the kid flipping hamburgers at McDonald's

That image belongs in a Norman Rockwell painting. Now there are big machines which cook and flip the burgers -- and the machine is operated by immigrant workers.

Don't hold your breath waitning for an answer. This Warner thing has really knocked Armstrong off his rocker.

Like I already asked, please put words into your own mouth. I've never said Democrats can't win. In fact, I've said many times that they will win this year.

And I've also said many times in response to the bogus Theory of Electability (which many use to claim candidates who they don't like can't get elected) that any Democrat currently being talked about as a contender could become president -- except that they won't be able to get past Hillary's money and machine.

I keep asking you people to back up your claims with quotes of what I've said, but you don't (because you can't). You just keep misparaphrasing me for whatever your petty reasons are.

Thanks for answering my question. Why Armstong wouldn't only he knows.

Please cite one post where I've said Hillary will be the next president. The fact is, I haven't. You and Armstrong should put words into your own mouths, not mine.

I know you're really upset that Warner dropped out, but try not to let it ruin your life.

I'm not Feingold's spokesman. Please cite one post to support your assertion.

As for "his chances against McCain", that's just the old Theory of Electability canard that's given Democrats standard bearers like Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry. If every Democrat supported candidates based solely on who they thought would be the best in office, they'd get the best candidate every time.

Whether you call yourself "progressive" or not, Republicans are going to call you "liberal" anyway. And for as long as that term is acknowledged by many Democrats to be an attack on them, Republicans will have the advantage.

"Conservative" was once a term Republicans ran from -- until they got smart and rehabilitated it. Now some misguided Democrats even try to use it to describe themselves (i.e. fiscal conservative).

For their own sakes, Democrats should put positive spin on the term "liberal" rather than running from it like cats from a broom. But failing that, they should at least not help Republicans use it as a scarlet letter to brand all Democrats by denigrating the term themselves.

I respect Feingold, but he can't win the general.

Based on what? The Theory of Electability?

I've said it before and I'll say it again....if GWB can be president for two terms, anybody can.

But winning the general election isn't the insurmountable barrier for everybody you listed (but one -- Hillary.) For them, it's overcoming her money, political and media machine, and her last name. I can't see any of them doing it.

"Thanks for handing us 08, Warner was the only elect-able candidate..."

It's bad enough when Democrats tell us who's electable.

I had no idea MWarner has such a cultish following. Why is anybody's guess.

Has MW helped Webb any up to this point?

If calling other bloggers names floats your boat......

At this point sunshine is wasted on Mark Warner. He's irrelevant by his own design, not mine.

Move on, people! There's nothing to see here!

At least beating Lieberbum has significance with regard to reforming the Democratic Party. Mark Warner is significant of nothing but him being one of billions who will not run for president in 2008.

That helped a lot. But for a week every time I turned on the TV or read a news story, Clinton's people were all over the place telling his and their side of the story. Usually Democrats don't even get more than a cursory say in such matters. And let's not forget Hillary's tryst with Ruppert Murdoch not long ago.