Reply #18: OK, here's my case against your case against Hillary

[wyldwolf]

and it has nothing to do with electability, although that's always in the background.

Sure it does. But your interpretation of electability and mine are different. Mine is based on whether a candidate, by words and actions, can appeal to the largest amount of voters. Yours is defined as whether a candidate can appeal to a narrow slice of the electorate, namely, the leftwing of the Democratic party.

But, here's the problem...

We're in trouble. Big trouble. This superpower thing we've been living with for years is becoming more of a burden than an asset. As a nation, we're floundering around without much of a purpose or even a good self-identity any more. Deep down, everyone knows that when you're Number One you're a target, and there are a lot of #2's out there trying harder and catching up. In some ways, many are surpassing us. Peak oil, trade deficits, income disparities, environmental disasters... Name your favorite personal crusade.

Interesting analysis there. Are you suggesting the next president purposely take steps to weaken us? To turn us back from our "superpower" status? To make us NOT #1 anymore? Seems that the Clintons showed quite conclusively in the 90s that we could be #1, the superpower, with a purpose. Dayton Accords, anyone? Kosovo?

So, what we need, as much as a decent manager, is an inspiration. Some of you may remember the kind of inspiration that Kennedy gave us back in the early 60's. Was JFK a great President? Not so hot in my book-- he almost got us into nuclear war with the Soviets and who knows what his economic and foreign policies would have wrought if he'd lived longer. But, he gave us hope and identity, and we didn't get into nuclear war with the Soviets after all.

Seems to me everytime the left calls for an inspiration, that candidate goes down in flames. McGovern, Nader, Dean... This is because they only ever "inspire," again, a narrow slice of the electorate. Pragmatism rules the day. Always.

Certainly JFK was an inspiring leader but he was opposed in his presidential run by that same narrow slice of the electorate, namely, the leftwing of the Democratic party. And thank God he did what he did or else we'd have nukes staring us down from Cuba.

... what we (don't) need now (is) someone who will bring back the past and pick at the scabs, reviving the constant bickering that's been going on, but someone who we all can rally around, and let the professional partisans and doomsayers out there rot in their own little personal hells. By the time the next President gets sworn in, we'll have had 16 years of this nonsense that has accomplished little, if anything.

You are naive if you think there is a Democrat alive or dead that won't "bring back the past and pick at the scabs, reviving the constant bickering that's been going on." Do you think the GOP is going to forget the constant attacks on them from the left these past 8 years? Simply put, there isn't such a Democrat that we can all rally around. By the time the next President gets sworn in, the same nonsense that has been going on since the advent of American political parties will begin again. Did you really think the partisan bickering started 16 years ago?