[CMAC51]

* You are NOT doing the logical thing. When faced with a choice between a moderate who holds some conservative positions and some non-conservative positions and a liberal who holds no conservative positions, the logical decision is to take the moderate. After all, half a loaf is better than none.

Your premise lacks certain pertinent content. The moderate would be the leader of the party and as such encounter only token opposition at best to his liberal/moderate efforts. With the media free to promote his bipartisan position shamelessly

The liberal would be in the opposition party and face determined opposition from the Republicans in Congress. The Media would promote the liberal but be burdened with the need to maintain at least a mask of impartiality.

Logically the liberal is less dangerous.

[YummiBox]

Logically the liberal is less dangerous.

I've come to the same conclusion. A pro war dem would be the best outcome over a liberal Repub. At least we would fight against the known Lib vs. the wolf in sheep clothing, McCain. The party would unite and move to the right vs. fracturing even more and moving left. It is true, then, we need to make sure that we shift congress to the right to counterbalance any of the three lib candidates (McCain, Obama, Clinton).