Figure Out Who's Best--and Nominate Him:

[mdguss]

I think that the Democratic Party should figure out who's best and nominate that person. This should be a passionate debate. If we get it wrong, the consequences will be grim. We have to win. Period. Figuring out how to win requires honest, blunt assessments of candidates.

Here is what I think:

I've worked for four campaigns over the past four years. The campaigns have been in both Democratic strongholds and swing districts. I agree that the Democratic Party is (with good reason) mad. We've been frozen out of power. People have lost health insurance and jobs. They have reservations about a foreign policy that has drained the good will built up after September 11th. They are tired of seeing the rich getting richer. These are good issues. This is why the right Democrat can win in November.

Howard Dean was smart to tap into that anger, and build a coalition of the have nots. He is dead wrong to make that anger the center piece of his candidacy. When an average Democrat--and average Democrats can and do vote for Republicans--sees a person with an elite background throwing a temper tantrum on television, they go to the Republicans. When people vote for President, the first question they ask is: can this guy be trusted with the button. Temperament is a legitimate issue in presidential politics. His speech last night (which was a classic example of petty anger) has capped campaign of errors and missteps where he let his anger get the best of him.

Howard Dean has involved many young people in the process. If this had been four years ago, I'd probably be supporting him. But I've been there, I've fought those battles on the streets of this great country. Defeating President Bush requires a nomination of someone who can control anger and disappointment--someone who can listen to their staff--and learn when not to talk. Howard Dean, talented though he may be, simply doesn't have what it takes. For the good of the country, we have to elect a new president this year.

Bush has inherent advantages when it comes to re-election. Even if we nominate a strong ticket, he may well win. But a Howard Dean nomination has the potential to take the Democratic Party down in angry flames. Democratic Senators and Congresspeople like mine, who are up for re-election, will be endangered. They could be beaten by Republican challengers--giving Bush even more power.

We must put our best faces forward to counter the 300 million dollar campaign that the Republicans will run. We must put a face forward that can match Bush on niceness and patriotism. I can see John Kerry, John Edwards, Wesley Clark or Joe Lieberman being that best face for our party. Please consider a candidate besides Howard Dean. They all may not be liberal enough, but they can stop the bleeding in Washington.

[Hoppin_Mad]

1. Lieberman might be the best choice then - Beat em at their own game !-n

[mdguss]

2. Lieberman would be a strong candidate:

Many Republicans I talk to say they like Joe Lieberman. And some of them say, "I might just vote for him." You don't win by having half the country on your side. You win by having half the country plus one. Face it conservative independents and moderate Republicans need to be convinced that we should elect someone else.