This says it all: “No one can win that game.”

So many factors changed around this time out, worse than the last election. Why they messed with the schedule is beyond me. Everyone is running ragged to keep up and it just makes it so hard for the people to really get a chance to make informed choices. What a mess we have. I’d really like to see this play out a little longer and let the voters decide instead of the damn pundits!

Chuck Todd on MSNBC, who is one of my favorite pundits, said that the mood of the country changes, and Barack Obama is to be credited for sensing that the country was ready for him. He said in 2008 they want full change, in 2004 they wanted some change with experience. Furthermore Todd says that in 2007 HRC ran the campaign that our beloved John Kerry should have run in 2004. That might have been her time, even tho she would have been criticized (like Obama) for not waiting her turn.

Wow! I just love it when people second guess Kerry and his campaign, and bash him just to promote Hil, Obama, Edwards, or Richardson. No, the campaign wasn’t perfect, but the good senator does not deserve the constant bashing and elevating other Dems at his expense.

I am sorry, I do plan to vote for a candidate and the nominee, but the game that the lefty blogosphere is playing by throwing Kerry under the bus, belittling him and his campaign, and throwing insults, while lifting others up is a big turn off for me.

It’s a bullying tactic that only helps the GOP. It’s not suprising that the ones (blogospherians, pundits) that bashed the senator in 04 are supporting this field with so much glee than last. I know the criticism won’t stop there, but it’s why I have thought about taking a break from politics and blogging.

I know the main priority is to put a dem in the WH, but as I said, these Rovian tactic that the lefty blogosphere, isn’t swaying me into voting for a candidate.

Oh, Nice blog Pam!

It’s been a while since I’ve been through here, but I got a moment and thought I’d share my thoughts.

I’m a Kerry guy from back in ’04. So when JK decided not to run this year I had to look look for another Dem to settle on. It took a long time, but I’ve settled on my ‘horse’ – it’s Obama. I think he (Obama) has the intellect, the insight and the knowledge – toss in some charisma – to do the job. I can feel good about voting for this guy.

Bottom line, I gotta feel good about supporting a candidate. With Dodd being thinned out in Iowa (I had been thinking about Dodd, too), I’m running with Barack (but JK is still my guy in the long run).

I agree that timing is an important skill for politics and politicians. But it’s all in the perspective:

Politicians, like Clinton, have to anticipate things like the mood of the electorate and time their decisions to take advantage and be successful. Some are better at that than others.

The American people, the electorate, care little about these things…they are the ones (many, not all) who often view this process as a game IMHO. I think that is a fault they have, not to take citizenship more seriously.

The outcome of any given election is a result of both factors…what the politician does and the participation (or lack thereof) of the electorate. We got Bush because of his timing, etc., but also because the electorate was lazy.

Who has better timing as a politician? Obama, Clinton, Edwards…hard to say.

For me the question is : How serious will the electorate be this time? Will they stop what they are doing long enough to focus and ‘play the game’ well?

The person we elect as President will be a result of BOTH factors.

Thanks for that view from Chuck Todd. I (who know nothing about politics ) disagree with most of what he said, but it is an interesting take.

You said, “It’s as if the country is playing cards every four years. Either keep your hand, pull a new hand from the same deck, or re-shuffle the deck. ”

I think this is more the problem than the mood of the country. Choosing the leader of the free world has been reduced to a game…and the electorate are so busy multi-tasking ( watching TV, family responsibilities, working harder to keep pace with a bad ecomony, etc.) that they are playing without even really looking at their cards. No one can win that game.

It’s as if the country is playing cards every four years. Either keep your hand, pull a new hand from the same deck, or re-shuffle the deck. Unfortunately for HRC, the mood is the third option.

Experience is important to me because our world is in such crisis…we have to elect a leader who knows what to do to turn things around.

Electability (not likability) is IMHO how I view the electorate. I was for Kerry in 2004, but worried that the electorate would (unfairly) bring up VietNam and use it. In 2008, I also worry that each of our current candidates has an ‘Achilles heel’ that will be used against him/her.

So, for 2008, Obama is not my first choice on both the experience and the alleged drug use issue. Clinton, who I believe has experience, is not my first choice because she will stir the ‘vast right wing conspiracy’ again. And Edwards, also not my first choice, is also low on experience.

I’m undecided because none of the current Democratic candidates measures up to my criteria. I will vote for a Democrat, but not the BEST Democrat. That makes me sad.

I also have to say, any one of them will make a better President than we’ve seen in a long time.