To be honest I would vote for any Democrat in the general. Hillary, Obama or Kerry, I really don't care. Any one of them is better then a Rethug.
Todd, you know as well as I know that Hillary did not "spontaneously" raise 2.5 million after she won Pennsylvania. That is bullshit. She released this number to assure those who supported her that she still remains viable in the primary. But the fact is that she still has no chance of winning the primary.
Look, I love MyDD. I come here two, three or four times a day to assuage my political addiction. However, a post such as this one is utter BULLSHIT. You made no attempt to link to the information so we could judge for ourselves and there is not even a small attempt at critical thinking.
I hate to say it but I don't think I will come back to MyDD for a long time. That being said, I do liked it here. This place was my home when I first discovered the emergent democracy of the web. But Todd, using unfounded campaign propaganda as a post is just as bad as any mainstream media broadcast. There are better sources of info out there. Dailykos, Swing State Project and many local blogs rely on fact and reason in their political writings.
Todd, your post is nothing more than overly-emotional display based upon zero factual information.
"It is better to have loved and lost then to never have loved at all."
I think that there is a possibility that Chavez could be picked for Lt. Gov next to Denish. I doubt that Chavez will run for a fourth term. He has already served two terms this time and has served one before the term limits were set. Running for a fourth seems unlikely. However, he did recieve a plurality of the vote last election and even avoided a run-off which everyone thought was a inevitable.
While he may not be a strong canidate alone, a coalition of Denish-Chavez would have a statewide appeal that would be hard to beat. Denish is from southern NM and will be hard to beat down there. Chavez could pick up a strong vote in central Albuquerque. Northern NM is already a strong Dem district.
Nader is not an environmentalist. He is a consumer activist (read corporate lawyer). He has not environmental credentials except for being a windbag.
Just as a counterpint. Clinton apointed Carolyn Browner to the EPA for all 8 years of his term. I've meet her and she is one of the most commited environmentalists in this country. If Gore had one in 2000, she would still be in the EPA. Bush has appointed industry hacks who have tried to weaken environmental laws at every turn. Still don't think there are differences between Gore and Bush? If not, just vote Republican and quit acting like you really give a damn.
I dislike Ralph Nader (and the Green Party) almost, if not more, then George W. Bush and the Republicans. Even though he probably believes in his gospel the fact is that he and everyone else who voted for the Green party is as morally culpable as any Republican for what has happened the last 8 years. The entire premise of Nader's campaign, that there are no differences between Gore/Bush, is simply not true. Ralph Nader and the Green Party do more to elect conservatives then Republicans could ever hope to. Those who argue otherwise ignore facts.
I support Murtha. I think that he enjoys a larger public name recognition then Hoyer. Hoyer strikes me as a guy who even though progressive, comes off a little to New Deal liberal. I think people will be more repsosive to Murtha. He does have his bad sides. In an article published in the Oct. 2nd New York Times a number of policies were described. He often blocked Dem amendments for pork handouts etc. He does however have a discplined following with congressmen such as Visclosky (IN-1), Larson (CT-1), Holden (PN-17) and Moran (Virginia-8) obeying him like a military commander. The article mentions his ability to demand loyalty and cites "would be an asset if Pelosi became the speaker. Running the House with a slim majority would require bipartisanship and party discipline." Check out out the article for more.
Just to repseond to myself, why should we really care? Rush Limbaugh doesn't give a damn that Fox has Parkinson's? What make you think that if any Dem died would the GOP care? I didn't see any tears flow when Wellstone or Carnahan died.
I ask you why we shouldn't be excited why a senator has cancer? Even though he may suffer a great deal, why should his life matter more then the thousands of US soilders or tens-of-thousands of Iraqis that he has sentenced to death? I see no difference just because he is a senator. I personally would be happy to see another seat gain, but would not wish his pain on anybody. Does that mean I won't clebrate his seat opening? No.