Harrington-

These democrats you want to elect are just like the ones we have now: they are useless cowards. I believe enabling them is the wrong thing to do. Instead, I think it is time to reject them. This is what Cindy Sheehan is doing and it is what I too will do until they decide to grow spines. Even though you and I probably have very similar political leanings, I am, in contrast to you, working AGAINST the election of a coward democrat. I would gladly get on board your election train with all its luxuries if there were something to vote for.

As I watch each debate, it becomes more and more obvious that there are two levels of candidates-- there are the pros, and then there is Obama. The guy has *nothing* to say. He is the epitome of an empty suit. I don't even see this alleged charisma people keep talking about. Hillary can hang with the real players to some extent, but the unfortunate truth for Democrats is that she is a double-talking corporatist who actually IS afraid of taking on the Republicans. Battle scars? How about her weak-kneed voting record?

A consequence of the fashionability of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is that it is all too often offhandedly recommended for situations that are beyond its scope. CBT is usually indicated for conditions such as OCD and panic disorder. It is about focusing on your cognitive and behavioral products (not causes) and attempting to correct them with pre-scripted exercises over short time spans. It is not particularly concerned with relationships or personal insight. It sounds to me like LW might want to venture to learn more about himself and how he relates to other people. That would suggest a therapist with a psychodynamic/analytic leaning more than a CB therapist.

That's a sincere plea. You post too much and for no good reason. My Man Godfrey wrote one of the most reasonable comments on this lame thread and you (Holly Capote) snap back at him with "You're a Drama Queen!". What are you, twelve years old? You have contributed nothing of value here. You did not even come close to refuting or even addressing Elephantman, even though you tried like 11 times. Please consider posting in a more judicious manner because your current puerile style (and quantity) is noxious.

One of my favorite debate exchanges was when Hillary went for the low low blow with the slumlord comment. It was so transparently desperate and disingenuous and hackish. Her unintended message was "I will make up anything to score a political point". Her credibility is zero, and so these new attacks are useless, just more "blah blah nuclear something or other I will make up anything I have to..."

I wish a credible source would attack him, toughen him up a bit because the GOP is smarter than the HRC campaign and will be eviscerating him from much more believable sources.

I voted for the guy, but you gotta admit-- he either says absolutely nothing or repeats what Clinton said 10 seconds ago almost verbatim. I keep hoping that he will vindicate us by saying just one thing either profound or original or at least just not look like such a damn lightweight on the debate stage. This is getting really worrisome.

I am always amazed by the lunacy that emerges when Democrats get lathered up about "the spoiler issue". Do they engage Nader and his voters? No, they are too arrogant and insecure. Do they work on electoral reforms such as instant-runoff voting, which would so simply and easily nullify the "spoiler problem". No, they are too ineffectual to make something like that happen.

What do they do then? They bitch and moan, make false, reductive allegations about 2000, obstruct (illegally), and malign the character of a great patriot who is only exercising his rights.

The response is pathetic and the reasoning is illogical. There is no such thing as a spoiler candidate, only spoiler voters. If I want to vote for Nader, that is my choice and my business. You can blame ME for being a spoiler because I'M the one who made the choice to not vote for the Democrat, but it makes no goddamn sense to blame Nader just for being a choice.

The "spoilers" are the voters who vote the way THEY want to, not the way YOU want them to. Harass them, obstruct them, claim their votes as your own, but leave Nader alone. Instead, you need to come to ME the voter and convince ME that Obama or Hillary is the better candidate. Or make the case that I ought to abandon all the issues and my conscience and instead vote based solely on how I expect everyone else to vote. But that's hard work and a hard case to make. It's easier to just go after Nader himself.

Naw, that's too crazy. Instead, we'll get to work on the flag burning problem!

Gotta love Democrats...

David McReynolds and Monica Moorehead, both leftists, each got enough votes in florida to cost Gore the presidency.

So no, I will not admit that Nader cost Gore the election.

Will you admit that the Democratic party is useless?

I think the answer is that in a debate Nader would reveal what a true change platform would look like--single payer health care, an end to corporate personhood, end of the drug war, etc. This would expose the fact that Obama is actually not offering change, he is merely using the word expediently and fraudulently. His platform is the same as Hillary's-- the same old safe, spineless, moderate Democrat platform. In short, Obama's illusion of change would be shattered. So there is good reason to want to obstruct Nader.

is because 250,000 Democrats in Florida voted for Bush. Think about it for just. one. second. please.