Cleveland Plain Dealer: "they both suck"

[Dan]

Today, the Cleveland Plain Dealer offered its endorcement for President (birth year, postal code and gender required), a tradition of American newspapers.

Who did the Plain Dealer endorse? NOBODY.

In a year of deep political divisions, this newspaper's opinion section is experiencing deep divisions of its own.

After nearly four years spent watching George W. Bush as president, and after a year of watching Sen. John Kerry campaign to oust him, we have decided not to add one more potentially polarizing voice to a poisoned debate. We make no endorsement for president this year.

Much like many Cyburbians in the FAC, the "endorsement" edirotial (note the quites) has mostly negative things to say about both Bush and Kerry.

We believe our readers are perfectly capable of judging that conduct for themselves and deciding whether Bush's flaws bother them more than Kerry's ambiguities.

Bush is an idiot who made way too many bad judgement calls. Kerry is a flip-flopper who proclaims "help is on the way!", but has no clue about how to pay for that aforementioned help.

Damn. Why couldn't have this been an election between the incumbent President McCain and the challenging Howard Dean? Why not between President Gore and Rudy Giuliani? If it's four more years for Bush, will 2008 offer us Obama vs. Giuliani, or ... Hillary Clinton vs. Bill Frist? We'll probably get the latter, if not two more mediocre Skull and Bones members. Seriously, why can't we do better?

[giff57]

Originally posted by Dan

Seriously, why can't we do better?

1. Because most Americans like dirt and drama more than demanding the truth.

2. The system is so screwed that only the wealthy have a chance to be President.

3. The media is so consumed with suppling the dirt and drama, it feels no responsibility to discover and report the truth.

4. Often times we do not hold our legislators responsible for their actions or inactions.

[Bear Up North]

Originally posted by giff57

1. Because most Americans like dirt and drama more than demanding the truth.

2. The system is so screwed that only the wealthy have a chance to be President.

3. The media is so consumed with suppling the dirt and drama, it feels no responsibility to discover and report the truth.

4. Often times we do not hold our legislators responsible for their actions or inactions.

What he said.

Bear For Prez

[Michele Zone]

Originally posted by Dan

Seriously, why can't we do better?

Seriously:
Because education in this country is pathetic.
Because America has lost its fire in the belly and most of our people have been defanged and declawed, therefore you cannot find hardly anyone with real backbone.
Because the women's rights movement here in the U.S. blew it Big Time and shot itself in the foot by using that bitchy position of "I am just as competent as you are and I don't need a man and if you will just get the f*** out of my way and stop oppressing me, you will see!" instead of the more intelligent position generally taken in Europe by women that "I am just as competent as you but I am held back by the demands placed upon me by bearing and raising kids. If you will help me carry this burden, you will see that I can carry my own weight in other areas just fine."

There are undoubtedly other reasons but I can't think of any just now.

[nuovorecord]

I think the answer to Dan's plaintive question is rooted partly in the way we finance our campaigns, which is skewed towards giving the wealthy and corporate interests the loudest voices. Plus, the citizenery has gotten fat and lazy and doesn't understand what the hell is going on in the world today. They've been eating the junk food the media disguises as "news". So, our electoral process has dumbed down into sound bites, quotes taken out of context, scare tactics and whatever else the corporate media spews out.

While I initially supported Dean, I am a Kerry supporter and feel good about that choice. He's not the nightmare the Bush camp makes him out to be. He is a deep thinker who grasps the understanding that many decisions don't fit into sound bites. Plus he's a man of integrity that I trust to make the right decisions for the country. Will he be the greatest President we've ever had? Time will tell. Will he be an improvement from the current idealogue residing in the White House? Hell yeah!!!

[Kovanovich]

We get who we deserve, I guess. In 2000, National Review endorsed Bush, saying something like "we couldn't have asked for anyone better." It's safe to say that they are just as enthusiastic this time around. So apparently some are happy with the selections that we have, if that makes you feel any better.

[Zoning Goddess]

I believe I made the observation in a thread a couple of weeks ago that Bush and Kerry are both such LOSERS. I feels so prescient!

[boiker]

I get the feeling that if Kerry is elected it'll be 4 years of hardley any significant activity or changes. He'll be too busy second guessing himself, he won't have the opportunity to affect anything.

Bush will make decisions, Bush will cause change.

Based on what I know of the two choices, I choose Kerry. I'd rather have an ineffective and benign 4 years than 4 more years of choices and decisions that I haven't agreed with.

I was a Howard Dean supporter... before and after his 'explosion' in Iowa.

[Miles Ignatius]

I'm with MZ; I think we've lost the 'fire in the belly" along with a lot more while the Village I diot has directed our dwindling resources toward ill-advised global exploits.

We deserve better and I think it's a crime that we have to wait for 2008

[nuovorecord]

Originally posted by Miles Ignatius

We deserve better and I think it's a crime that we have to wait for 2008

Regardless of who wins in '04, who's in the pipeline for '08? On the Democratic side, the Next Big Thing seems to be Barack Obama, but he will only have 4 years of Senate experience under his belt (assuming he will hold off the Alan Keyes "threat"). Dean is probably not a viable national candidate after "The Scream." Hillary carries too much baggage. John Edwards would seem to be the heir apparent.

On the GOP side, McCain is someone I respect and would vote for under the right circumstances. But is he willing to put himself up against the right wing of his party again and get smeared like he did in the 2000 election?

I think 2008 will be even more ugly than this election.

[BKM]

As much as I despise the current Administration, a Kerry Administration would be little different than the previous Republican Administration (and by that, I mean the Clinton Administration).

Interesting little screed about the sleeziness of that man and his real policies: http://www.counterpunch.org/ (today's article 10-27). I get a sick feeling to my stomach when I see that Bubba get adulation from cheering crowds. Maybe I am just naive about the realities of politics and money, but enough with the worship.

Would Kerry be better than W? Sure. Deifnitely Anything that gets people like Rumsfeld and Ashcroft out of power is positive, but otherwise....I have little hope for real change. We (the American people and especially our ruling class) don't want change or honesty, anyway. We want consensus trance, "Creationism" in the schools, and lower gasoline prices, all to the tune of thuggish crowds chanting "We're No. 1 We're No. 1." I include myself in this damnation, but I am too lazy to change.

[The One]

Originally posted by boiker

I get the feeling that if Kerry is elected it'll be 4 years of hardley any significant activity or changes. He'll be too busy second guessing himself, he won't have the opportunity to affect anything.

Bush will make decisions, Bush will cause change.

Based on what I know of the two choices, I choose Kerry. I'd rather have an ineffective and benign 4 years than 4 more years of choices and decisions that I haven't agreed with.

I was a Howard Dean supporter... before and after his 'explosion' in Iowa.

I agree with most of what has been said. Even if Kerry wins, he has the opposition from Congress that will do the same thing it did to Clinton, look for any fly in the ointment to discredit or create a problem for his ability to govern effectively. Just think of it....more "travel gates".....just think how insignificant that bogus issue was compared to the real problems we face now....I agree the problem is in how we handle politics and for many reasons:

1. Money. Campaign finance and lobbyism and the fact that only the richest among us can even think about running.
2. Redistricting. Results in more and more accurate understanding of the boundaries between political beliefs and economic status, creating a two class society....haves and have nots.....these boundaries are being used to control public opinion by dividing those who may oppose the party in power (Dems are also guilty of this) This is where Nader has it right...Perhaps this is the one area where our incredible mapping enhancements and collection of all sorts of data is actually hurting our society.....Any mapping ethitians out there that want to comment? Sure this data was available in paper back in the early days, but now its so much easier to collect and analyse data and put it to use in the form of redistricting.
3. I don't think there is a politician alive that could stand up to the scrutiny placed on cadidates and come out looking like someone that's worthy to be president....it just isn't going to happen....and it shouldn't....being president of such a unique place in the world should be held to standards that "NO ONE" could ever possibly meet. Having said this.....yes it should be a matter of who we consider to be the best of two (or more) "imperfect" choices.
4. There needs to be a balance of domestic and foreign policy.....not a complete sway in either direction....(Clinton- Domestic and Bush- Foreign)

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Dan

Today, the Cleveland Plain Dealer offered its endorcement for President (birth year, postal code and gender required), a tradition of American newspapers.

Who did the Plain Dealer endorse? NOBODY.

For the record, there's a bit of a story behind this. The Plain Dealer's editorial board was solidly behind Kerry, and was going to endorse him - that is, until the publisher stepped in and prepared to overturn their decision. News of this was leaked to the public, and paper was left with egg on its face. The lack of an endorsement was a compromise position.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea...nt_id=10006844
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ndex_np.html30

[Bear Up North]

Agree that Obama has a presence that will be felt in future elections. Being an old white guy I can only say that most of the old white guys elected to the Presidency fall far short of my mark for a leader. Time for a change.

OTHH.....

In the far-off future look for New England's quarterback, Tom Brady, to have a political career......such as Bill Bradley or Jack Kemp. He's got all the requirements to meet today's TV candidate.......young, strong, well-spoken, handsome, already afiliated with a strong party (Republicans).

I do strategic planning for my company, with a group of others. Our "window" is five (5) years. You can bet that Democrats and Republicans start their long-term strategic planning early in the careers of potential superstars such as Tom Brady.

(Brady = University of Michigan graduate.)

Bear On Ann Street

[jordanb]

Obama is too young to run in '08. He'll only be 46, four years older than Kennedy, and he'll only have four years as a senator under his belt. But he could be a running mate in that election.

[michaelskis]

Originally posted by jordanb

Obama is too young to run in '08. He'll only be 46, four years older than Kennedy, and he'll only have four years as a senator under his belt. But he could be a running mate in that election.

I was tremendously impressed with him when he spoke at the DNC. I think that he will make a great president someday, even if he is a liberal.