why do you have such a low opinion of these people, called "voters"? why is there an assumption that they are programmed robots? it's true ... media coverage is alarmingly banal. childish, at times. but why assume that all other voting humans in this country are operating at the same sub-standard emotional levels as these media fools? yes ... some people are herded like cows, easily influenced. a war got strated as a result of this. but i want to suggest this: that the liberal "big fear" (that the country will get misled and horrible things will happen) is the same energetic as the conversative "big fear" (that a big bad terrorist will kill everybody). in order to move forward as a country, i believe these big fears must be confronted and moved through. i'm not suggesting that you personally "fear" this ... but I suggest that your comments, and Glenn's, suggest a mistrust. Maybe people are catching on ... that involvement in politics is a very important thing. maybe that's why reporters are spinning this and spinning that ... and maybe the people generally don't listen. maybe they are discerning, aware, intelligent folk ... just like you.

yep. i agree. smart points.

perhaps you and glenn can start a training program: "how to sift through the bullshit and find your true beliefs? or ... how i learned to stop worrying and love the f***ed up media"

god bless thrasher

if being elected president came with this rumpelstiltskin requirement, who do you think would really want the job?

let's pretend for a moment that the "real" president, once chosen, is magically erased from everyone's collective memory and a "pretend" president is put in place. the pretend president gets to wield the scepter of power in public, but the "real" president makes all decisions behind the scenes ... to no one else's knowledge or awareness. they lead with no recognition or glory. no one but the real and pretend presidents know of this secret, and they have a spell of silence placed on them. any efforts that the real president makes to influence, manipulate, or alter this spell or corral benefit to a special group ahead of the country as a whole would cause a proportionate amount of misfortune on the people dear to the real president. The real president is compelled to lead in a truly just, and unnoticed way.

Who, of these candidates, would want this job? if they didn’t get to make millions of dollars in speeches? or help out their pals in the oil business?

this is my evaluation for picking a candidate. you don't have to adopt it ... but all this stuff about "electability" or "experience" is bullshit compared to this. for me.

if you buy this rationale ... which probably means that you think this country is in a crisis that most won't even admit to ... please research your candidate's positions, please research how they respond to power ... or the loss of power, how they are reactive/calm in crisis, how they clearly express who they are and what they stand for.

i cannot fathom how anyone who desires change would want clinton as their president. i cannot fathom how anyone who has been paying attention to the corruption rampant in government ... repub AND democrat ... wouldn't want change.

it strikes me that you are operating from a feminist purism. i define that as wanting an electable woman to be president because she is a woman. asking others to give up their purism for yours doesn't make sense.

hi ... i don't claim to understand feminism. if it suits you, or others, better replace the word "feminist" as in "feminist purism" with "wanting a woman president over everything else purism." the feminist part isn't my main point or interest ... it is this: imploring people to denounce their purism for another's is silly. only those who believe that a woman "will not get this chance for a hundred years" will vote for clinton because of this. those who don't believe this, or think other issues are more important, aren't going to change their minds.

as an added point ... how do those that understand feminism rationalize the self-fulfilling negativity of "there will never be another woman to blah blah blah" idea? strikes me that this kind of language is the stuff that keeps young girls from trying radical things, not a failed clinton presidental run.

please name one policy that is "to the right of clinton's"

a good place to research this ... for yourself ... is on http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

he has a progressive, liberal agenda ... and he is building a coalition of centrist independents and republicans.