And so the Dems are creaming themselves over their "landslide" team, Nader's feeling smug as usual (he wrote a letter to Kerry telling him to nominate Edwards), and the So-Called-Liberal-Media is already trying to discredit Edwards as a "trial lawyer".

Meanwhile, I, among many progressives, STILL feel betrayed over this choice. It should be no surprise that we wanted somone like Dean or Kucinich (observant forumers will know that I am - he's still running - a Kucinich supporter) to take the spot.

But hey, how could you make a ticket-balance out of center-left Kerry? A center-right VP candidate, of course: Edwards. Who just happens to be from a similar background. I'm already seeing a rehash of 2000, at least on the Democratic side.

The DNC has been a bunch centrist hacks since forever. But that's just my view. The truth is, to counter the Bush Administration's radical rightism, the Democrats should have adopted a solid progressive-left stance. And they didn't.

Well, that's not gonna stop me from voting for them (especially considering Nader's presence). The fact is, I predict a landslide victory all the same. But my faith in the Democratic Party is rapidly dwindling, and I'm sure I can say the same for others.

(Is it just me, or is the forum clock 40 minutes off? I've got EDT here.)

You might  take not that being openly radical is not a good way to win an ellection since part of winning is swaying people who wouldnt normally vote for you. Kerry isnt going to win over any moderate republican votes by running on a completely socialist ticket. It wouldnt be wise to get into the deluded mind set that liberals have some kind of monopoly on public opinion because thats what lost you the 2000 ellections. Remeber that people vote not out of love but fear and alot of people fear the far left position that Kerry represents. If john Edwards helps the democratic ticket to appear more moderate then they have a better chance a winning. If john McCain had accepted they would have had it locked.