I'm concerned about any candidate who would call another candidate, "naive."

We already know that D.C. politics, and politics in general is corrupt. We already know that the lobbyists are throwing money at candidates to ensure their elections and buy their votes. We already know that the present Democrats are settling in now into their power roles and probably won't make waves to alter the system because they have other deals on the table that are more important to them. We already know the rules of the dirty game and that too many are getting away with it. So, when a candidate calls another candidate "naive," it implies to me that the game must be played, and the candidate must succumb to the rules or will get no where. Which basically means, that no candidate who we elect will be allowed to make the changes we need to bring integrity back to this country.

So, I ask, if our choices are between a Democrat who has already absorbed and mastered the corrupt political game, or a new face (or an enlightened old one), who still dares to dream, which would you pick?

Naive is a very poor fight to try and pick, IMO.

and saying, "Yeah, I know Washington is corrupt and so is this country's political system in general, but, just for the hell of it, I'm going to try to change things."

Box as it were.

i don't see where "naive" is out of bounds or an unfair criticism if the other candidate is relying on their experience, network, etcetera -- EVERY candidate has a dream, there's nothing cheaper than dreams

at this time of century we need more than dreams, we need to materialize the dreams

she called his comments on one topic naive and irresponsible.

not putting the entire OP on just her or just the comment. I think at the base of our problem in reaching out to the candidates, and Democratic representatives on a local, state and federal level, is that they don't realize that we really do know the exact reason why they're not listening to us. We really do know the system is corrupt and that they're making secret deals under the table. In that regard, we're not the naive ones. They are.

Maybe she was using "naive" as a compliment?

A rhetorical misstep for someone who needs to warm up to the crowd a little bit. We know you can throw a punch already, Hillary.

i would prefer someone who knows the ropes.

I'm just say'n...

even a dem.

your entire argument is intellectually dishonest.

I see with very clear eyes and call it the way I see it. Take Lieberman for instance. NOBODY can call him inexperienced. That's an incredibly lame riposte. Jesus, the Democrats even picked him as a V.P. candidate in 2000! Would they have picked him if they felt he lacked the experience? I think not. Yet, at some point, some brave soul dared to say the truth about Lieberman. He was a DINO. SOMEONE had to come out and say it first, and I bet that person was called intellectually dishonest. So, the person who called him or her intellectually dishonest, was dead wrong, just like you are. Lieberman is experienced, just like Dick Cheney is experienced. Apparently, experience doesn't seem to be all that it's cracked up to be. I'll take youthful exuberance over steeled calculating experience any day of the week, unless the person who is experienced also demonstrates a strong vision for the future and has qualities that include selflessness, wisdom, compassion and humanity.

I don't eliminate history when I consider present day situations, for if we forget history, we're bound to make the same mistakes.

how you even got lieberman into this debate

I told you that I use history as a point of reference. Lieberman, thank God, is history. But it's history I wouldn't want to repeat. Ergo, if a candidate shared qualities that remind me of Lieberman, I would tend to be a little cautious.

hence you have to connect them for me.

to be limited and, thus, the conclusions you're able to reach on your own appear to be limited as well.

any rationale AT ALL? You don't like my opinion. That's fine. But I'm comfortable that most people understand my concerns about avoiding another Lieberman candidate.

Why don't you just admit that you like Hillary Clinton so much that you will jump into any thread that even remotely appears to criticize her to insult the poster and attempt to dismiss them with a silly barb, without bringing forth any rationale thought to the argument? I read her comments regarding Obama and in a free association moment, it occurred to me that what she said, about calling him "naive," was at the crux of her perception problem. And if you are a Hillary Clinton supporter, you'd be smarter to listen, rather than to piss people off who you will need after the primaries, if she wins.

what you are doing is snidely putting words in everyones mouth

Let's attempt to dissect this disagreement. Put the body on the table.

?

For example, too much catering to big corporate money, for instance. Too adapted to Washington D.C.'s manner of doing things which generally means accepting backroom deals, rather than fighting your fights out in public. Those kinds of qualities.

What do you think are the characteristics of Democratic primary voters? And what makes you think that?

It's the process that's faulty. When a candidate becomes too adapted to backroom deals, it means there will be less public discussion and less chance of critical review which might point out the flaws in the bill or the idea. For example, if we had a good open debate on the floor of Congress, maybe we would have heard from Joe Wilson sooner, maybe we could have stopped the Iraq War.

The Democratic base is the one that believes in transparency. Open government. Sunshine. The Republican party is the party of backroom deals and only Corporate America can afford to pay the price to look over their shoulders. They are the party of ideology, which is why they aren't interested in open government process. They're only interested in results at any cost to benefit small interest groups who pay for their elections, and those backroom environments only make it that much easier for them to do. By the time we hear about it, it's already a Done Deal.

He brings god into it far too often. We have a theocrat in the White House. How's that working out for everyone?
Lee

However, if that is the one thing that sinks his candidacy, at least he can walk away knowing that he stood by his convictions and he only has himself to blame that it didn't succeed in galvanizing a majority vote.

...and I will vote for him if he is our nominee. I just wish they would leave god out of the politics. His wife was here recently, Austin...and she is WONDERFUL!
Lee

event. Speaking on a broad term, and not specifically about any one candidate, what words would concern you more?

Because they have their fingers up their collective asses (err bottoms sounds so much better) while they hemmm and haww in the face of the greatest threat this country will ever probably know-and do SHIT about it. Worthless weasels. YEAH, when they are PRESDIDENT all will be SAVED. It will all be back to NORMAL. Imagine instead of running for president they actually tried to do something RIGHT NOW. Imagine that. WOW. Oh wow. Sorry but the naive thing just got to me-of course we know the Hil isn't naive she's part of the establishment. So count her out on that. I see DU and the NEWS spittering and spattering about who will be president-like that matters. I really don't think it does. I really think other things matter. It's bread and circuses. It must be or it wouldn't be on teevee.

The obvious answer is to reject both, and I do. Of course, I did before they ever announced.

i have nothing against obama, besides his constant use of the word 'god', but his supporters are getting tiresome.

I'm not really in crazy about any of the nominees - I wish Edwards was performing better, but that might have more to do with my feelings for Elizabeth than for John.

But we'll need to make a choice eventually, and when I see people saying such outrageous things to discredit Hillary, their desperation makes her seem more appealing to me.

and makes me want to vote for her. otherwise to be honest, i think hillary/obama and edwards are about as liberal as each other.

and suffer the consequences for them. I made a mistake during Reagan's term when I thought all those mean Democrats who called for his impeachment were beating up on an old man.

I have regretted it ever since.

coming up with specifics. Here I'll give you a huge chance to find something wrong with the following:

She has a perception problem and I just gave you all a big clue where it comes from, because it's attached to the way our government functions. Backroom deals versus open government. Hillary's perception problem is that she's too comfortable with the former. We're tired of it, we don't want it, we want a candidate who will tell us what he or she is about before we vote for him or her and we want them to govern out in the open once they're elected. In fact, why not make transparency an issue to add to their platforms?

WAKE UP CALL: Dick Cheney's Energy Meeting was a backroom meeting, and the Republicans defend it on the basis that they need this kind of secrecy because they get more open input from the private sector. Jesus, that's a fucking hole in the system you can drive a train through. I bet the private sector feels very comfortable giving input in those sessions. Input which most of us would consider illegal.

Hillary Clinton has a perception problem and you should all admit that because it's obvious. But this wasn't entirely about her. As I pointed out in another post, the word, "naive," triggered something much broader, something that goes beyond Hillary and cuts to the problem we have with politics today. There's too much emphasis on following a process which by now most people realize is flawed. Washington politics isn't working. Republican style politics, isn't working. Transparency works, however, and open communication works.

I'm all for conventional wisdom, but I don't know how much of what is going on in Congress today really is conventional, or how much of it is wise.

Hillary certainly has a perception problem. I don't deny it in the least.

But that has nothing to do with making dishonest implications.

You can't do it, you know why? Because Hillary was only a secondary concern when I began this post. I never even used her name, before today. But, go ahead and quote the statement where you thought I made a dishonest implication or are you just testing your swift-boating abilities?