[mcconnell]

Now, are 18 candidates too many that does not strike as progress on Democracy in Afghanistan? Richard Holbrook may need a lesson on U.S. history when it comes to the number of parties in the U.S. The U.S. have 55 political parties of which only 5 parties have ballot status for its presidential candidates in states with enough electoral votes to have a theoretical chance of winning, now, the 2004 presidential election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States#Historical_political_parties

Also, we mustn't forget the number of candidates running for governor of California ranging from former child stars to porn stars. Now, how many was that? What other countries have as just as many candidates ( or parties) running for President? How many believe 18 candidates running for president a sign of instability? Compared to what? Saddam the murderous dictator??

[JLS]

Of course nothing that would give Bush any credit can be admitted. This is part of why the Kerry campaign is crashing and burning.

[cripplecreek]

A nation with many parties is on the right path as far as I'm concerned.

[ScottFromSpokane]

Oh, hell. If we'd forced a two-party system onto Afghanistan, Holbrooke would be bleating that "Having only two Presidential candidates in such a diverse nation doesn't seem very democratic to me."

[aft_lizard]

The democrats literally prefer having the Taliban in charge there, just like they prefer that Bush never passed the medicare bill or the NCLB act. We should grant there wishes ,except for the Taliban and then say but you guys didnt like them.

[planekT]

I saw this guy. He's an advisor to Kerry on foreign policy, and the rock he crawled out from under has U.N. stamped on it. Big suprise, huh?

And of course he's just drop dead wrong on Afghanistan.

I would have puked on him if he were in range.