I love baseless allegations and unsupported generalities as much as anyone, but could you possibly provide
any supporting evidence (anecdotal, statistical, mythological, etc.) for the claims you make?
Specifically, I'd like to see what makes you state the following. (I've bolded what I think are particularly dubious claims):
[ QUOTE ]
The republicans have the weight of the Bush presidency hanging around their necks with
no one in the press giving them any credit at all, as if any position they take is shared by the president.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Barak Obama made a
naive and irresponsible statement about his willingness to talk to
anyone at anytime without precondition.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When Hillary Clinton calls him on it he responded with the accusation that her position was Bush-like.
[/ QUOTE ]
Is this the same Hillary Clinton who stated:
[ QUOTE ]
"
You don't refuse to talk to bad people. I think life is filled with uncomfortable situations where you have to deal with people you might not like. I'm sort of an expert on that. I have consistently urged the president to talk to Iran and talk to Syria. I think it's a sign of strength, not weakness."
[/ QUOTE ]?
[ QUOTE ]
The democrats are painting themselves into a corner with
irresponsible and dangerous polices, solely because it is the opposite of what Bush would do.
[/ QUOTE ]
What are these "irresponsible and dangerous policies" you refer to? On what basis do you make the claim that Democrats are "painting themselves into a corner...solely because it is the opposite of what Bush would do"?
[ QUOTE ]
If the adults don`t get control of the party we are all in trouble.
[/ QUOTE ]
Who are the "adults" in the party? What kind of trouble will we all be in?
[ QUOTE ]
The depth of
Bush hatred will only be eased when a democrat is elected president...
[/ QUOTE ]
Framing opposition to the current administration as "Bush hatred" delegitimizes reality-based criticism as partisan bickering. Do you distinguish between the two? If so, in what ways?
[ QUOTE ]
The democrats seem well on the way to nominate another unelectable candidate.
[/ QUOTE ]
What, specifically, are you basing this on? "Unelectable"? As far as I can tell this is not true.
PollingReport, which aggregates polls from multiple sources, reports:
[ QUOTE ]
"Now thinking about the next election for president in 2008, if the election for U.S. president were held today, would you be voting for the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate?" Options rotated
[Republican Candidate: 27%, Democratic Candidate: 51%]
[/ QUOTE ]
Multiple polls there show Hillary Clinton ahead of Rudy Giuliani in a head-to-head matchup, Barack Obama ahead of Giuliani in a head-to-head matchup, and similar outcomes for Clinton and Obama against John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson. (There are some exceptions to this trend, such as Giuliani beating Clinton in the George Washington University poll, Obama losing to Giuliani in the Gallup poll, and a few others.)
Does it seem reasonable that "The democrats seem well on the way to nominate another unelectable candidate"?
[ QUOTE ]
Their
money and power base is so far left, that any candidate with even a
slightly moderate view stands no chance at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
What positions, specifically, has the Democrats' "money and power base" taken that are "so far left"? Who are the Democrats' "money and power base"? What are these "slightly moderate views" and in what way do they "stand no chance at all."
[ QUOTE ]
Barak Obama can take a irresponsible and dangerous position with the knowledge that the left wing base in the party will support him, if only because the position he takes is opposite to that of Bush`s.
[/ QUOTE ]
What are you basing this on? From the article I linked to before:
[ QUOTE ]
The Obama campaign, meanwhile, circulated a memo by Obama spokesman Bill Burton saying Obama's response to the question had played well with focus groups and that Clinton had changed her position on the subject — a claim her campaign denied.
Anthony Lake, an Obama foreign policy adviser who was national security adviser early in President Clinton's administration, defended Obama's statements.
"A great nation and its president should never fear negotiating with anyone and Senator Obama rightly said he would be willing to do so — just as Richard Nixon did with China and Ronald Reagan with the Soviet Union," Lake said.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The democrats can hold a debate and not even mention the islamic fascist that are at war with us. Democrats act and speak as if the islamic fascist aren`t the enemy, Bush is!
[/ QUOTE ]
What debate has taken place where the issue of Islamic terrorism hasn't been discussed? Do Democrats have to accept the Bush administration's formulation of the "Global War on Terror" to count as "adults"?
[ QUOTE ]
It is looking like the adults won`t be able to gain control of the party,and because
the republicans will most likely nominate a moderate, they will win the white house again.
[/ QUOTE ]
Who is the "moderate" that the Republicans will nominate? On what issues are they moderate? On one of the most important issues for the upcoming election--the war on Iraq--the Republican front runners find themselves firmly outside the mainstream American opinion (but well within the opinion of Republicans.)
[ QUOTE ]
This will leave us an even angrier and more bitter democratic party, ensuring the cycle of ugly partisan politics that is hurting us all.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, there's always a muddled bipartisan compromise out of any crisis.