Then, why would all the Repubs be interested in a guy even more Liberal than D. Kucinich? This is all goofy.

Remember, the repubs are frustrated with the status quo also. They are not happy with their candidates. Most people here are looking at all the issues, and the way people vote, etc, not just responding to the personalities of people.

But the broad base of voters are simply looking for someone they like, someone who meets their particular needs/wants/desires – and most are making a choice on the basis of a speech or seeing the person on tv and a “sense” of whether they are comfortable with that person.

They’ve done studies related to college professors. If you show someone a tape of a professor for as short as a few minutes, they end up rating the person just about the same as after a whole semester. So we make snap judgments all the time. And for many people, maybe not you or I or most people here, it’s a gut level thing, it’s a snap judgment. Even if you match with someone by taking a test of your issues and their issues to see if they match in terms of where you stand, you may not like the person. So that factors in.

We have to face that the public at large is making a decision. We don’t have control over that. We have to the best of things. And hope and pray for a Dem with a conscience and a desire to put the Constitution and the We the People first.

By the way, what a great thread! Lots of good ideas and kindness!

On the Democratic side, this dynamic is probably the most intense. Reuters just today publishes a story headlined “Iowa Voters Take Democrats to Task Over Jobs,” noting that trade and globalization are becoming more and more prevalent on the campaign trail. This is likely to be fueled by the fact that Sens. Hillary Clinton (D) and Barack Obama (D) have both come out for the Peru Free Trade Agreement – the controversial bill that expands the NAFTA trade model. It is also likely to be fueled by Clinton surrounding herself with more and more Wall Street titans.. . .

This is precisely what Edwards has been railing on, not only in his specific critique of NAFTA-style trade policies, but in his general critique of lobbyists and the status quo.

At any rate here is the link where Obama calls Wellstone a gadfly and Sirota scratches his head on Obama’s record.

The numbers are from a table: Life Time ADA Voting Average Of 2008 Presidential Candidates. They don’t provide any real insight, but they raise many questions, and that’s why I posted them.

The ADA site provides a 49 page document – the voting summary is page 1 – which gives each candidate’s voting record and stance on the Iraq war, health care, energy & environment, worker’s rights, and civil rights.

Obama’s deference to these boundaries was hammered home to me when our discussion touched on the late Senator Paul Wellstone. Obama said the progressive champion was “magnificent.” He also gently but dismissively labeled Wellstone as merely a “gadfly,” in a tone laced with contempt for the senator who, for instance, almost single-handedly prevented passage of the bankruptcy bill for years over the objections of both parties. This clarified Obama’s support for the Hamilton Project, an organization formed by Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and other Wall Street Democrats to fight back against growing populist outrage within the party. And I understood why Beltway publications and think tanks have heaped praise on Obama and want him to run for President. It’s because he has shown a rare ability to mix charisma and deference to the establishment.

Christianity to be specific.

…

Oh, and just to show how much I love you you two, how many voters do you think even know what the ADA voting averages are, much less think to look them up?

Giggling helplessly here. You give most voters way too much credit, just saying.

Scuse me? I didn’t bring up the ADA numbers. I was just pointing out that it didn’t make any sense to look at them.

Also, are you saying Obama is more religious than Edwards or Clinton? If you are you’ll have to show some evidence of it.

From my perspective Hillary was the most conservative Dem candidate and Obama next and then possibly Richardson and Biden and then Edwards was (sort of) in the middle of the pack with Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel to his left. So, if people dismiss Hillary as status quo then it would make sense for them to consider other people. Obama and Edwards were the other 2 best-polling candidates.

Are the public only able to consider candidates whose names they hear repeatedly by mainstream media?

If they’re just going to act like herd animals and only know what the media tells them, then we’re all up a creek without a paddle.

Maybe it’s that simple: Hillary was out, so Barack got the next crack at it just before the Iowa vote. But, uh, that didn’t appear to be it because after Hillary slumped and Barack bumped up there was a leveling-off. Then there was the last minute bump and neither Hillary nor Edwards took a hit from that.

Still, it appears Obama has the big Mo now and regardless of how he got it this is the time for Edwards to push Hillary out and then tear down the Big O.

I wonder if Dems feel comfortable nominating someone whom they would not have without significant Repub support.

The nuance of where the emotion shows through isn’t evident just reading a transcript. The emotion is when she’s alluding to the need to undo the impact the Bush administration has had on the country at home and abroad.

He might be one of the toughest Presidents, and with the most “street smarts” as anyone we’ve ever had…in recent history at least.

But somebody who has used cocaine too? Do we really need a nominee like that? It’s gonna be hard enough in the South and with all the crap they’ll just invent to throw at him.