loquitur

I'd like to know why it is that no one is taking Chris Dodd seriously as a candidate. He's a good guy. Ditto for Bill Richardson, who has a terrific resume.

I'm really mystified as to why Democrats keep putting forth such unattractive candidates in the last 30 years (not that all the Repubs were such bargains, but the bad track record of the Dems is really astonishing). Except for Clinton, who is many things but <b>not</b> an unattractive candidate, in the elections I voted in I was presented by the Democratic party with Jimmy Carter (incompetent AND moralistic), Walter Mondale (nice fellow, bland to the point of resembling a slice of Wonder Bread), Michael Dukakis (colorless, pedantic), Al Gore (actually not such a bad guy, but also charisma-challenged) and John Kerry (all the charm of a tree stump, coupled with a prickly demeanor). What is the reason for this? When I was a kid the Dems ran <i><b>Hubert Humphrey</i></b>. John Kennedy. I look at the current Dem field and the only one who has an exciting feel is John Edwards, who unfortunately also strikes me as having nothing behind the facade (sorry, it's my prejudice against pretty boys).

I am coming to think that our country's method for selecting candidates is not a good one. The skein of primaries is not good at selecting out the best candidates. And the structure of the system turns a lot of potential good candidates off.

I should add, btw, that in 2000 GWB was not the best candidate for the Republicans to put forth. John McCain was. Again: the structure of the system was not designed to bring the best person forward.