yeah, i think i sensed your feelings towards the current administration.

so how do you feel about the no child left behind stuff?

I believe the term is: "NCLB weapons of mass public education destruction."

nuff said.

I know what you're saying. I live and breathe pro-choice at work, and then I get looked down on when I don't volunteer to go lobby legislators, etc. Its not that I don't care, its just that its what I do all day, so its the last thing I want to think about when I'm not on the clock.

I also agree with you about the Democratic candidates. Does it really matter who runs? I'll vote for anyone as long as they aren't Bush, but I still think Bush is going to win. And oh, how screwed we will be then.

yup, and while i will often post some interesting environmental links on the side, i rarely blow up at once again, seeing bush destroy our future habitat.

and i'm totally with you on the apathy - i just don't feel much confidence in any of the democrats right now and it makes me sad that i feel like i can't do anything about it.

It will take us a decade or more to climb out of the hole that another 4 years of Bush will dig us into. It's so, so sad. I'm caught between wanting to flee the country or staying to try and make things better. Maybe the rock option is the best...

okay, i didn't actually see the poll, but from this article in the times, i read this, "And, adding to the pressure, a New York Times/CBS Poll taken last week showed that when given a choice between an unnamed Democrat and Mr. Bush, 43 percent of the registered voters polled said they would vote for Mr. Bush, while 45 percent said they would vote for the Democrat."

somewhat comforting...until you think of the war chest that bush has. i have a glimmer of hope.

is it still apathy when you're faced with the insurmountable obstacle of a government that has systematically removed every aspect of participatory democracy in favor of its own agenda?

quite true. it's like political suffocation of the common people.

I read that a CNN/Gallup poll shows that 70% of Americans think that the policies W. talked about in the State of the Union address would "lead our country in the right direction." I wonder if they had the volume on the TV turned up????? Bush blatantly speaks to big interests--oil, HMOs, pharmaceutical,Wall Street types--and yet the average person thinks we're on the right path? I just don't get it.

Unfortunately, in this election we need to put up the candidate who is not necessarily the best Democrat, but who is the most viable candidate against W.--even if that person is merely a watered-down Republican/pseudo-Democrat. It's angering me that I still hear so much talk by some Democrats about getting-back-to-being-REAL-Democrats in this election. Now is not the time, we have larger problems to resolve than ideological platforms. Ideally, I'd love a candidate who can be a "real" Democrat while also capturing the masses of "independent" or "undecided" folks, or who can take the swing states; does anyone know who that might be? Strangely enough, I almost think it's Edwards. In any case, that is what's going to determine this election, and this paradox bothers me--it's the people who don't give a hoot about politics that end up having the most impact. Go figure.

I agree. But what is a "real democrat"? I've lost all faith in the Democratic party. Had liberals actually voted for the best candidate to beat Bush last time around, we wouldn't have this problem. I still get annoyed thinking about that, as we all knew that this was the shit that would happen if he was elected, yet liberals still insisted on voting for a candidate that didn't even want to be elected...who just wanted to make a point.

GROWL.

I still say that NYC should secede from the Union. of course, then Bush would invade in a matter of hours.

i too think edwards might be the best hope, but i also think most americans would not vote for him. he's one of the only people that i think has any chance in comming close in most of the south.

Corie, I agree with your points about the Dem candidate the last time around completely. If only one of these candidates was around then, maybe things would have been different...although, since this guy didn't technically "win" the election anyway, the outcome would have been the same (but we won't even touch that one).

At first I was throwing my support toward Dean, but that has waned in the last couple of weeks, even before Iowa. I like Edwards' "two Americas" rhetoric--he talks about the America of rich folks like W. and the America that comprises most everyone else. In that sense I think he is toeing the liberal line more than the others (with the exception of Kucinich). Plus the fact that he came from humble beginnings, is self-made, etc. validates his positions.

AH, I'm so glad I have an outlet for my political rants, other than yelling at the television set every time I put on CNN.

One thing that should make everyone a tad more hopeful. Bush lost the popular vote by about half a million votes last time around. He's governed as if he had a landslide mandate. The numbers have shown throughout this administration that in terms of domestic policy, when explained in ways people can understand, the Bushies programs are deeply unpopular and that on domestic issues the Dems largely have the lion's share of public confidence.

Think back to January 1992. If there was anyone outside of the War Room in Little Rock who actually thought Clinton could beat Bush The Elder, I'd be shocked. Think about the leading lights of the Dems who didn't run that time around--Bradley, Cumo, etc.

But, if you look at the polling data, there's a lot of similarties between then and now. Anytime an incumbent falls below 50% against generic oposition, they're vulnerable.

I'm not a big fan of the field this time around, and the Iowa results--especially Gephardt's and Edwards' numbers--shocked me. If I had to lay my money on the line right now, I'd wager you're going to see a Kerry/Edwards or a Clark/Edwards ticket. But I'm not ready to make that bet yet. I'm curious to see what happens next week in N.H. Dean probably can't surrvive another third place showing, and the race turns into a three way as you head into South Carolina.

Corie--I'll bet right now though, a meal at the restaurant of the winner's choosing, that Bush loses in Novemeber to whoever he's up against. I will only add one caveat--if they produce Bin Laden between Labor Day and Election Day the bet's off.

Bush = Bad Medicine. I think it is well covered here Bush's pro business(especially Big Oil)/anti enviromental regulation positions, thank you Dick Cheney. And also his go it alone Imperialistic foreign policy, thank you Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and the neo-cons. But dont forget Bush's "faith-based" theocratic schemes to blur (or erase) the seperation between State...and fundementalist Christianity!

Bill, can we go to CRAFT?

Is Kim suggesting that "independant" and "undecided" voters don't care about politics? 'Cause frankly, just because I don't think any particular party deserves my alliegence, doesn't mean I care any less, or am any less left-leaning than you registered Democrats. And at least I vote. It's all the lazy apathetics who think Bush sucks who won't bother going to the polls, and ultimately will win him the election. There are hardcore Republicans out there who think Bush is psychotic...if people vote their conscience rather than their party-line, I doubt very much Bush can win.

Corie--Of course. But if I win, I'm thinking Chanterelle.

I'm not saying that Independents are apathetic--I'm saying that typically (as is the case with New Hampshire) Inds. can go either way, and that leaves the candidates scurrying for the Ind. vote. It changes the nature of elections and campaigns in a big way. I just find it funny that the people who aren't consistently committed to an ideology one way or another can ultimately decide an election, but I guess that's the nature of our political system.

But how "independent" are Independents, anyway? The whole thing is a sham. Politicians are politicians, no ifs ands or buts.

I feel y'all, though being mad at Nader for W's ascendency just isn't in keeping with the truth. He just didn't factor into the electoral equation. Bush's election is good for democracy anyway, partly because it reminds us why we're liberals (or other), something we were beginning to forget during those heady Clinton days which, incidentally, saw alot of compromise.

Apathy o apathy.