You could not pay me enough to let someone disembowel my child. This does not mean that if this happened, I would deserve some portion of $25 million in compensation. This is not a large industrial polluter that poisoned a town. The fine is out of proportion to justice. I guess you are 100% in favor of the little notes on some plastics bags that say “this is not a toy” or the dozen warnings to not be an idiot on a ladder.
BTW: what was on the pool drain cover already. I remain very skeptical of these cases. the Wiki author appeared to be slanting it very favorable to Edwards to start with and I still find it wrong.
I love your argument though. You must use the same one on people against the death penalty. “Oh yeah, well what if it was your child that got murdered?”
Sorry, I think I’m behind you guys. You already discussed Lincoln.
Again, because a person looks a certain way doesn’t mean he can’t project strength. Ones build has nothing to do with the content of ones character.
I think you guys are confusing this with a seperate issue, and that is whether he is electable. His appearance may very well affect that, but not because it says anything about his character.
People vote a particular way for any number of stupid reasons. Remember that people were saying they wouldn’t vote for Kerry because he “looks like Frankenstein”. Whether you thought Kerry would have been a good or bad president, “looking like Frankenstein” is a stupid thing to base your vote on. I have no doubt that there are people in this country who would base their vote on whether someone “looks like a nerd” is too tall, is too short, doesn’t have enough hair, is too black, or is too female. But those are not rational decisions.
Of course not. But it’s a handy thing to have in the quiver. I’m sure those who are calling Kucinich an “elf” or some such would never think of saying so if they did not find his politics objectionable.
MSNBC reports that Edwards will be announcing his candidacy this weekend.
They also report that Evan Bayh has announced he will not run.
I could get behind Edwards or Obama or Gore. I suppose would vote for Hillary if she were nominated, but it would be a forlorn vote, much like a vote for Kerry. I don’t think she has a prayer of winning in a general election.
What if she took the bottom slot on the ticket? I rather expect we’ll get a woman VP before we get a woman POTUS; you have to break these barriers by stages.
The wise politico knows this, which is why Bush was an easy sell. His backers studied the market and provided a tailor-made product. While it might stick in the craw of people who are able to exercise greater control over emotionality and therefore who can think rationally, in order to elect a good man to POTUS, it will be necessary to find a good man who is marketable to the extent that he will appeal to those (who seem to be the majority) who make decisions emotionally.
It’s pointless arguing that life ought not be that way. It ought not, but it is and that can’t be repaired. So now the rational choice is to abandon hope of persuading people to elect someone despite his image and find someone whose image is appealing enough to get him elected.
No, I don’t agree that irrationality is a “handy thing to have in the quiver”. Your second point might be correct: I can imagine closet conservatives who are a little ashamed of the Republicans right now might not want to admit their rightward leanings, but still are annoyed by liberal politicians like Kucinich, so they’re gonna make up some bullshit like “He looks nerdy” rather than just admit “I’m a right winger so I don’t like him”.
That’s pretty much exactly what I already said.
Apparently blowing by a couple of you.
I already pointed out that people are conflating true character with electability. Your response seems to be to continue to do so.
This is the kind of focus-group thinking that I’ve been complaining about. In a discussion of why Edwards is a good candidate, you have to ignore his performance in the last Presidential election (and the primaries) AND you don’t say much about his politics. I’m not sure that being anti-war is a major asset at this point, and he not only voted for the war, he co-sponsored the resolution that gave Bush the power to invade. And, again, he’s done nothing for the last two years.
The fact that he was a lawyer was well-publicized in '04. It didn’t help him, in fact it did the opposite.
Clinton doesn’t say that at all. At least, not in anything I’ve read.
Um. No. Did I not point out why I think he has ‘true character’? What I’m saying is that the two are not diametrically opposed and that the Dems need a candidate who offers the whole package.
So you think we should nominate Kucinich? If not, why not? (I’m sure it’s principled opposition to his positions, and not any unworthy concerns about electability.)
Let’s face facts. Electability is a valid consideration when deciding whom to nominate. The problem is that we Democratic primary voters don’t seem to have the vaguest notion of what constitutes “electability” in a general election. Hence we nominate a Kerry, or a Dukakis.
The problem isn’t “focus group thinking.” The problem is that Democratic primary voters have historically been a crappy focus group.
We’re not talking about whether a person **is **strong or not, we’re talking about whether he **appears **strong. All those characteristics together: looks, voice, manner leave an impression on people.
Kucinich looks and acts like a nerdy guy, and a lot of people get turned off because of that. It’s not much different than how Dukakis sank his campaign with that one picture of him in the tank with the helmet.
I agree with whoever it was back there who said Gore would probably lay back and wait until Hillary & Obama punch each other to exhaustion, then step into the ring and say, “Here I am!” It’s how Nixon, another VP defeated in a tight, disputed election got himself in: George Romney, the early frontrunner for the Reps in 1968, said one too many stupid things, and Nixon stepped up and grabbed the nomination. (That Romney’s not related to Mitt, far as I know, but he was a Mormon as well.)
Also, don’t underestimate Gore: he’s got the green vote because of his movie, and he’s been making pretty strong statements against our current Prez’s liking of torture, revoking of habeas corpus, and general claiming of unlimited Executive powers, which gets him the more traditional liberal voter.
Going against this theory is that Nixon laid the groundwork for his return by raising money and campaigning for Republican candidates in 1966, an election in which the Reps trounced the Dems in the House, in a manner reminiscent of this just-passed 2006 election where the Dems did that to the Reps, as a result of which by 1968 he had a good piece of the party owing him favors. Gore doesn’t have this to back him up; Hillary seems to have the establishment pretty sewn up from what I can see.
People said Hillary was going to do the same thing throughout 2004. I don’t think it’s possible, these days, to get into the primaries without setting up the necessary organization way ahead of time. Even aside from the steps that (I think) you are legally required to take, it’s just too complicated. And if you take the required steps and the normal steps, people know you’re running and you can’t step in at the last minute.
