Here are a few truths. I'm sure I'll get flamed.

1. AL GORE IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008. And if he did, it is too late--even for Al. I like everyone else would have liked for him to run but he will not.

2. BUSH AND CHENEY STARTED THIS WAR. Let's keep our eye on the ball. At this point it doesn't matter who voted for or against the IWR, it was Bush and Cheney et.al. that fixed intelligence, etc. etc. etc.

3. CUTTING OFF FUNDING WILL NOT END THE WAR. If you think that Congress cutting off funding will prevent Bush from continuing the Iraq War, you are delusional. He will not. He will simply divert money from other places. He will continue it without money. I believe he will let troops run out of food and ammo and have to use sticks if necessary to continue the war. The federal govt. may shut down here without funding but the war will not end.

4. For those of you who are dead set against a Hillary administration, then get ready for a Romney or Guiliani administration. One of them will be the GOP nominee--I think Romney--and if you don't vote for Hillary or stop being a democrat, then the GOP will most certainly win. Am I convinced that Hillary will get the Dem nomination? No. But I give her about an 80% chance right now so you bet, that I am wrapping my brain around a Hillary administration. I do believe Hillary Clinton can take it to the GOP better than anyone the Democrats have, even the ones I like better than her.

5. THE CONGRESS WAS NOT ELECTED TO IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY. At least that is not why I voted democratic in Nov 2006. Sure I want accountability and still do, but it just doesn't work that way. You know it and so do I. Do I think they should be impeached? Absolutely. Do I think they will be? Nope. There are other domestic things that need to be done such as SChIPS and I also want Congress to take up those items. They are terribly important to millions of folks. Were they elected because folks were disgusted with GOP coruption? Yes. Were they elected to try to end the war? Yes. They have tried but have not been successful.

6. AN EVENLY DIVIDED CONGRESS CANNOT VOTE TO GET SHIT DONE. Keep in mind that we have a SLIM majority (not even a majority in the Senate). Yes, democrats control the agenda but that is all. Getting stuff done still requires votes and if you will remember, the Senate rules now require 60 votes rather than a simple majority.

What I am trying to say is let's keep our eye on the ball, people. We are certainly frustrated. Seeing money and lives wasted in Bush's and Cheney's war pounds on our soul. Be pissed. Voice disfavor. I don't think we do ourselves or the party any good with some of the vitriol I've read. Think about how things will be under a Thompson, or McCain, or Romney, or Guiliani adminstration.

:popcorn:

pass the popcorn.

only thing that voted a new Congress, as it did.

Check out the www.electiondefensealliance.org site. It was a landslide denied. Just look at FL's Sarasota and the 18,000 undervotes, etc. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

It's not possible to say anything about how people vote by looking at the alleged voting results anymore. The US doesn't have a democracy anymore. Check out the exit polls if you want to know how people voted.

Greg Palast also commented on that noting that this time around the GOP didn't contest close races . . . and he thought it was because the records were very vulnerable to showing stolen votes by GOP ---

"For those of you who are dead set against a Hillary administration get ready for guliani"

How about this, for those of you who want to get out of Iraq, DO NOT NOMINATE HILLARY

My opinion is that a Hillary nomination will virtually guarantee a Republican winning the general election. Her nomination will bring out the Republican voters who have been conditioned by the MSM for 15 years to hate both Bill and Hillary.

Nor is she the best candidate, by a long shot. Nor does she even come close to representing my interests. Kucinich and Edwards and even Gravel come the closest, depending on the issue. Nor would I trust her to sell me any car, new or used.

I, unlike you, however, do not state my opinions as if they were fact.

"Her nomination will bring out the Republican voters who have been conditioned by the MSM for 15 years to hate both Bill and Hillary."

in my wife's aunt's extended family in Escondido, California alone.

I wish I had your rosy outlook.

Jeez!

Right now, John Edwards frightens the RNC the most - he'd be the hardest to attack in any meaningful way, most Repuke voters discount him and see him as a "loser" as a result of being on the Kerry ticket in 2004 so they wouldn't be as motivated to vote against him as they would against Hillary, and he has a much broader appeal to the Democratic base than Hillary does, and would be make a far more effective case against the Repuke candidate in the general election.

because she's so hated by Republicans that they would be energized and mobilized to vote. If the fact that Republicans dislike someone is reason for the Democrats not to nominate them, wouldn't it follow that the Democrats should nominate someone whom the Republicans don't hate? Lieberman fits that bill perfectly.

I see no evidence that John Edwards "frightens the RNC the most." But regardless, it is stupid, in my view, to fall for the okie-doke and fail to nominate a strong candidate, whomever that may be, because of fear that they will energize the Republicans. ANY candidate we nominate will receive the same treatment from them - look at what they did to John Kerry, who was hardly the most hated Democrat in Republican circles.

The Republicans are targeting Clinton right now because she's the frontrunner and, as such, is seen as the biggest threat to them. If Obama takes the lead, they'll come after him because HE will be the biggest threat. If Edwards becomes the frontrunner, they will shift their fire to HIM. I seriously doubt that they would "discount" him or see him as a "loser" and therefore hold their fire. The Republicans will go hammer and tong after WHOMEVER gets the nomination.

The Republicans would LOVE for us to fall for their "don't throw me in the briar patch!" posturing. I'm not buying it. We need to pick the best possible candidate - based upon what they're planning to do for the country, not on whether Republicans will run hard against them or not - and then work like hell to get them elected. But assessing candidates by trying to guess what effect they'll have on the Republican base is, in my view, just plain foolish - and exactly the kind of navel-gazing that the Republicans would love for us to do.

Unless, of course, you're a Hillbot where nonsense = sense.

Lieberman is a Repuke in disguise. The Repukes love him, but not as much as their own candidates. Lieberman would lose in a landslide because Dems would switch to a third-party candidate. And he's not the only one the Repukes love to hate. That description is reserved for Hillary.

Hillary is Repuke-Lite, who WILL ignite Repukes to vote in record numbers for whoever opposes her. They also favor a real Repuke over Repuke-Lite.

Hillary is the only candidate among the Dem field that the Repukes hate. They've hated her as much as they've hated her husband since he whooped Dubya's pappy in 1992.

So am I.

Except that I live in Carmel Valley. Just 1.5 miles from the beach in Del Mar.

You probably live in Esondido, San Marcos, Vista, Santee, or Oceanside. Right-wing ignorant enclaves. One of those North County Times ignoramas posters???

Right?

I will vote my conscious and putting Hillary in there is not change, but more of the same that we are getting from the 2 bush administrations. She spins her way out of answering about voting for war with Iraq and now Iran, has ties with the pharmacy industry and now we get the fear card thrown at us. WTF? If that's what I wanted I'd vote for one of those repubulicon assholes, but just because her card says democrat on it doesn't mean she is beholding to the values of a true democrat just as we had seen from LIEberman. Oh but only she has a chance to win my ass. Edwards is farther along than she is because she isn't fooling all of us democrats because when walks like shit, talks the shit, and doesn't seem to give a shit it stills smells and so it is shit, but with a different label on it. I always knew there was a reason why Bill looked elsewhere and even those that think Hillary is like Bill, think again as even Hillary said that 'Bill isn't standing here' as it was pointed out that her answer was different than her husband's on 1 particular subject.

however in the original post I must state for the record, I disagree with #4 “ I do believe Hillary Clinton can take it to the GOP better than anyone the Democrats have,:banghead: even the ones I like better than her.”:argh:
:spank: WRONG Hillary is whom the republicans want to run against.:spank: Biden on the other hand is whom they FEAR.:spank: I am still in Biden's corner.
the rest is truth.

on what repugs want.

dupe

Can we really keep screwing with the lives of so many?

When will we recognize vision? Don't see it by nodding my head to someone's "idea of truth", that's for sure!

:hi:

in there? Hmmm. I don't.

for one of the other candidates. Hope she is not nominated and do all you can to prevent her nomination, not by bashing her and thus helping the RW noise machine, but by promoting your preferred candidate.

Then, if she is nominated despite your best efforts, vote for her and work to help get her elected. We have a chance in the primaries to prevent her nomination, and assuming it's inevitable won't help. But if she is the nominee, we need to get her into the WH, because the only options at that point are Hillary or the Republican nominee, whoever it is--and that is something we simply cannot allow. If nothing else moves you, remember that the next president will nominate 2 or 3 SC justices. Do you want 2 or 3 more Alitos and Robertses on the Supreme Court to screw us over for the next generation, no matter who is president or who is in the 2 houses of Congress?

Not HRC or anybody else. Only a true liberal/progressive will get my vote and I don't think I'm the only one being left behind by these "top tier" candidates. If people want to vote for a lesser evil like HRC, that's your business. But it's truly hypocritical for you people to go around blaming the progressive voters for loosing any election. What you don't realize is that if we vote for HRC/Obama, we already lost.

"Hope she is not nominated and do all you can to prevent her nomination, not by bashing her and
thus helping the RW noise machine, but by promoting your preferred candidate."

This is a positive, productive plan.
It's a breath of fresh air.

:applause:

I follow you on this, even though the best candidate who WOULD have gotten the nominee in 2004 was made to look like an idiot soon after he told Chris Mathews he'd bust up the illegal monopoly of media ownership.

I still supported the Democratic nominee.

Even though the DLC fucked the one who SHOULD have been the Democratic nominee...

Gee, what a great Democrat I am! :sarcasm:

This *if it ain't Hillary, we'll lose the WH* smacks entirely too much like the mindset of the republican's blinkered bullshit. Number 4 just nullified the whole list for me. Why bother reading, when the whole post is just a cover for another round of "Hillary IS the next Democratic President" mantra.

"blinkered bullshit"?

Uh yeah -- that applies to all the Hillbots posting here. You may be willing to choose a blue warmongering corporatist over a red warmongering corporatist, but quite a few of us won't.

Yesterday's proud DLC'er is now disguised as today's proud Hillbot? Hmmm...

I don't hate Hillary, I just don't want her to win the primary. I think Hillary winning the primary would give the election to the repukes. I live in the real world, where I know how much she is hated by the right and how she would get their vote out like no one else would.

I also have never seen anything out of Hillary that is special at all, nor do I understand why she's the "front runner". IMO she has Bill and name recognition, and that's about it.

IF she wins the primary, I'll vote for her but we can do SO much better.



Edited for keyboard misbehavior.

An example: "Yesterday's proud DLC'er is now disguised as today's proud Hillbot?"

I, for one, am an average American who likes where Hillary stands on issues that are important to me. I don't bash others here on DU and appreciate honest discussion about not just the candidates but the state of our Democracy as well.

Yet I get called a Hillbot......not understanding the hatefulness....

and I haven't heard anybody do it either for any candidate let alone Hillary. You whine like a repuke.

And Hillary is, by the way, pure unadulterated DLC.

A soft way of saying pure unadulterated B.S.

not reading properly, but we do agree on Hillary as pure bs it would seem if I am reading rightly now.

avrdream did. She misattributed my words ("Yesterday's proud DLC'er is now disguised as today's proud Hillbot?").

1 It could mean a Hillary robot. As in mindless dedication to Hillary.
2 It could mean a typical capital hill worker. As in same old bs or business as ususal.
3 All of the above.

I'll take interpretation #3.

:hi: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:

:toast:

if you are going to post your opinions..i feel free to post mine..and i think a Hillary nomination will put a repug in the white house again!

see where i am, i can't find one person who can stand her..dem or repug..

but when Gore's name comes up..peoples eyes light up with hope!

i had lunch with a huge group 2 days ago of women..and hillary's name came up..and all i heard was moans..and negative comments..
so i truely would like to know who is getting polled..because i sure can't find anyone who supports her..

and in the dem club i belong to ( and helped start)..there is no one wanting hillary..no one.


and that is all i have to say about it..

fly

I know Democrats of all stripes, and none of them really wants Hilary to be the nominee. The most enthusiastic response is usually "Well, if it comes to that, I'll have to vote for her just to get the GOP out. But I don't like it."

what they are counting on.

to them, we have no choice.

There is so little difference in position between Hillary and Rudy that she is very vulnerable in that matchup. The far right would hold their nose and vote for Rudy (en masse) to prevent Hillary (they are the only ones who think she is too liberal). The firm left will (mostly) hold their noses and vote for her. The moderate repugs and right leaning indies will go for Rudy, vice versa for the moderate dems and left leaning indies.

That leaves the non-political voters who vote by the warm-fuzzy 'who appeals to me more' method. Rudy has more natural charisma than Hillary and will probably win them over.

We could definitely lose it in a Clinton/Guilliani matchup...too close to call this early.

...and so far, we haven't seen jack squat out of the 110th Congress. Yes, we may have a new Hate Crimes Bill, but I heard it was attached to a new spending bill for Iraq. And there's our stand to get S-CHIP extended no matter what Herr Decider says. But aside from that, what have Democrats in Congress actually accomplished? There's no real drive for impeachment, unless Kucinich makes good on his rumblings to go after Cheney. Habaes corpus is still inoperative, torture is still legal, and the government is still snooping on your phone calls and making people take their shoes off and sample their own breast milk at airports. We are living in a climate of fear, and the Democrats in Congress haven't done a damn thing about any of this yet.

So yes, I appreciate your post, and there is much wisdom in what you posted. But if we don't start getting results, and I mean now, America may well be finished. And that's why we need an actual Democrat to be nominated in 2008, not a Republican with a "D" button on their lapel. And if Hillary Clinton can't get the job done, I gotta do what I gotta do. I will remain a Democrat, because overall we've got the best ideas for America, but that's why I kvetch the way I do sometimes.

If ya REALLY wanted results, you should have sent more than fifty one!!!!

Or words to that effect...

"THE math" wasn't enough to totally block the tidal wave of anti-Republican votes, it was undoubtedly sufficient to mitigate its fury.

I am quite sure that illegal Republican voter suppression tactics and electronic voting machines put several Republicans in office who did not really get the majority of votes in their elections.

And that is what's needed these days.

At least we got the gavels. You can do a lot with those.

But instead of a strong statewide Democratic Party apparatus, we quickly learned that Texas only had a few strong county organizations back in 2006. That hindered Barbara Ann Radnofsky's ability to gain traction against Hutchison. My hope is that next year, when we send either Rick Noriega or Mikal Watts to take down John Cornyn, our state party will be able to mount something a little more substantial.

It's an uphill climb in some parts, but worth the struggle.

I know he spoke out against the Kyl/Lieberman amendment, but aside from that the impression I got is that he votes with Herr Decider more often than not. It's like that "How's your boy?" threat that Bush confronted Webb with has all but silenced him, but I could be wrong...

To make excuses for the congressional Democrats who never had any intention of honoring their pledge to end the war. :eyes:

The more I hear from these clowns, the more I realize that there is no change to be had.

anyone who can count the number of votes required to override a Presidential veto knows that.

Unless they changed the rules while we were sleeping....

different than the Republicans were.

Congress is responsible for this war. They are empowered by the Constitution as the only ones that can declare it. And just because they gave up that power to Bush does not absolve them from their responsibility.
Cutting off funding WILL stop this war. Even if we have an insane president that orders his troops to fight without proper equipment and supplies the Generals if they are not also insane would disobey the orders of the commander in chief and pull the troops out of harms way. They have a duty to the troops that transcends politics.
The congress needs no mandate from the people to impeach a president for High crimes and misdemeanors...it is also there duty under the constitution.
There was a thing majority before 06 of Republicans and they did what ever they pleased because they had the power to change the rules. That was the nuclear option if you will remember.

careerist opportunists (*cough* Betrayus). The ones who weren't have already retired in order to speak out, or were replaced by administration toadies.

the profiteers who are raking it in right now would stop making money - and without them backing it, there is no war. They will not provide goods or services if they are not getting paid. The 'contractors' will pull out, and our forces will have no option but to follow.

This war is not about the C in C sending troops into combat - it is about CEOs sending profiting off of war zones. They lose their profits, the war ends.

This war is TOTALLY about money...perhaps oil and money, but basically MONEY-Outrageous profiteering by BushCo cohorts and cronies.
I am sure that the government run "recovery" in New Orleans will amount to the same thing if it is not stopped.

when the contractors pull out. You know Bush will just leave them there, he's that whacked.

He'd pull them out, all the while bitterly blaming the democrats for losing his war. He would no more leave them there than Nixon would leave the guys in VN after congress cut money for THAT war.

Cutting the money works. Anyone who tells you otherwise is merely trying to frighten you into letting them stay there.

I don't think Clinton is in any way a stronger candidate than other potential nominees. Obama and Biden are the two most likely to bring in the biggest swing voter totals. Clinton will do better at turning out both bases. I don't get Edwards's appeal at all, but apparently he's the one the Republicans fear running against the most.

And it'll be Romney this time, not Giuliani. America's mayor is ahead in the recognition polls, but his campaign is about to fall apart at the seams.

The idea that Bush can scrape up enough funds to keep the war running after Congress cuts off funding isn't rooted in reality. If Congress could muster the will and the votes to cut off funding, they could just as easily order the troops home. The problem is that they can't muster the votes to cut funding. Bush is holding the troops hostage over there and not enough representatives are willing to punish the troops for Bush's abuse of them.

Even if nothing ever gets done or even if it fails, it's the only thing that matters ever! It will make Bush impotent. It's the political anti-viagra. It'll change everything.

:sarcasm:

:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:

My view of your bullet points:

1) Not yet. He still has a window of opportunity.
2) Yes they did, but the Democrats signed on with the IWR by abdicating their Constitutionally mandated war-declaring powers to Junior. And from there most horrible events were born.
3) It only takes a simple majority to shut down funding. And as that is the Democrats ONLY weapon, damn skippy I expect them to use it.
4) You don't get it; some people actually choose other candidates because they prefer them. And it's anybody's guess how any of the nomination will play out.
5) Congress was elected on the whim of voters; you cannot state unequivocally what THE reason is, although polls indicate GETTING OUT OF IRAQ is a biggie on that list. Impeachment as a means to an end (getting out of Iraq) should most definitely at the very least still be on the table; in fact, Democrats would be remiss to let the crimes of this administration slide.
6) See #3.

:thumbsup:

What you said.

Some people won't like that kind of bucket of ice cold water thrown on them this early on a Saturday morning, but this is the way it is. Like it or not.

What a nice dose of reality here at DU for once instead of the hate Democrats, hate Hillary stuff we're becoming accustomed to.

And make no mistake about it... every single point listed is a rock solid fact.

There are a myriad of reasons people support other candidates and a mile between that and simply "hating" other candidates. Assigning scorched earth rationale isn't helping the dialog.

though neither are my pick ,as it goes the most Qualified people, Don't want the job.

..that means they then have to actually think about what those reasons could be, and the meaning behind them.Reducing it to simple hate is a copout that lets those making that charge escape actually addressing any issue they are uncomfortable with.It's lazy, sloppy, and ultimately, cowardly thinking.

:toast:

:crazy:

When Bush is getting everything he wants from OUR REPS. More money, more troops, and more laws destroyed?

This is not reality by any stretch, but if you want it to be, get out of my camp!

so figure out a way to steal a piece of the pie for yourself before it's all gone. This country has no integrity and no rule of law, if you're white and male. And if you expect it to change with these current Democrats, you're naive and/or an idiot. Hillary will win because Wall Street wants her to win. Middle America is insignificant, as long as the top 10% of Americans continue to see their stock portfolios grow. So you might as well resign yourself to being a victim of local schisters, because they're not doing anything different to you, than anybody else in Washington is doing to you.

We get it.

thwart the GOBN are bought ,Scared or imbued in to the liquid logic necessary to justify the biggest reason for the Worlds Pain ,Greed.

As the middle class dwindles, and the poor class increases, children will have to commit to the military, because their parents will not have the money to pay for their education and there will be no other options available to them. Hillary is not as committed to education, as the other candidates are, so she will have her army and all the pro-Israeli lobby groups who are helping grease her win, will be happy for it.

:sarcasm:

1. While I agree that Al Gore is probably not going to run, that's an opinion, not a truth.

2. IT DOES FUCKING MATTER WHO SUPPORTED AND ENABLED THE BUSH/CHENEY MARCH TO WAR. THEY DIDN'T START IT WITHOUT HELP FROM DEMOCRATS. "It doesn't matter who voted for the IWR" is an opinion, not a "truth."

3. Cutting off funding would seriously hamper efforts to continue the war, and if it had been done a long time ago, we wouldn't still be there. Saying that "it won't stop the war" is an opinion, not a truth. Cutting off funding would, at the least, STOP THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY COMPLICITY in the war, and, at best, bring it to an end.

4. General election predictions are just that, PREDICTIONS, based on opinions, and are not "truths."

5. The congress is, of course, elected to do many things. Democrats earned the votes last fall because voters wanted some OPPOSITION to Bush and Cheney. Some wanted impeachment, most wanted the war to end and troops to come home. "THEY HAVE TRIED" is an opinion, not a truth. Have I tried to lose weight if I don't have cake with my icecream? If I eat faithfully but don't exercise? "Tried" is a pretty damned subjective measure; the level, and sincerity, of the "try" is an opinion, not a "truth."

6. DEMOCRATS CONTROL THE AGENDA. Who knows what they'd get done with that control, if they actually exercised it, instead of putting it on a shelf "off the table" to collect dust? Postulating that they couldn't do anything anyway is an opinion, not a "truth." Whether you have the votes or not, never even bringing things to the floor for discussion effectively insures that they never even get to be part of the conversation, virtually guaranteeing that they will never happen no matter how many votes there may or may not be.

Here's are some opinions that I believe to be true:

Casting the republicans as the boogie-men we have to fear in order to command obedient votes against our own best interests is a slimy, corrupt political tool.

Suggesting that any Democrat is "better than the boogie-man" is a flat out lie. If the "mainstream" repubs and dems are corporate-controlled, it doesn't matter what the rhetoric is, what they say they stand for, or how they frame the message. Their actions will be to support the continuing corporate agenda, not to support the citizenry. Appearance and reality are not the same thing.

I AM keeping my eye on the ball. The ball of actual action, actual opposition, actual intent to move on issues. That's the ball I'm watching, and it doesn't bounce for all Democrats.

and I just want to add, it's no longer dem vs repub its us vs the corpratists.

Because I don't believe Hilary is electable

Sorry - just stating my true feelings on the issue

The Ratpublicans are salivating at the opportunity to go after Hilary because they know they can beat her even without "fixing" the electronic voting machines

just because Gore has until November 2 to choose whether or not to participate in the New Hampshire Primary.

After November 2 I'll believe it.

I'm sure the rest of the post was insightful :hi:

K & R

Pertaining to # 4 and #6 -
I believe Joe Biden would crush any republican opponent. Primarily because of his foreign policy experience. He is well liked on both sides of the aisle. This week with the passage of the Iraq Amendment where 26 republicans signed on along with 2 independents shows the influence he has on getting things done.

That being said, I do believe the democrats have a strong field. But yes, let's not take our eye off the ball. This is politics, and anything can happen at a moments notice.

1. Joe Biden, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Barack Obama are far, far more popular in many Democratic circles than Hillary Clinton.

2. I also prefer Dodd, Kucinich, Al Gore, Gary Hart, and Robert F. Kennedy to Hillary Clinton.

3. I can read the polls. I can defend HClinton against the Hannitys and the Limbaughs. But she is a flat-spirited speaker and her husband's campaign team is not much to my liking.

4. She is having to fight for turf in Iowa, the first caucus vote for the 08 nomination.

5. She needs to stop triangulating or she is going to repel a lot of the grassroots base that energizes our turn-out totals. Her veep nom will be surgically scrutinized.

6. If she is the nominee she will beat Giuliani like a rented mule; but not by as much as those Democrats in no. 1 above.

7. Many county Democratic chairs would love to see another Democrat at the top of the ticket to lift the boats of Democrats ballot-wide and ballot-long.

8. She looks great.

9. National polling buoys her inevitabilty but "I've seen some hot, hot blazes come down to smoke and ash," as Joni reminds us. Polls are fluid. History is cagey. No one has it wrapped up yet.

cynical and defeatist attitudes and opinions that you've put lipstick on and dressed-up as "truth"

I couldn't disagree more strongly with your lies.

1. Highly likely Al Gore will not run. Praying for a miracle, but I see it as little more than a snowball's chance in Iraq.

2. PNAC started this war. The Executive Branch manipulated circumstances and the intelligence to garner support for it and the Legislative Branch enabled it. It's not just Bush and Cheney, but I'll settle for them being held accountable for these crimes against humanity...though I think it's got that same snowball's chance.

3. Cutting off funding would make a difference.

4. Given the field of Republican candidates and the opinions I am running into in my heavily red district I'm thinking GOP GOTV is going to be a tough sell. I'm not sure it's going to matter too much who is either party's candidate given the level of disgust I'm seeing. I'm more concerned about election integrity than who the candidate's are. I think control of the process will matter more than who the people intend to vote for.

5. Congress wasn't elected to do anything but their constitutional responsibilities and duties. Individual congressional candidates may have made specific campaign promises, but the legislative body is simply elected to represent us in what we hope is rational deliberation and thoughtful legislation.

6. An evenly divided Congress can get shit done if you have reasonable people on both sides who can put their partisan bickering aside long enough to reach negotiated consensus. Pollyanna view to be sure, but theoretically possible. Unfortunately it assumes more character and conviction than we've seen in awhil...if ever. Controlling the legislative agenda is quite a degree of power and in my opinion, has been under-utilized by the democrats.

It would if our president had a brain; He don't any country that hates America would give him the money to keep the war going. Reason the old USA is loosing the war. Remember it took Russia ten years to recover after Afghanistan

They provoked Iran and made it easier for Bush to perform a unilateral act of aggression.

They agreed to ethnically partition Iraq

They voted to keep funding the war in Iraq

They condemned an ad critical of the war and the general who stood before congress and said the surge was working.

They are about to get some more trade deals through, pretty secretively.

I agree with you about Al, but that's about all. The fact that you believe that Bush would start pulling money from other departments and what have you, at will, to fund the war only goes to show up your own ignorance not only about how our government works, but also about certain political realities. Hell, if Bush tried this it would be the 'Pugs out there filing impeachment.

The Dems were elected last fall to end the war and to reign in Bush. Impeachment is one very valid method of achieving this. If nothing else, it would do the world and us a great deal of good by airing out Bush's crimes. Gee, if Clinton can be impeached over a BJ, surely Bush can be impeached for his multitude of crimes.

And yes, a multitude of things can be accomplished be the Dem majority, if they only had a spine.

Oh, and the fact that you're willing to excuse certain Dems for their role in enabling this war only goes to show that you're willing to put politics ahead of people's lives.

Sorry, but many of us expect better from our government, and the only way we're going to achieve that is to hold them all accountable.

Maybe we should call The Wizard of Oz ? :)

Don't you get tired of the spineless meme? Lordy I sure do. How about the way those spineless Dems kicked ass in '06. Can't wait for the next one.

Stop the war ASAP, by any means necessary. How's that working out now? Oh, yeah, that's right, it's being kicked down the road, possibly for the next five or six years. Yeah, that whole Dem victory was a real success now wasn't it? They get into office on the promise to end the war and are now busily in the process of extending it. Good show:eyes:

There have been many polls that clearly show the public is not in favor of cutting funds by not passing legislation. They want a change but it should be a draw down of forces in an orderly responsible manner.

<http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/030107_Bush_Iraq_Iran_web.pdf>
And please note, this is a Faux poll, and their bias would certainly not be in favor of defunding the war.

:eyes:

You make some vague statement, saying that there are "many polls". Yet I see nothing. Hmmm.

you will win the lottery than the Dems will refuse to fund the troops.

Trouble is, I asked you to show me something factual showing that most Americans oppose defunding. Instead of doing that, you're trying to slide off with a dismissive tone. Sorry, but that doesn't fly.

My original contention then stands, that the Dems were given a mandate to end the war by any means necessary, and are failing desperately to do so. Why should we continue to reward them if they won't do our bidding? This is, after all, government of, by and for the people.

elections in the next 30 years, why do you want to strengthen the right when we are finally hauling them back in? Regardless of whether I wish to google around to satisfy you the plain fact as plain as the nose on your face is that it is not going to happen.

Simply goes to show that the Democratic party, much like the Republican party, has become fatally out of touch with the American people and needs to be replaced. This has happened before in our country. Remember those pesky third party Republicans?

The fact of the matter is that this isn't a horse race, with the American people cheering on either the Dems or the 'Pugs. This is about real life problems and decisions. I, and frankly many if not most other people in this country, don't give a damn if it's the Dems, the 'Pugs, the Greens or some other party in power, just so long as they are doing what is in the best interest of this country and are responsive to the will of the people. Since neither major party is demonstrating these qualities, then hell yes, they should go. You're wanting to put fucking politics ahead of not only the will of the people, but tens of thousands of innocent lives that will be ended while the Dems figure out how to end the war within six years? For shame, and shame on the Dems for thinking that way. People are fucking dying, and this certainly isn't time to be playing political games, especially when the excuse that "the American public is against it" has been proven hollow time and again.

to the Right Wing for another 3 decades? You're off your rocker. The only party that will be in power is the one we oppose.

The Whigs died and were replaced all within four years. The politicians in the party broke out along different political lines, and this upheaval gave birth to one of our best Presidents, that former Whig known as Lincoln.

you are a brave one, and I can't argue with much at all there.

I'll stick around and watch ur back. :)

"This is not a good fact, but ignoring bad facts is a bad way to get legislation passed....Responding thoughtfully to this requires people to accept facts. Some have tried to deny this unpleasant reality....And insistence on achieving everything at once would be a prescription for achieving nothing ever."

Congressman Barney Frank on ENDA without the transgender protections.

I agree with some of your points and disagree with others, but I'm just curious as to why you think Hillary has the best chance of winning the general election. The polls seem to show Edwards and Obama as more better options. I like Hillary; I think she'd make a good president, but I think some other candidates would be better and also have a better chance of winning the general election.

I am distrubed at the lack of payback in the Congress.
The behavior of the Republicans when they were in power rates a massive slice of revenge.

no flames here, but I'm sure there will be some.

Bill never opposed Bush either the last 6yrs, so why do any of you think they will suddenly START opposing Bush and winning now?

The Clintons didn't get Bush's poll numbers down. The primary candidates running in 2004 did.

The Clintons jumped in front of the parade in late 2006 only AFTER Bush's poll numbers had stayed below 40% for a year.

1. Anyone touting the truth probably wouldn't know it if it bit them in the ass.
2. Any post beginning with "I'm sure I'll get flamed" probably deserves it.

That said, only Al Gore knows if he will run. It is your OPINION that he won't. And to try and apply "typical" campaign logic or scenarios to a Gore run is ignorant at best. Gore has already won a presidential election, but was denied his presidency by electoral fraud. That is fact. The media cheap shots and false innuendo hurled at Gore during his 2000 campaign have been proved to be vindictive lies. And most importantly, Mr. Gore's statements about our planet and its problems have now unfortunately been authenticated over and over again. In short, there isn't a Dem candidate that could hold a candle to Al Gore. All Gore has to do is say "I want to be your President." The groundswell of support from all quarters would probably make it so.

And yes, it most certainly does matter who votes to perpetuate this immoral and illegal war. Whether you like it or not, history will judge this Congress as collaborators and accomplices. And yes, there are actions Congress could take to begin bringing an end to this travesty. And for whatever their reasons and posturing, they have chosen not to do so. And please, no lectures about parliamentary procedure and the arcane workings of Congress. The simple fact of the matter is that the majority party controls the agenda in Congress. A bill does not come to a full vote UNLESS the Democratic leadership allows it. Think back to all the years of Rethuglican control and the Democrats lamenting the could not get anything done because the majority party would not allow it. That has not changed.

And finally, Hillary or a Rethuglican? Please. There are other choices, and I for one, am damned tired of the DLC/corporate candidate shoved down our throats. Too many are enthralled with HRC because of the Big Dog and because she's a woman. Big deal. So she has breasts and a vagina. That makes as much sense electing someone because they have a penis. It would take an act of God to put another Rethuglican in the White House. The old Diebold shenanigans won't cut it again, even with all the Congressional apathy surrounding fixing the electoral mess. One more questionable election and the rubes will be out for blood.

These are my opinions.

I believe that most of what you say is true.

What I am doing, and have informed others to do, is to reply to any fund raising e-mails, and inform the candidate that there will be no campaign contributions until the war is unfunded. If legislation is passed to de-fund the war, and require that Bush get the permission from Congress on any future war spending, this can stop this lousy war.

I hope that others can follow my lead.
If we join together in this, it CAN be done.

"3. CUTTING OFF FUNDING WILL NOT END THE WAR. If you think that Congress cutting off funding will prevent Bush from continuing the Iraq War, you are delusional. He will not. He will simply divert money from other places. He will continue it without money. I believe he will let troops run out of food and ammo and have to use sticks if necessary to continue the war. The federal govt. may shut down here without funding but the war will not end."

Well if you believe it, then I guess it must be the truth.

Or maybe you are just making excuses for the Democratic Congress lying about ending the war.

One or the other.

Oh and ... Bush cannot divert funds.

the MSM floods the airwaves with anti Hillary diatribe for the next year while the RNC pulls Jeb Bush out as their candidate after March. What if the situation with Iran escalates and another terrorist attack occurs here in the U.S. or elsewhere. Then it's a close race as usual and we lose as usual with a little RNC gerrymandering/media manipulation/fear mongering and vote rigging. What if? Meanwhile we could of bravely run Edwards with Gore as VP and swept the whole country left and provided an agenda that could help change the tide for real. Hillary doesn't change the tide. She just "seems" to be able to win 50% of the vote. We still have Republican lite "if" she's elected and a possible third world war as she is spouting RNC talking points in regards to Iran. I bet you thought Kerry was the way to go in 2004. Where is he now?

If anyone needs explanantion. Feel free to ask.

--

i don't share your love of your opinion.

The war is incredibly expensive, and Bush can not simply "take money from elsewhere" to fund it. Re-read the US Constitution please.

Even if he stole $200b dollars from the US Treasury.

At least I think that's what he meant. And maybe he's right.

theres an immense difference ,that tells a story.

and again and again that many democrats will not vote for her. If she is nominated against all this when any of the other candidates would enjoy full support of the democrats, than there is no one to blame but, the blind and dense who still insisted on nominating Hillary.

:eyes:

--------------
9/11 Truth

.0005% of the population, who have the capability to ignore basic facts.

honestly, i think republicans who dont believe in evolution are on par with liberals who believe 9/11 was inside job. all of you should start getting fitted for helmets

Regarding your point 4. The Democratic Party does not own my vote. I do. And if the Green Party better represents my interests, I'll vote for them. Because voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

So Republican Lite Hillary can have that.

She's also the weakest of the three major candidates in a matchup vs the Republicans. If Obama or Edwards win the nom, Dems win the presidency. If Hillary is the candidate, get used to President Romney or Giuliani. Not that there'd be much difference, in my opinion.

He would have announced by now. People who still think Gore will run....remind me of a girl waiting by the phone to ring every night for a whole month, hoping that dreamy boy will finally call her and ask her out. :(

Every time someone says that "We don't have the number of Dems we need to get impeachment done!"

I scream.

We would have the numbers if we didn't have Lieberman-style Dems like Di Feinstein who insist on voting for almost all things Bush-Cheney. In doing that Feinstein is not only voting pro-Bush, she is voting against her CA constituents. But it probalby does help her husband land those juicy war contracts.

There also seems to be a continual ommission of the fact that Republicans like Hagel are set on voting against Bush-Cheney. Instead of being positive and increasing anti-war decisions like Hagel makes (in turning against his own party), the Democrats are defeatist in attitude. Or maybe it isn't an inferiority complex = maybe they feel that they need the war continuing so that they can ensure that they are elected in Nov 08.

I mean, fer crimmeney - it was Reid who brought in the motion to censure MOVE.ON!

Aren't you cute!

THAT SHOWS TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE JUDGEMENT

thus defeating it --

The duty of our Reps and Sens is to defend and protect the Constitution --
THEY MUST DO THAT --

Bushco are criminals and should be impeached --
they have corrupted government and bankrupted our Treasury --

How do you overlook those things????

Than passing a half-conservative agriculture bill.

You want the party to give up.

If the Democrats continue to follow their current approach(the one you apparently defend robotically)was there any reason for us to even BOTHER electing them?

Sorry, some of us prefer strength, dignity, struggle, and hope.

"It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees"
-La Pasionaria

But I do agree on this point. The Supreme Court (SC) is important. John Dean agrees. Heck even Bob Barr, certainly no liberal, fears for our country if another Bush type gets the WH. What happens to civil rights, worker's rights, women's rights, minority rights etc. with a totally right wing SC? I'm no big Hillary fan. I haven't even made up my mind yet who'll get my vote. But eight more years of a Republican? There won't be country (or a Constitution) to argue about. That said, none of this is a done deal yet. Debate is all good.

Give me a F'N break. We don't need ANYONE here, including you nc, telling us who our nominee will be.

You have your opinions, but that sure as hell doesn't mean they're right.

was stated exactly how I feel - something like the mainstream media has spent years conjuring up so much hate for the Clintons that Hillary is absolutely who they want to run against. Repugs. will come out of the woodwork, I believe even those who never/seldom vote, because they couldn't imagine anything worse than Hillary Clinton as president. IMHO they're the most afraid of Edwards. He's my #1 choice now.

Because regardless of what a handful of HRC or (fake HRC'ers) are over here spewing, they should NOT be telling anyone to drop their candidate and support theirs.


Senator Edwards can still easily win -- don't you forget it!

~~~~~

is telling "anyone to drop their candidate and support theirs". The Op is about the importance of supporting Hillary IF she is the nominee.
I haven't decided which candidate i'm supporting yet, although I am leaning Edwards. If Hillary is the nominee, she will have my full support exactly for the reasons stated in the OP.
I totally agree with you that nobody should be trying to talk other people out of supporting their candidate - way too much of that is going on here lately.

EXACTLY!

There is nothing, nothing, nothing more important than holding
the Bush Crime Family accountable for their high crimes, up to
and including treason against this country.

If they're not impeached, that says to any future administration
go ahead, do whatever the hell you want, nobody cares.

And this country is done. Finished. Stick a fork in it.

How's that for some truth?

51 Dems.
Flip Lieberman because he is a DINO = 50/50
Subtract Johnson because of his brain attack = 49 Dems.

We may control the committees, but the active Senators = 50 GOP to 49 Dems.

That is probably what you meant by not even a majority in the Senate.

You may say whatever you like, but your beliefs are no more pertinent than anybody else who's been paying as much attention as you. And I think that includes a lot of people on DU. Whether or not you end up being right on your predictions ought not to give you any claim to some magical insight others may not have. Simply to assert future claims as if they were truths gives no real foundation for reasoning.

What I see is that we are all damn scared for this next election and our emotions are easily swayed between our hopes and our fears. Your last paragraph I think says everything that we need to hear - let's keep our eyes on the ball and make sure that repugs don't get another four years to continue their reign of destruction. Your strategies for dealing with the possibilities I think are prudent.

Thank you for your opinions. Just so you keep in mind that opinions are not always the truth. They are what they are: opinions.

Oh, wait a minute - it's just that it seems you've read my mind!

You are completely dead on!

Maybe it shouldn't necessarily prevent citizens from voting for them, when weighing all the qualifications. But I think that it DOES matter if someone voted for the Iraq War, for whatever reason (either too weak to take a non-war stand in the climate of the time, or too stupid to see through the fake intelligence, or too lazy to really read the intelligence reports or have their staff read them....the reason doesn't really matter. All the reasons are bad.)

Truth is a word I would prefer not to banter around this thread, but as opinions go I agree with you 100% on each point. As far as the house/senate races of 08 number 6 is going to be the big repuke talking point, the "do nothing Congress". Number 6 is our response and we need to be aggressive getting that message out.