Reply #22: Agree with the conclusion, but there is SO much wrong with that article [View All]

I'll just start at the top.



No, I don't see a "political titan" in Hillary - she does NOT have similar experience to Gore, he was VP and actually negotiated agreements with international leaders, actually accomplished things when he was in office. He really did "take the lead" on visionary initiatives like funding ARPANet. What has Hillary really led on besides labeling video games for explicit content, and a health care initiative that failed (but was initially based on elements of the successful S-CHIP program that was initiated by John Kerry and pushed across the goal line by Ted Kennedy)?



Mostly true, but I don't like the inclusion of "incrementalist" in with those others, because it is not related. Nothing in politics happens unless there is extremely broad consensus (where do we have that today?) or by incrementalism. Being a realist that incrementalism is necessary would actually be a point in Hillary's favor - but it hardly distinguishes her from Gore or any other politician who has any chance at all.

Finally, the stuff at the end of your excerpt about people voting for Kerry because he was "electable" rather than because they thought he was the best candidate, is just an old excuse that tries to leave the door open that another candidate really could have done better in the general. My own experience, my own decision in 2004 and of people I have talked to, people really did like Kerry. IMO he did best in the debates I watched - in terms of what I wanted to hear and the way he presented himself.

Perhaps someday someone will produce some hard evidence backing up that slam against Kerry and those of us who chose him on the merits. Maybe then I'll shut up about it, but for now it just ticks me off every time I see that, because it seems to marginalize those of us who chose Kerry for Kerry - and that's a lot of people.