SOmeone once said:

A successful politician is one who observes the direction in which the crowd is moving, and then runs out in front as if he were leading all the while.

The problem with the "absolute" and "politics" is that so many politicians, in their efforts to evade, elude and obfuscate, make statements that sound like absolutes. Reasons for installing a health program (Clinton) to reasons for tinkering with SS(Bush). You are correct, that there really are no absolutes (except zero, perhaps!!), but our leaders sure like to try convincing us, don't they?

Listen some day to Carlin's rant on bulls**t. WHen he talks about Clinton, for instance, and the fact that he got elected because, as far as the public was concerned, he came right out and said: "Hi, I'm Bill Clinton and I'm full of s**t!! How do ya like that?" Dole lost, in Carlin's eyes because he tried to convince people of his honesty and integrety. Same can be said in the latest election as well. People like their bull straight up and out there.

Proof, in a way, that the public knows what politicians are, and respects those that come right out and admit it.

I think the democrats have been doormats to the Neo-Cons for too long. It will take some one like Dean to stand up and say, HALF THE COUNTRY (that votes) does not agree with you!

ummm...dino, 49% is NOT half. Close, mind you, but not quite. :D

Randy

I stand corrected, Randy... Still not a mandate that W is claiming...

And yet, I'm sure if Kerry (or "anyone but Bush") would have won, we would have spent the next 4 years hearing about how "The American people have spoken: and other such statements.

Mandate or not, the bottom line is Bush won. More people wanted him than "anyone" else. And, whether you win (or lose) by 1 point, or a hundred points, you still have the same outcome. Preaching, or espousing hate certainly doesn't seem to be the best way of "dealing with it."

Randy

Hum, Bush won, then deal with it.
Now if only the Republicans in Washington felt the same way.

oops, Washington state.

The thing is - you can't have a moderate as a leader. You need someone who is one way or the other and stands for what they believe. Bush is that I suppose - Maybe Dean is too.

That being said - I still think the Dems need to cater to the middle to be successful.

That might be a contradiction though.