Third party equals irrelevance or, at best, spoiler in American politics. Leaving the Democratic party to the hacks will only give the hacks a complete and total victory. Getting all the liberals out of the Democratic party is what gives the political hacks wet dreams at night.

That's why Republicans give money to that rat bastard Ralph Nader, who in fact stands for nothing he's ever cared to explain. Every person he draws out of the Democratic party just makes the Republican party that much stronger.

If you want a say in American politics, then you HAVE to be in one of the two major parties. Furthermore, you have to fight for your right to be at the table and you can't sit silent.

Now, I don't mind being in a broad based party, with conservatives and moderates at one end and lefties and liberals on the other. That only reflects America, which is exactly what the parties are supposed to do. What I mind is being in a broad based party where somehow I'm always the scapegoat for everything that goes wrong, just because I'm a liberal and I believe in sticking up for liberal principles and I don't see why I have to shut up about it just because Rush Limbaugh has smeared our name.

Well, I'm sick of it. I think it's crazy for the liberal party to bash liberals. It just doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense that Joe Lieberman is all on a warpath against Ned Lamont and the liberals, when he didn't have a single goddamn unpleasant word to say against Dick Cheney or the Republicans. What's up with that? All of this liberal bashing doesn't make the Democrats more likeable to Americans, it makes them look WEAK and irresolute.

That good Republican, Abraham Lincoln, said a house divided against itself cannot stand. Well the Democrats are a house divided. Liberals are pariahs in their own party and for 30 years we've been asked to keep quiet and let the professional hacks try to bamboozle the public. Well, the professionals have failed, utterly. Maybe it's time to kick out the professionals and the hacks and try being the liberal party again.

...because everybody's mother likes her. That's why she polls well. If you're a strident politician, of any sort, you might not know that. People won't tell you everything because they don't want to set you off.

The fact that she can win is the very reason Republicans get 'engerized' against her. Remember Bill? Republicans were energized to hell and gone against him too. That was also because he could win, and he did. Twice.

The question is whether we want her to win. Maybe we do. Two and a half years is a long time in American politics. Maybe Hillary will figure out how to be a Democrat in that time. If Lieberman is defeated, maybe she'll learn something from that.

The Republicans OTOH have little chance of figuring anything out in that time. Bush is now in full out catatonic punt mode: he's trying to punt all his problems over to the next president. Can he really get away with that? Can he really just not DO anything for two and half years? Can he just let Iraq go to flaming hell and the economy as well? Can he just let gas prices rise and the earth warm up and American jobs go overseas? Is he going to just strum his guitar and say 'shit' with his mouth full for the next two and a half years?

In two and half years, there might not be anybody left who will admit to being a Republican. In that case, Hillary could probably win in a walk. A small dog could probably win in a walk as well. What we really want to think about is who we want to win, not who could.

...who had a bit in the notorious 'Candy' many years ago.

This is a really sick and sad country if we imagine 2 to five year olds are even going to be aware of any of this.

...where the Sun laughs like a maniac.

...would make a really excellent cupholder.

Jimmy Carter was a born again Southern Baptist who cut government programs, built up the military, proposed a crazy scheme to run nukes up and down on railroad tracks, funded the mujahideen in Afghanistan (with consequent blowback in 2001), and claimed to have seen UFOs and attack rabbits. He was a precursor to Ronald Reagan. He also got into a pointless and damaging fight over health care with Ted Kennedy.

Mondale and Dukakis were union and party establishment choices. Neither were exciting and both were wishy washy. Both were considered 'safe' choices. Dukakis in particular claimed to be a little bit liberal and a little bit conservative. Recall that he ran on 'competence' and not on ideology.

Unfortunately, George Bush the First had a long and hardly assailable resume of accomplishment, starting with being the youngest fighter pilot in WWII, going on to be an oilman, head of the CIA, ambassador to China, and VP. Dukakis OTOH had a record in Mass. that could be picked apart and was. He would have been far better advised to run on ideology.

For 30 years, the Democratic primary system has been deliberately front loaded to favor front runners and the party establishment choice, and to exclude anyone remotely like George McGovern. This is why we have 'Super Tuesday,' a set of mostly Southern primaries. This system has successfully shut out rabble rousers like Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, Jerry Brown, Jesse Jackson, Bill Bradley, and Howard Dean. However, it hasn't been too good at picking winners. Why you blame this all on liberals, I don't know. Southern Democrats and labor folks designed the system. These guys are hardly liberals.