All these 2008 threads are tiresome

[politicasista]

It's nice dream about 2008, but let's deal with the present and next year first. If we are going to be successful in the next few years, we have to take back the media. Smirky and GOP co. own the press. We have to get back Congress and the courts, that's where the problem is. So all of you all hating on Kerry, but praising your candidate should stop blaming others and turn it into action. We have to keep fighting this criminal, corrupt and dangerous administration. It won't happen if we keep trashing our own.

[Bluebear]

1. 2006 Congress is far, far more important than 2008 Prez

If they get 60 Republican Senators we are truly cooked.

[Padraig18]

4. Absolutely.

These 2008 threads are mental masturbation.

[zippy890]

8. I agree too!

[tanyev]

2. Agreed.

Anything can happen between now and 2008. Candidates people would like to see could have all sorts of life changes occur that would cause them to decide not to run. The political climate might be completely different by then. Heck, if GeeDubya continues unchecked, we might not have a country or a planet left by that time.

We need to focus on the here and now and on 2006.

[cestpaspossible]

3. 2006 is the stepping stone to 2008

[European Socialist]

5. 2004 is where it's at.

Still devastated. Dems need to look into election fraud first.

[Stevepol]

6. Amen and Amen. Unless the fraud is fixed, what's the purpose

of voting? No Dem could beat any Repub if the voting machines continue to count votes without required auditing for every election.

[no name no slogan]

7. Fsck that. Everybody knows 1860 is where its at

If we have a candidate with cojones who's not afraid of the RW slander machine, we'll win by margins that NOBODY can steal-- not even a cokehead C-student fratboy chearleader from Maine (or is it Texas?).

[AP]

11. Do you think the fraud is going to get fixed without making sure Dems

get elected?

It's a chicken and egg problem, perhaps. But if you want to ensure that the fraud issue will never get fixed, then act like it's more important to fix fraud than it is to care about Democrats getting elected.

[blondeatlast]

13. Sad, but true, and it needed to be said.

There is one goal in sight: 2006.

[ArtVandaley]

9. Agreed. See how the landscape is after the 2006 elections

In the meantime, focus on them.
Top two targets:
Rick Santorum
George Allen (if Warner will run against him)

[AP]

10. On the one hand, I agree. On the other hand, I do believe that having

a party leader for the short period between the convention and the general election really hurts Democrats.

Democrats need to have strong voices for a long period of time leading up to the general election.

Compare the UK: the party leaders are known for a long time in the lead up to the election, and if a party waited until three months before a general election to pick their leader, that would be a sign of weakness.

Although I think the "your guy is a worthless piece of shit because he's the biggest threat to my guy" posts are counterproductive, I do think it's very good to talk about likely candidates' ideas a great deal so that they are percieved as the voices of the party for a period of time much longer than the last two or three months in 2008.

I also think it's helpful to try to hone the issues and the values through a discussion of the candidates (which is something very different from just trying to viciously eliminate the competition with unprincipled attacks).

[K-W]

14. Needing leadership has nothing to do with who runs in '08

We need more than one leader and we need people capable of being leaders without having it handed to them by making them a candidate.

How about we focus on convincing the rest of America to support liberty and justice, and look for who becomes our leaders, and then maybe nominate one of them?

[AP]

15. The person who runs should be seen as a leader for longer than 3 months

prior to the GE.

So, it's good that we talk about Democratic principles and values through the vehicles of the likely candidates who represent those principles and values. In fact, I think that's critical.

I think it would be a mistake (or at least, a very significant lost opportunity) if we tried to talk about the ideas without attaching them to actual politicians.

Think of this: why do books have characters? If characters weren't important, there'd be no narrative works. Authors would write treatises instead. A narrative work about an idea is way more powerful than a treatise on an issue. Atticus Finch probably influence a lot more voters' thinking about race than any disembodied list of principles.

[blondeatlast]

12. I could not agree more. We need to work on taking back the media

and at least one legislative body in 2006.

[newblewtoo]

16. Locals first then National

The local races, house, senate and governorships are the warm up to '08. If there are continued local losses the party will be gerrymandered out of existence! (Gerrymander refers to the drawing of boundaries of legislative districts to benefit one party or group and handicap another.)

[indypaul]

17. Could not agree more.

Let the opposition form their circular firing squads between
now and 2006. They have had so much practice doing this in
the past we should not interfere let alone join them.

[Disturbed]

18. Congress 2006 is priority #1

Taking back the Media may be impossible but new Media can be created.