There's still time to mount a campaign for your favorite African American Lesbian ex incarcerated cop killer handicapped Muslim anarchist candidate. You haven't completely shot yourselves in the face yet.

Alex Koppelman nails it. Democrats are perceived as weak because they tremble before GOP sabre rattling, not because their national defense positions are weak. John Kerry would have won if he had just had the balls to say, "As an officer and a gentleman, I dare you to say that to my face".

I am an anomaly as an anti-war conservative. I am interested in a candidate who walks the walk, not just talks the talk in stopping our current path of self-destructive aggression in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Hey Renascent,

Let me guess - You're a Republican!

First of all, it is waaaayyy long past time for Democrats to stop being nice.

If you want to talk about not being nice, let's talk about the Republicans.

Let's talk about the way they've Red-baited their opponents at least since the Vietnam War. During the Reagan administration, I remember Reagan telling Democrats in congress that they were Communist sympathizers if they didn't vote for Contra aid. (Sadly, the Dems took the bait and gave Reagan whatever he wanted)

Let's talk about how Free Speech Zones!

Or how the Repugs and their allies accused Bill and Hillary Clinton of arranging the killings of Vince Foster or Ron Brown.

And why is it that if a Democrat gets out of going to illegal wars like Vietnam, he's a "Draft Dodger" but when Dick Cheney does it, he simply had "Other Priorities"?

Or what about Willie Horton in the 1988 Presidential Race? Tell me that wasn't about race-baiting.

I can go on and on about how the Neo-Fascists (re: Repugs) like to hypocritically slam those who differ with them, but I'd wear my fingers to the stub.

Face, Renascent, when you and your fellow Neo-Fascists complain about Democrats being mean, you're nothing but a bunch of cheap thugs who bitch because your longtime punching bags are finally giving you what you dished out for so long.

It's just a shame my fellow liberals and Democrats have taken so long to come around and stand up for themselves.

Nobody can be worse than Bush.

Any one of the Democratic candidates will make a better president than what we have now. Don't you get it? We cannot afford another Republican president to pick one more Supreme Court Justice or pick one more unnecessary fight around the world.

Hillary's my girl because I want to make history and see a woman president in my lifetime, but I can live with any of the other guys, preferably Obama or Biden. II'd be mildly irritated to have to watch Edwards crooked mouth for 4 years, but I can live with that, too.)

Fighting between yourselves is no solution. This campaign is to damn long, and you are hurting yourselves no end by pounding on each other. Stop denigrating and concentrate on the necessitioes, Bush is who you have to defeat, concentrate on his stupidities , take a hint from Jon Stewart and make him a laughing stock. Maybe a few of you should get out of the race, in spite of your egos, you lack the support needed to even get into the primaries. Remember the country needs a change in parties. Get rid of the Bushits.

To me, most of what Westen's attacking is related to the emphasis on DLC-instigated weaker-than-tea triangulation, focus grouping and pollmongering, and the emphasis on out-of-touch campaign advisors -- these three banes continue to scour away any kind of grit any Democratic candidate may possess. Kicking those things to the curb would go far in helping Democratic candidates behave more humanly, and would get them back in touch with everyday Americans, get them talking about real things that matter to them, instead of what their handlers think is polling well at any given momen.

Some authenticity would go a long way, contrasted with fighting the Republicans' faux machismo with some Democratic faux machismo. Let's face it, the GOP masters the chickenhawk swagger (I'd characterize it as the inversion of Teddy Roosevelt's axiom -- the GOP speak loudly and carry small sticks, whereas the Democrats speak softly and don't even carry sticks).

The Democrats needn't embrace the GOP's approach, so much as they need to simply fight back. They need to stake out their turf and fight for it, and for the country's interests, instead of trying to guess what'll play best in Peoria. It doesn't have to do with appearing tough, so much as it has to involve them being willing to actually fight.

For the people invoking cowboy imagery, I agree that Shane is the better archetype, instead of Will Kane in High Noon (whose moral inflexibility probably inspires our current president). Shane's not even swaggery; he's just a good guy who kicks ass. I could see Obama pulling a Shane in this election.

Unless...

unless there's another terrorist attack on our soil in the next 18 months, the connection to George Bush is going to be a tremendous liability for any candidate ...

That line is haunting in so many ways. Given how dismal things are for them of late, that's kind of the GOP ace in the hole, and I fear that they'll try it themselves, if they can't get Al Qaeda to do it for them, just to short-circuit the electorate one more time. I know we expect better of the party of Watergate, the October Surprise, Iran-Contra, Willie Horton, 9/11, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo (to name a few), but I don't put anything past them, anymore. They're no-good varmints, and the Democrats need to simply fight them, instead of simply simpering.

While very interesting, I couldn't find many things in Mr. Westen's perspective on the Democratic candidates' messages with which I agree. First, Mr. Westen not so subtlely suggests the Democrats lose to the Republicans because they're too weak on defense. Well, I'd like to ask him what kind of defense is being rendered by the mass murder of innocent Arabs? Isn't the Democrats' problem more a case of not being able to tell the truth about our illegal and immoral militarism in the Middle East? This isn't a question of who's stronger. It's more a question of who's making prudent decisions and who's not. Further, has it escaped Mr. Westen's attention that George W. Bush has NEVER been elected president? In 2000, he was SE-lected by the Felonious Five Supremes and, in 2004, the election was a massive fraud. There's a mountain of evidence to prove it. Voters didn't come out to vote in significantly larger numbers in 2004 because they were satisfied with the monstrous Bush regime. Quite the contrary. The American people NEVER voted this monster into the White House and misinformed folks like Mr. Westen have got to stop spreading this idiotic propaganda. Next, Mr. Westen says the Democrats have to start appealing to the emotional side of the voter. Again, he seems to be oblivious to the fact all this emotionalism got us into an illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq. We don't need more of this infantile approach. We need leaders, not cheer leaders. That is to say, a person who can think clearly under pressure. Responding to the mob is so 16th century. In case he didn't notice, we're living in the 21st century Global Village. Then, Mr. Westen makes another false statement, suggesting the Republicans have the upper hand on moral issues. While this may be the prevailing understanding, the facts paint a different picture. Unless Mr. Westen has been living in a cave for the last several years, I'm sure he's aware of the Republicans' problems with homoerotic sex, call girls and other forms of philandery. Statistics clearly indicate the areas of our nation with the greatest problems with divorce, teen pregnancy and family violence are the areas with the most religiously conservative people. In other words, they may have a lot of religion, but very little spiritual enlightenment, which is not the same thing. What the Democrats really need is to start thinking and acting outside of the rigid political box the Bush mob an our useless media try to place them. They need to start running ads which state war is obsolete in the Global Village. Quibbling over specious positions about who would be "stronger" is ridiculous. I'd prefer arguments based on who'd be wiser when confronted with serious issues. A whole bunch of emotionalism is no good no matter which party touts it. We need intelligent, resouceful leadership, not ignorant, disinterested cheer leadership. Mr. Westen spends his time badmouthing the Democratic fish without realizing the real problem perhaps is with our American bowl.

Franklin L. Johnson

starhelix@aol.com