Are The Democrats Imploding?

The Democratic presidential field, like the Republican field, is full of people who want o be the next president of the United States. Many of these candidates do not have a chance of winning and yet they linger on. This is a problem for the front runners who must pay attention to those of lesser status to avoid a costly mistake. John Edwards and Hillary Rodham think the field is too large and that it should be pared down to those ho have a chance of winning. After a recent debate an open mike caught their conversation about this issue:

Edwards says, “We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group.”

Clinton agrees, saying, “We’ve got to cut the number” and “they’re not serious.” She also says that she thought their campaigns had already tried to limit the debates and say, “We’ve gotta get back to it.” WLUC Michigan

Edwards obviously believes that he is in the top tier with Hillary Rodham and B. Hussein Obama, and he might well be, but his desire to cut down the field shows a disregard for the electoral process and the right of the American people to hear what every person who wants to run has to say. By advancing this idea, Edwards has taken the typical Liberal approach to silence those who get in the way. He would, of course, love to silence all of them but the reality is that he does not quite have the star power and backing of either of the other top candidates.

Hillary would love to pare down the field so she would not have others distracting people from focusing their attention on her. She believes that the White House s rightly hers and that this is the fulfillment of the twenty year plan that she and Bill devised to have both of them serve as President. She is already facing stiff competition from Obama as she tries to sway people who are tired of a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. There has been a member of these families in the White House since 1989 which makes 20 years by the time GW Bush has completed his term. The fatigue factor is there and the US has been more of a kingdom rather than a Republic. This is one of the many obstacles facing Hillary and possibly why Jeb Bush decided not to run.

The Democrats have been their own worst enemies over the years imploding at just the right moments. They held together well in the last election cycle and were able to capture the majority. Now they must try to stay together long enough to get one of them elected President. This stunt by Edwards and Clinton might just turn off enough voters to give Obama the nomination or sway voters to look to the Republican Party.

Time will tell but tis latest fiasco will not play well among Americans who actually think rather than being led around by the nose. The Democrats need to keep their acts together if they want to win.

Until the election they should remember that there is always an open mike somewhere.

Big Dog



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

4 Responses to “Are The Democrats Imploding?”

  1. Patsy says:

    While I feel absolutely no affection for Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton, John Edwards & B. Hussein Obama (I love how you refer to him like this BD), and in fact hold them in DISrespect, I don’t think every Tom, Dick and Harry candidate, who fancies himself President, necessarily should be included in the debates. They do distract from the real candidates on stage, who actually have a shot at winning their parties nominations and/or the Presidency in the general election.

    Let’s face it, Dennis Kuchinich is completely bonkers, has been for years, and doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected President. Who the hell cares what he thinks? Who wants to listen to his mad ravings? Why are the Democrats obligated to provide him a platform to spew his claptrap?

    On the flip side, I would hate to see the Republicans ban candidates like Ron Paul, also someone who has no chance of winning, because a whole lot of what he says resonates with conservatives. Although, like Kuchinich, Ron Paul’s views on the War on Terror/ War In Iraq are absolutely bonkers, too. The difference here is we can simply filter out that which we find repugnant and concentrate the positive contributions Paul makes fiscally and regulatorily.

    I still wonder if, on a case-by-case basis, that the political parties don’t have the right to weed a few of the nutjobs who don’t further their cause.

  2. Big Dog says:

    I think that is what the debates are for, weeding out the nuts or those who should not be president.

  3. Patsy says:

    Oh course you’re correct, BD, the debates are to separate the wheat from the chaff. But does that include giving a forum to every lunatic running? That takes time away from the real candidates, and the American electorate needs to hear from them in more detail than short sound bytes, in my view. In Hillary Clinton’s case, she needs more time to hang herself, to be forced to go off script, to be reveal the real Hillary. The format as it is makes it too damn easy to package yourself. And she’s the Queen of packaging.

  4. Web Reconnaissance for 07/16/2007…

    A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….