In addition to the problems with Bredesen you cite in links above, he also suffers from a total lack of charisma to the point that he makes mashed potatoes look exciting...Or even Howard Dean.

I can't imagine any amount of shilling by Reynolds is going to change that, although the professor certainly seems fascinated by the governor.

I used to like Brdesen, until he said last year that Bush "is not his president". At that point I decided that Bredesen was no longer "my" governor, and merely an unemployed healthcare CEO that had one chance to fix TennCare, which is all that he was elected for. Anything beyond that--including any potentional runs for national office--is out-of-scope.

Compared to what? Everything you say about Bredesen is true. And that makes him the prospective democrat with the best record and the most integrity.

I'm with John Oh on this one. There are many folks in this country who want to see a healthy competition between the two parties, not the ad hominem garbage we just saw in the last election.

Bredesen has many faults, and I agree with Bill on most of them. But his list is one hell of a lot shorter than any other democrats in the field (minus a Joe Lieberman perhaps), and in order for us to have this healthy progressive political debate, the democrats need stronger, more electable candidates.

By the way Bill- you of all people should at least give Bredesen credit for silencing the pro-income tax voices in his party.

It's a temporary silence at best.

That fits the point everyone's trying to make though Bill.

Name another democratic candidate who stood up to the income tax crowd....

(btw, finally got around to adding you to me roll. Apologies for the delay, I should have done this sooner..)

I notice that Glenn has accused you of accusing him of being a "shill" for the Democrats. I don't actually see you doing that here, Bill (though one of your commentors does). Have you fallen out with Glenn? Say it ain't so.

Nothing to worry about, George. He's just being shilly.

Bredesen has basically been walking on easy street because the media largely fawns over him and there are no Republicans willing to take him to task. Shine the light on a Senatorial district, listen in, and you'll hear a GOP Senator praising him. Newly elected and much touted "smart, pretty" Senator Jamie Hagood says she "trusts" Bredesen--and wow! his budget is great!

There was silence last year when there should have been gnashing of teeth re: cultural issues.

Reports in the Tennessean as well as Nashville City Paper said Governor Bredesen had joined Democratic senators in accusing Republicans of pursuing a radical right wing agenda by trying to prohibit gay marriage and civil unions.

Senator Joe Haynes accused Republicans of "focusing their legislative efforts on a radical social agenda" at the expense of Tennessee citizens and Bredesen chimed right in.

Are mommy and daddy really radical? Ask a southern democrat--you'll find the answer is "no" and that's why they voted for Bush.

Bredesen was also quoted in the Knox News Sentinel regarding legislative attempts to deal constitutionally with homosexual marriages and abortion issues. Bredesen said constitutional changes should be used for really important things--that we shouldn't mess around with the constitution so much. (Yeah, only change the constitution for really imortant things like Lucky 7 Scratch Off tickets and Country Pride lottery tickets--not for things like letting 12 year olds having abortions without parental consent and changing 5000 years of civlization with regard to marriage)

Bredesen's wife doesn't even take his name for goodness sake--even Hillary Rodham Clinton figured that one out. For those in some kind of freaky dream world, yeah maybe Bredesen could pull it off. But the reality is--Democrats lost the presidential because their cultural nirvana looks more like Sodom and Gommorah than a shining city on a hill.

Bredesen has never been tested---and Brad Todd, Van Hilleary's campaign guru, is mainly to blame. He never pushed the issues--he only beat the same ole' taxin' Bredesen drum. And now, wow---Bredesen looks like a hero instead of the yankee liberal he is.

Let Bredesen hit the national campaign trail. I'll be happy to see him squirm when real campaign managers put the interrogation lamp on his liberal social beliefs.

5000 years of marriage tradition huh?

How many wives did Abraham have again?

"Marriage" as we know it didn't develop until the law and church started recognizing property rights in the middle ages. Marriage changes and evolves. I think it's time people deal with it.

"Not Impressed", you seem to be telling us that "the law" didn't recognise PROPERTY rights until the eighth century CE. Which law - Germannic tribal law or Roman civil law? Norman or Frankish feudal law perhaps? Or are you talking about English Common Law post 1215 CE?

Considering that without property rights there would not be such a crime as, say, "theft", yours has to be one of the most ill-worded posts ever submitted to a blog.

Moot question. Kerry got a 92 rating from the ADA and was almost not liberal enough to get nominated. Any possible credentials of Bredesen that would allow him to win the general will not allow him to win the nomination.

I read InstanGlenn's site 2 or 3 times daily and one thing I can say with absolute certainty is that he's no "shill" for the Democrats. Maybe he thinks that Bredesen is...you know..an exceptional politician regardless of his party affiliation. Heck, I think Lieberman is an exceptional politician and I'm as anti-democrat as they come.

I don't think Glenn's intentions with Bredsen are promoting either the right or the left, but rather future funding a balance.

Booya Kasha!

'Marriage changes and evolves. I think it's time people deal with it.'

As soon as homosexuals can have children I'll 'deal with it'.

Um, just a point of clarification: I never called Glenn a "shill" for the Democrats.

Jack Tanner, you're embarrassing yourself by falling back on the "marriage is about children" argument, which would invalidate a large chunk - perhaps a majority! - of heterosexual marriages in this country. Even couples who do have children don't marry for only, or even primarily (in most cases) that reason. We're not livestock, you know - there's a lot more to a human life than reproducing.

I was just kidding with the "shill" line.