of the intelligentsia has Kucinich far ahead of the rest of the field.

Ans these polls are statistically more exact than any poll conducted by Polling organisations as the spread is of people who care to know the subject.

[progressoid]

28. intelligentsia?

In America?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ3RrqBqk14

[jmatthan]

32. One lives in hope!

eom

[rateyes]

27. Found it!

:kick: and Rec'd

[dfgrbac]

29. The Big Money Interests selected the top tier!

And with all that money available to advertise in the media, the media graciously declared who was the top tier - even before the people began to think about it.

You're absolutely correct! Our so-called leading candidates were preselected. And it gives the media an excuse to only talk about that "top tier". They don't want you to know that you really really do have a choice.

If you want to stop this military Empire and all the damage it is doing to the world, vote for Mike or Dennis. I'd like to see Dennis endorse the National Initiative for Democracy. Our government is so broken (just as Eisenhower warned), only the people can restore democracy. Mike Gravel knows this.

Unfortunately, the other candidates do not seem to realize the gravity of the situation in which we find ourselves. If they did, they would filibuster any attempt to continue funding this war.

[IndianaGreen]

34. And Mike Gravel was a key player in defunding and ending Vietnam War

Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are neophytes compared to the "lower" tier, a label assigned to them by the corporate media, which as we all know, have already picked the nominees for each major party.

[robbedvoter]

35. Gravel and DK? Without a doubt!

[demommom]

39. kick