Biden makes the idea of wind-bag seem exciting by contrast, but he was the first to back what now looks like the only possible exit strategy.
Kucinich and Gravel I understand. Someone is paying them to draw off voters who have just graduated from high school or entered the anti-war movement last month.
But what's wrong with Biden, Dodd, Richardson? Why do we always have to go for the star performers? If one of these guys snuck in at the last minute, there'd be no time left to swift-boat him. And a boring non-entity could be really good for the country!
Bob --- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 4, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Chuck wrote:
>
> > I picked Clinton to win a few months ago. I don't
> think a scandal can
> > even dislodge her at this point. The economic
> situation will be much
> > worse a year from now and people will be disposed
> towards a change. If
> > Giuliani gets nominated and focuses on terrorism,
> this will cinch the
> > win for Hillary. A Bush attack on Iran will also
> cinch a win for
> > Hillary. People out here in the Midwest are really
> pissed off about
> > the war.
>
> Hillary would be great for my disillusionment
> scenario. There will be
> so much joy among liberals when she wins, and then
> when she governs
> from the center-right (Republican at the Pentagon,
> maybe, like her
> husband did?) they'll freak out. It may take time,
> and there could be
> a lot of excuse-making, but when they turn, it could
> be the best
> thing for the radical left since, like, Seattle.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>