Yes, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool lefty, BUT...

[Speck Tater]

As polarized as our country is right now, what we need in 2008 to heal this divide is somebody right smack in the middle. I don't know who specifically, but who other than a radically central candidate could possibly pull the country back together so that we can once again treat each other with the respect that is necessary for a civil society?

How can we make progress when the opposition demonizes us and we demonize them? We need to be capable of working toegther and that means mutual respect and that means an end to the hate speak on both sides and that means left and right pulling together under the banner of a centrist.

I'll take two steps back and put my flame-proof vest on while I wait for people's reaction.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

1. We need someone who fits neither the rightwing nor leftwing stereotypes

but we also don't need any bland, wonkish centrists, either.

We need someone who breaks all the molds and blindsides the Republicanites by not being someone they know how to fight against.

[DrGonzoLives]

2. Right idea, but who?

Wes Clark is the only one that immediately comes to mind, if only because no one can hang any of the Democrats-hate-the-military or Democrats-hate-America albatross on him.

Problem is, mushball middlists like Evan Bayh are just that, mushball. Great charisma, but otherwise bland as filtered water.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. The "right person" for 2008 may not even be on the national radar yet

Who had heard of either Howard Dean or Wesley Clark in 2000? (Dennis Kucinich had already been in the national news as mayor of Cleveland, but not for years.)

I think we need a coherent vision that is demonstrably different from the Republicans, plus all the Dems need to go in for assertiveness training--which is how to be forceful without being offensive. Then we need to run some strong candidates for Senate, Congress, and governorships in 2006.

Then the newly invigorated presidential contenders can start jostling in 2007.

[Cadence]

3. I don't know I heard

repeatedly more republicans say that if Howard Dean would have had the nomination they would have voted for him but didn't like Kerry so they went for Bush. The reason that they gave was back to the soundbite theory that was on here earlier today, they knew what Dean stood for. I actually think it matters less if they are centrist or far left and more if they are able to combat the black and white soundbite machine with the same language. No complex thoughts or nuances.

As sad as that is to say. :(

[Hippo_Tron]

17. Dean didn't have several hundred million dollars spent against him

Believe me, if Dean had been the nominee, they would've been saying that they would have voted for Kerry if he had been the nominee.

[wyldwolf]

26. funny, I repeatedly heard the exact opposite

..although Dean is as centrist as they come, his supporters and the media portrayed him as so far left that I never heard anything but ridicule directed at him from the right.

[Cadence]

31. well not from the gun "toten" crowd

they were convinced Kerry was going to take their guns and Dean would have let them keep them.

[Nicky Scarfo]

4. Bullshit. The Republicans are steadfast in their ideological purity.

At a national leadership level, at least, the Democrats are not. Kerry was a wiahy-washy son-of-a-bitch and so was Clinton. Both pandered to the Republican agenda, and tried to present themselves as a softer, kinder version of that ideology/agenda instead of presenting their own ideology and agenda.

What is needed is political courage, vision and strategy, not centrist pandering. The hard-line conservative strategists figured out the solution was not moving to the political center, but a long-term organizing strategy which moved the political center to the right. It amazes me that so many on the left have not learned any lessons from this, and insist that the solution is to be led by the conservative movement rather than taking leaderhip themselves and organizing a leftist movement.

This is defeatist bullshit. We don't need Republican bogeymen to pin the blame on. We're our own worst enemy.

[grease_monkey]

6. correct!

The Dems need to figure out where they can differ from the GOP other than in the wedge issues of abortion and gay marriage. All the news media said was that there was a real difference between the candidates this year. I disagree. Not that much difference in what they said. A lot of DUers claimed there was a world of difference, but they were seeing things that were not there.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. Bullshit

Kerry wanted healthcare for all Americans, Bush wanted sick children to die. Kerry wanted to build strong alliances, Bush wanted to conquer every country that had oil and tell the other world powers to fuck themselves. Bush ran on the politics of gay bashing, Kerry didn't. Bush was pro life, Kerry was pro choice. Bush was for the death penalty, Kerry was against it. Bush was for unlimited government searches and seizures, Kerry was for restricting use of the patriot act. I can name more if you'd like.

[Djinn]

37. Kerry wanted healthcare

but what would he have done to actually see it happen, the same as Bill?

Kerry wanted strong alliances - he also beleived that the US couldn't "cut and run" from Iraq so that alliance was NEVER going to eventuate while US forces where still there, besides would a Kerry "alliance" with a couple of not very powerful nations been any more valid than Bush "alliance" because technically the invasion of Iraq WAS a "coalition effort"

Bush anti-abortion and Kerry pro-choice, well the Repugs havn't tried to ban it yet and they'll never give up such a great wedge but Clinton the "pro-choicer" signed a bill into law requiring women under the age of 18 to notify a parent before having an abortion--and he opposed funding abortions for poor women.

While running for president, Clinton made a number of promises to win pro-choice support--such as a Freedom of Choice Act and repealing the Hyde Amendment--but he never delivered, even though Democrats controlled both the House and Senate during his first two years in office.

Bush was for the death penalty, Kerry was against it but he was never going to attempt to change it so moot point

Bush was for unlimited government searches and seizures, Kerry was for restricting use of the patriot act. He voted for it though didn't he? What if someone had voted for the measures against Jews in 1930's Germany but suggested the Star of David could be a little smaller, or that Kristalnacht shouldn't have happened because the Nazi's could ahve just confiscated the goods and propery belonging to Jewish business' rather than smashing the shit out of them - we could have had simple internment camps rather than extermination camps...that person would be considered at the very best a weak willed unethical loser with no principals.

If moving to the centre is what you want to do can I suggest people join the Republican party and move that to the centre, given the distances between both parties and the "centre" the repugs need more of a push.

[Hippo_Tron]

48. First of all, we're comparing Kerry to Bush, not Clinton to Kerry to Bush

But since you bring Clinton up, I'll defend his record as well.

Clinton was unbashedly centrist after Newt Gingrich and the GOP came to power, I won't deny that. But Clinton did the best that he could with what he had to work with. Consider the fact that the Republican congress had the sole mission of destroying him. Healthcare for all Americans within private institutions didn't even pass the democratic congress. Do you think that public healthcare would've had any shot in a GOP congress? Clinton knew how to play the game better than most democrats in recent days. He knew how to play the game well enough to win, just not well enough to do what he wanted to do. When I look at Clinton I see a flawed man with a good heart who had so much potential to do great things for this country but missed his chance.

Now, on to Kerry.

Abortion - We'll see what happens with Roe v Wade but I don't agree with your hypothesis. I think that if the GOP doesn't deliver on this, then there will a backlash of the religious right which will result in their collapse, they know this and they know it pretty damn well. Kerry was 100% pro-choice as far as I could tell. He voted AGAINST the partial birth act and was for ways to get out of parential notification.

Strong Alliances - Kerry wouldn't have pulled out of Iraq, that is true. Personally I'm torn on this issue by the simple fact that I don't know enough about it. There's reasons that we should stay in (you break, you buy, and stabilizing the region) and there's reasons that we should leave (they really don't like us there). But Kerry would've been able to gain MORE international support than shrub because he simply would've allowed foreign countries some of the profits in rebuilding Iraq instead of giving it all to Halliburton. It's a greed motivated system and it sucks, but when the country faces prospects of a draft, I think that the US could use all of the help that we can get in Iraq.

Healthcare - I think this would've been a reality IF we managed to win back a democratic congress. I think that the fall of the old democratic congress was largely when southern conservatives made another big turnover to the GOP in the early nineties. Remember that Richard Shelby of Alabama used to be a Democratic Senator, before he switched to the GOP in 1994. We don't have anymore Richard Shelby's on the democratic side in the senate and very few if any in the house. The only person that we HAD in the caucus in recent days who was that right wing, was Zell Miller. The democrats in congress, although smaller, are more liberal than they were when they were in power. I think that if we win back congress, our majority will be liberal enough to pass some sort of healthcare initiative.


Patriot Act -

Kerry voted for it just like Paul Wellstone and Ted Kennedy. I don't think that too many people would call them centrists. I admit that I truly do admire Russ Feingold for his courage on this issue and I will definately consider supporting him if he chooses to seek the democratic nomination in '08. At the same time, I understand the circumstances behind the vote for the Patriot Act, and to his credit, Kerry did vote for the sunset clause.

[bvar22]

43. You are comparing...

...a mushy middle Democrat to an extreme right wing ideolog. Of course you will find some differences, but on many important issues, these two merged.

[Hippo_Tron]

46. I'll take the moderate dem over the right wing idealogue any day

And yes I am quite to the left of John Kerry and the DLC, and I would prefer a president that is to the left of Kerry. Realistically, I would've settled with Kerry for the time being.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. Disagree

You're right that we need political courage, vision, and strategy but we need to take whoever we can get that has these things. If that person happens to be a moderate, I'd take him. BTW the conservative movement succeeded partly because of our own fault. It collapsed in 1992 and it should've stayed that way, but we made too many political blunders. The ultra-right movement will collapse again, but the qustion is, will we be ready to pick up the pieces?

[m berst]

22. what ideology?

I am no longer sure that they have an ideology. They have a pseudo-ideology that they use to pander to voters. I think they are interested in raw power and total control. They aren't following any conservative principles, and I think their supposed Christian values pitch is a ruse, and that they will dump the Christians once they are through using them. If that is true, what is left of any ideology?

They are pure, I think, but not ideologically pure. They are purely about power, and purely without ideology, principles or values.

[Hippo_Tron]

49. I have a hard time believing that Rick Santorum doesn't have an ideology

I mean that guy is one sick fucker. I'd say that the GOP is evenly split, people that use the Christian right for power, and members of the Christian right.

[azoth]

5. How is that possible?

Given the fact that the right is staunchy ANTI the very basic things the left believes in, like Liberty and Justice for All, how on earth can there be a viable middle ground? I think too many lines in the sand have been drawn. The whole hate-climate that has surrounded the last four years isn't going to vanish. I can tell you that my inlaws are never going to happily accept abortion or gay marriage - it's not going to happen.

I'm not saying that you're wrong. I think theoretically - *ideally* - you're right on. I'm saying that I think the odds are so long that it hurts, kwim?

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Clark, but before you flame me .........

take a good look at him and leave your preconceptions behind.

The repubs can't best him on their war and terror stewardship

He is in favor of appropriate gun rights/laws (owns 20+ guns and looks good in cammo)

Pro choice

Christian/Southern/Openly religious

Pro civil unions with a federalist view of gay marriage

Appeals on a visceral level to the rural voter

Little if any serious baggage

A far better campaigner than when he started

Just give him a look-see.

Yes, I support him and am biased, but that's only because **I** studied him before I backed him.

[Hippo_Tron]

12. Clark rocks...

You forgot to mention that while he appeals to moderates on a large scale, Michael Moore endorsed him. He can really bring in the progressive base as well.

[Turn CO Blue]

8. What a bunch of BULL$h#@!!

Do you all really think the voters give a $h*% about whether we move farther to the left or right?! They don't give a flying fu^$!

WHAT WE NEED IS A SHINING ROCK STAR. Someone with mega-personality and charisma. I am sorry, but I am feeling blue and a little bit pissy tonight, and I am now convinced that the presidential election has deteriorated into nothing more than a popularity contect.

So the Dems had better get smart. We need a sexy, smart, ultra good-looking Harrison Ford type who commands the room and oozes leadership and sincerity.

We can hire all the brainiacs underneath him who understand policy, nuance, and diplomacy -- but we need a star at the top.

We also need to f'ing FIRE the dinosaurish DNC, and hire a top New York advertising/branding company instead. The new political scene is all about:
1. mastering the soundbite
2. mastering the imagery of success
3. marketing and branding (making people have an emotional connection to the product). We need better logos, much, much better ads, better TV spots, better psychology techniques, and trendier scripts/speeches.
4. plugging into demographics and direct marketing of the voter

Come on, wake up! A commercial doesn't just sell furniture polish - it is selling the idea of SUCCESS by showing a $4000 hardwood table with the polish. And make no mistake, we are selling something here!
The sheeple are so dumbed down that they have all been reduced to CONSUMERS. The Dems will have to learn to lead them around by their pathetic need to appear successful and trendy.

Nobody understands motivations and what drives people better than ad agencies!

With today's society, you can't win on the ISSUES anymore! People on DU may understand every little nuance of the arguments, but the majority of voters are persuaded by the cult of personality and the politics of EMOTION.

From a Marketing perspective, people want to associate with something that makes them feel good or that is supposed to make them look better or appear trendy. Don't believe it? Why do people pay $5 for a coffee at Starbuck's when they can get coffee at the gas station for .79 cents? Because they like the way buying at Starbuck's makes them FEEL. They want to be seen with the Starbuck's cup. Now, that is quality branding. And that's what the Dems need.

I say we hire an actor to play our presidential candidate. It worked for the Reagan era. The aides and cabinet can do all the work of running the country.

________________________
Snippy in Colorado

[lucabrasi]

9. Ummmm

Why do people pay $5 for a coffee at Starbuck's when they can get coffee at the gas station for .79 cents? Because they like the way buying at Starbuck's makes them FEEL. They want to be seen with the Starbuck's cup.

Or maybe because gas station coffee sucks. Starbucks isn't the best coffee out there but it certainly is leaps and bounds beyound anything in a gas station.

[Turn CO Blue]

10. Starbuck's didn't invent "better" coffee

they merely invented a better way to market better coffee.

The point is that nobody, I mean nobody, has stronger loyalty in their base than Starbuck's.

It helps to develop a better quality of product than your competitor in any marketing campaign, but the Dems already start with that from the get-go. We just don't package it well. Or sell it well. Or generate much enthusiasm in other target demographics. Yet.

[Hippo_Tron]

14. You're right, but it MUST be easier said than done...

I've been pondering this since the election actually. John Kerry is not stupid, he's smarter than I am and probably smarter than most people on this board. John Kerry also had political experience, he knew the game very well. Yet we kept hearing reports that his campaign was managed so poorly. How is it that he didn't know how to hire people that could manage the media like Bush's people do. Surely there are people in the democratic party that can do this, so why don't we use them? My only conclusion is that this is easier said than done.

[m berst]

21. not sure TCB

I don't want to knock your interesting and passionate post down, but rather offer a different view for your consideration.

Could it be that the marketing style, which you described so well, when applied to politics will preclude a liberal agenda from ever being advanced? What I mean is that there may be something about that approach that pre-determines what can and what can't be sold.

Yes, absolute power over a dumbed down flock of sheep can be achieved by copying advertising and marketing techniques from the corporate world, but maybe it is self-contradictory to try to sell people on the idea of thinking for themselves with techniques that do their thinking for them.

Maybe it is the techniques that the Republicans are using that are the problem and we should fight against those. The techniques they use do more than help them win. They debase the political discussion, stupefy the voters, and mask rather than advance their agenda. If we copied the techniques they are using, we would have to be them with just a different brand name. The Republicans aren't really selling an alternative ideology to the Democrats, they are selling the idea that hey! who needs an ideology? In fact, who needs to think critically at all? Their so-called issues are just whatever is easy to sell so that people will be peruaded to vote for them. They certainly aren't trying to sell people on what they are really doing, quite the contrary. Their marketing program requires them to hide what they are doing to succeed.

[Quill Pen]

44. Debasing the political discussion

As long as we keep thinking we're too good to take the low road, we'll lose.

The Democrats need another Louis Howe. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/32_f_roosevelt/f_roosevelt_early.html

We need a slick, shadowy stylist and spin master. Somewhere out there, there has to be a left-bank Karl Rove, a master puppetteer for a progressive candidate. I love Joe Trippi, but the guy's too human, too warm-blooded. No, I'm talking about someone who's half reptile, who can eat a live rat for dinner without chewing and still get his man (woman?) on the 6:00 news.

The Repugs call us "liberal whiners." Well, they're right. They pull off everything from clandestine terror attacks to election theft, all funded and assisted by corporate leviathans. In the end, since we Dems have spent the battle working to be as scrupulously, fastidiously fair, ethical and inclusive as possible, that's all we have the energy and the power to do, is complain.

For example, I certainly admire Bev Harris and the Black Box Voting crew for their dogged pursuit of voting enfranchisement, I really do. But I'd be lying if I said I believed any of that was really going somewhere. If Rove and his operatives believed her or her org to be a genuine threat to their election-hijacking machinations, I don't think it would be long before she'd be found dead "of mysterious causes" in a motel room.

Fair and ethical obviously isn't working for us. Fighting a good, clean fight isn't working. Assuming that the average voter is sentient enough to understand his own interests, if we'll only explain them the right way, has proved to be our downfall. Yes, by all means, let's sink to the Brand X level; let's use the genius of advertising science, or any other nonviolent means of persuasion, on our short-bus-riding countryfolk.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. The depressing thing

is that this strategy would probably work.

Tom Lehrer said that satire died the day Henry Kissinger won the nobel peace prize. When president Affleck is elected in 2008 thanks to his radical and dynamic policies on the key issues of smiling and nodding we'll all be laughing on the other side of our faces.

[Quill Pen]

45. There is a bright side...

...Thanks to an eleventh-hour reprieve, J-Lo would not be our First Lady.

[donheld]

13. What we need is

Someone to put people first and Big business last. We also need to break the back of the "Christian" Reich

[hfojvt]

15. wish you would use quotes

as in "Christian" Reich
If this becomes a battle between Democrats and self-identified Christians, Democrats are going to get creamed.
According to CNN exit polls, Protestants voted 40-60 for Kerry-Bush. That is, 40% of voters who identified themselves as Protestant Christians voted for Kerry. Catholics voted for Kerry 49-51. The same poll also said that 30% of people with "no religion" voted for Bush (and as 7% of the electorate that could be said to be his margin of victory (2.1%)
There are plenty of Christians in the Democratic camp.

[donheld]

18. All Better?

BTW welcome to DU :hi:

[expat_left]

19. I think that the war in Iraq has polarized the country, not politics...

And for the country to heal, we need to stop the war first. *Then* we can talk about Republicans and Democrats coming together. But as long as we are sending our men and women over to Iraq to blow up other people who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, the country will have a hard time finding a compromise. How *do* you compromise with the devil, anyway?

You can't compromise with some people. And you shouldn't. How can I find a compromise on gay marriage? A compromise on abortion? On the senseless invasion of other countries? Or on the aggressive way Bush uses to "fight" terrorism, which ultimately just pisses off more people and ultimately creates more terrorism? I can't, really. Those are black and white issues, and there is a right and a wrong side to be on, IMO.

[sandnsea]

20. Or a new and improved left

With a bright shiny face that talks about the economic necessity of universal health care in order to compete in the global economy.

That talks about global labor standards to stop outsourcing.

That highlights gay couples doing all sorts of mundane community service, boring Mr & Mr America just like everybody else.

That has new ideas for education, like England's Education Action Zones.

When the right wants to demonize Democrats, they use the face of the far left. If the far left pulled themselves together just a teeny bit, not compromise or change policies, just present them in an adult way; the far left could change everything in a very short time.

[Capn Sunshine]

23. You're missing the lesson of Barbara Boxer

All she did was define herself and say what she was going to do and why she was different. She ran to the LEFT, shes an AVOWED LIBERAL , she energized her base, she proved her ability , and despite the media framing California as a new "Schwarzenegger state" she beat her hand picked Schwarzenegger-backed neocon opponent by over TWENTY POINTS, garnering 200,ooo plus more votes than Kerry in the state and the third largest vote total behind Kerry and Bush in the country.

WAKE UP YOU PARANOID FOOLS!

Stop letting the neocons define you.

Be what you are , stay true to your core values, and WIN.

[sangh0]

35. Breaking News

That was California

[Cleita]

47. Yes, a predominantly Republican state. Look at the map.

Babs goes to the corners of the Sierras, the Central Valley and the desert and all over the Republican areas and gets her votes.

[JNelson6563]

24. "But" negates what came before it

Convincing, a dyed in the wool left calling for mutual respect for the fascists who trash anyone left of themeselves.

Why do you think we keep taking beatings? We need MORE compromise and capitulation??? Um, no.

We need to quit showing up a the gun-fight with a knife.

Julie

[bklyncowgirl]

25. There is no middle my friend.

Bill Clinton was a card carrying DLC member, conservative, pro death penalty, pro business Southern Democrat and they went after him like he was Ted Kennedy on viagra. Sure, Clinton won--with alot of help from Ross Perot--but did that stop the right? Oh no. No way.

Nominate some guy from the south or midwest and once the GOP smear machine does its thing people who aren't paying attention are going to think that he's a pinko, commie, queer lovin' athiest.

These guys were able to turn a war hero into a traiter. Do you actually think the Republicans will say. Oh (fill in the candidate's name) is a southern moderate. We will conduct a campeign in the spirit of a high minded discussion of the issues.

No Way! Unless we face up to who these guys are and how they operate, all the let's move to the middle, nicey, nicey stuff isn't going to do anything but elect more Republicans. We need someone who can play rough, speak plain and tell the average person why things are going to be better for him or her if they put a Democrat in office.

[Lexingtonian]

27. No

You misunderestimate the opposition. What they respect is a hard swift kick with followup repeat to the belly when they hit the floor. Once you have their respect, then there's a point in talking with them. Without that they find themselves unable to desist from abuse.

You won't find a 'centrist' who can deliver the necessary kicks. The Right doesn't actually care whether their new master is technically Centrist or Left- he is Master as long as he owns their ass and repeats the kicking at sufficiently short intervals.

It's a rich and prosperous and creative country. It can take a lot- it's not a wimp. But yes, it is being made to bleed a lot of its prosperity overseas via the deficits and tax breaks being invested overseas (that's what the rich do- worldwide, capital gains are highest in Chinese industrial stocks for obvious reasons), plus the stupid need to pay off a lot of people in other countries so that a silly war- itself a pure destruction of wealth- can be continued because its author can't dare to admit he's fallible.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. Absolutely correct

The more Clinton tried to appease the Republicanites, the bigger the "kick me" sign on his butt became.

Barbara Boxer wins. Russ Feingold wins in a state that nearly went for Bush. Dennis Kucinich wins in what should be a "Reagan Democrat" district. The same is true for Marcy Kaptur. Peter DeFazio wins in a district full of lumberjacks and fishermen. Jim Oberstar wins on the Minnesota Iron Range. Paul Wellstone was adored by supposedly solidly Republican farmers. I'm sure there are other fighting Dems out there who have equally solid records of winning over constituencies that are supposed to belong to the Republicans--maybe people from other regions can help me out.

None of these winners checks to see what the Republicans think before taking a stand based on what THEY believe. That kind of consistency shows through, and voters respond to it.

I'm convinced that one of Bushboy's strengths is that he really believes most of the nonsense he's spouting.

[leesa]

30. BS. Bill Clinton was pretty far to the right in many of his efforts

Do you think they would have voted for him? If there is a D by their name, the GOP controlled media will not allow them a chance.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. What middle? On what issues? What's left to "compromise" on?

Abortion rights? Most of the Democrats rolled over for the "Late term abortion" scam already.

Welfare "reform"? They "compromised" on that one too. With Clinton leading the charge.

No Child Left Behind? Again, they "compromised".

"Defense" spending? They're just as eager to bankroll the general's toys as the pugs.

The war in Iraq? To their credit, most of the Dems voted against it. But, "our" candidates both voted for it.

Globalization? NAFTA, IMF, World Bank.

Appointments and judges? Porter Goss, Alberto Gonzales, etc.

Hell, they're rubber stamping everything BushCo throws at them and you want more?

And, we can all see how well a "moderate" candidate did in 2004.

[Bridget Burke]

34. In what way was Kerry too far left?

I know that he was painted as a "Massachusetts liberal"--but which of his policies do you consider too radical?

And when did he "demonize" his opponents?

We need some specifics.

[Cleita]

36. Yeesh, they're starting all ready.

"I'm a flaming, bleeding heart librul, but we need someone like Zell Miller to win."

Enough already.

[gaia_gardener]

38. Ummm, if Kerry was very liberal

then what the hell am I?

Kerry was so centrist. People didn't see it because they are so far right anyone slightly to the left or even fully neutral appears to be "dangerously liberal".

Honestly, the only way we are going to run someone less liberal is to run a conservative and give up.

[taught_me_patience]

39. Obama

is the guy who can do it but too bad he's a little to green. He's more left than centrist, however I think he can unite the country...

after bushco gets done with america, it wont matter who the dems put up in 2008...

taught

[mondo joe]

40. I think you need to remember you are dealing with KILLERS.

Bushco and the people he represents don't want to make peace with you.

They don't want to let you have your space and they'll have theirs.

They want only one thing: To completely dominate you.

Now we do need a centrist to bring people together. But don't think you can offer a hand of friendship to the far right.

[Jim__]

41. What is the middle position on the war in Iraq? - n/t

[Sterling]

42. We need to fix the voting machines, everything else is just bullshit.

Im outa here, CYA.