Let me just say this -

Are you out of your fucking minds?

Before you go off in a huff to another post, please just think for a while and let it soak in: Who is the "best" Republican you could hope for to become the next president?

Did you say:

* McCain? Say goodbye to a woman's right to choose, then say hello to big business' best friend. Don't kid yourselves about Mr. Straight Talk...when it comes to policy he's only slightly to the left of Dick Cheney.

* Rudy? If unions are not already dead in America, they're certainly losing a lot of blood. Count on St. Rudy of 9/11 to cut their legs off and eat their hearts. He's never met a union he didn't like...to destroy.

* Huckabee? Not as scary as you think...unless you actually think.

* Thompson? Grandpa Fred is the Republican Triple Threat: The hair of Eisenhower, the work habits of Reagan, and the intellect of G.W. Bush.

* Romney? A political Rubik's Cube. He's on so many sides of so many issues, could anyone possibly know what he might do as president? That is, besides turning the White House into a casino for every right wing corporate lobbyist on K Street. That you can take to the bank.

One thing is absolutely clear. If a Republican takes the White House in 2009, the United States will get hundreds of new judges, plus at least one - possibly even two - new Supreme Court judges. And these will not be reasonable, time-tested, prudent jurists. The best will be judges in the mold of Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. The worst will populate the lower courts. We're talking judges that meet the high standards of, say, a Scooter Libby or an Alberto Gonzales.

This is not a scare tactic. Every candidate on the GOP side is shouting it loud and clear and it's the only issue where they all come together: They all say they will pick "Conservative" judges, and we all know the sound of that dog whistle.

It's true that I am a firm John Edwards supporter. His message is one I've longed to hear since the days of Bobby Kennedy. His populism resonates deeply with me. And even so, I consider it a duty to vote for any - ANY - Democrat who wins the nomination to prevent the wholesale destruction of our American way of life, our liberties, and our dearly-held values.

Please...if you love your family...if you love your country....hell, if you just love your privacy, or a little peace, or a decent job...VOTE DEMOCRATIC!

And do you seriously think she would appoint an asshole like Scalia?

Be honest. Bill didn't do a bad job in appointing judges (Ginsberg, for one) and they're pretty much on the same page politically speaking...corporate, yes; but also somewhat socially liberal.

I'm not at all confident that she'll do anything but move us farther down the corporatist shithole.

At least we buy some time. If we get stuck with one more Republican we will disappear into the rabbit hole of history for good.

The Clintons ARE republicans.

But no cigar.

Where is the deep connection with Dominionist/Calvinist zealots? Where are they in bed with extraction industries?

There are a lot of things about the Clintons that I don't like, but Republicans? When they start pandering like the GOP to the abortionistas and to Exxon, I'll believe you. Until then, Hillary remains the least-worst option.

corporatists? check.

pro-occupation of Iraq? check.

in favor of control of health care by private insurance companies? check, and in spades.

opposition to the US becoming a torture state? umm, well, uh . . .

opposition to the US spying on its own citizens and eliminating civil liberties? umm, well, uh . . .

opposition to the expansion of executive power and privelege? umm, well, uh . . .

opposition to tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy? umm, well, uh . . .



they are repukes. not from the religiously insane wing, but repukes nonetheless.

A Hillary/Obama ticket would promise 16 years of uninterrupted Democratic rule, and throw Al Gore in for a cabinet post and we could be ruling American politics for a generation, but what the fuck do you care? Pander to the Rethugs, we'll vote for change.

I do not believe that a Hillary/Obama ticket represents much in the way of change



both are corporatist, supply-side "free" traders, so on economic issues, they represent little if any change

both have either supported the occupation of Iraq, or failed to vote on occupation funding bills, or have expressed positions that could mean a continuing protracted occupation, so on the issue of the occupation of Iraq, they represent little if any change

hillary's health plan was written by insurance industry lobbyists and Obama's is so vague who knows what we'd really get. I fear on health care, they just propose to make a horrible system bigger and the problems even worse.

Because you won't find it ANYWHERE in Washington.


I WISH COULD BE SO CASUAL HERE AND HAMMER OUR CANDIDATES AND NOT GET TOMBSTONED.

it's fucking amazing that not wanting to support wars for empire and the continuing theft of public resources is considered "purity"

We are a long, long, long way from purity. Why are any and all attempts at moving the party back from the right ridiculed as "purity?"

and the local level.

But at the level of the presidency, you'll have to make do with Hillary, Obama, or much less likely Edwards.

Not voting for the Dem nominee is petty and selfish. I just don't see Hillary appointing Scalito to the SC.

Because of your silliness you will see to it a republican gets elected.

or very very close to it. And Obama under fire doesn't hold up well. Not attacking, just commenting!

I'm voting for change.

:hi:

This slow cooking is taking the country irretrievably down the shitter.

And, yes, it may be for "good". ? For ever, is what *I'm* talking about.

So, you see, there are other views that have as much merit.

Alito, Roberts and Gonzales. But don't let facts get in the way of just making shit up.

if she thought it might pull in some moderate voters.

That she won't about a Scalia analogue to the Supreme Court? That's really quite pathetic. All that can be said to answer all the complaints leveled against her is that she won't about an atrocious SC justice? (I'm not even convinced of that - she's a corporatist, why wouldn't she about another corporatist to the Court?)

The typical Rethug's score on the same issues is less than 20%.

The Rethugs who regard her as as flaming liberal are more accurate in their assessment than many DUers. They know she's no kindred spirit, but a threat to everything they stand for.

www.progressivepunch.com

And spare me the continously spammed ADA-DLC listings or anything of that nature. When it counts. On the war. On Iran. On corporatism. On the Constitution. Hillary votes WRONG.

on issues that matter. Hillary is a DINO/DLCer/AIPAC/NEOCON/CORPORATIST through and through.

her. This is where obama is so damn naive if he thinks he can sit around and sing “Kumbayah” with Republicans, you’ve just shown how naive you are. Obama has exposed how uninformed you are about the brutal history of U.S. politics where every progressive step is spattered with the blood, sweat and tears of all who fought so hard for those gains.This is how you arrived Mr Obama as the last sentence suggests and not through some virgin birth.

YOu seriously believe the Republicans have been the party of ideas for the past ten to fifteen years? Including the last seven years of Bill Clinton’s administration? Really, Mr. Obama?

Since the economy is the hot topic these days, let’s just look at what President Clinton did for minorities in terms of economic gains — even though Obama dismisses those achievements.

Unemployment Rate for African Americans and Hispanics Remains Historically Low. Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, the Hispanic unemployment rate has dropped from 11.3 percent in January 1993 to a record low of 5.8 percent in March 1999. The unemployment rate for African Americans has fallen from 14.1 percent in January 1993 to 8.1 percent in March 1999–one of the lowest levels on record for African Americans.

Here are additional economic accomplishments of the Clinton/Gore administration — as of 1999 (during the administration’s second term) — that also had a direct positive effect for minorities:

18.2 Million New Jobs. …
Unemployment at 4.2 Percent in March …
Highest Share of New Jobs in Private Sector in 50 Years. Since the President and Vice President took office, the private sector has added 16.7 million new jobs–with 2.4 million jobs added in the past year. Since 1993, 92 percent of the 18.2 million new jobs have been in the private sector–the highest percentage in 50 years.
Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Two Decades. Last month, average hourly earnings increased 0.2 percent. Under the Clinton-Gore Administration, real wages have risen 6.1 percent–compared to declining 4.3 percent during the Reagan and Bush Administrations. After adjusting for inflation, wages have increased almost 2.7 percent in 1998–the fastest real wage growth in more than two decades and the third year in a row–the longest sustained growth since the early 1970s.
Construction Jobs Are Coming Back. …
Manufacturing Jobs Have Increased. After losing 2.1 million manufacturing jobs between 1981 and 1992, the economy has created 350,000 new manufacturing jobs since 1993. After losing 46,000 jobs in the auto industry during the Bush Administration, the United States has 147,000 new auto industry jobs under the Clinton-Gore Administration.
Inflation Rate Is the Lowest Since the 1950s. …
President Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, “which passed Congress without a single Republican vote.”

It raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers,<35> while cutting taxes for 15 million low-income families and making tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses.<36> Additionally, it mandated that the budget be balanced over a number of years, through the implementation of spending restraints.

:crazy:

:wtf:

I was in too much of a hurry to put him on Ignore, I guess.


BTW, Great OP. You hit it right on.

I do that all the time. I should have known.

</duh>

Who are you talking to?

Ravy explains. All is cool.

It'd show that she's just another president for them, the few, the proud, the beltway pundits and lobbyists, instead of, finally, a president for us.

We'll see how she behaves in the general election, should she receive the nomination. Truth be told, I'd rather have Hillary slamming the Republican nominee as pathetic, than Obama composing another "Ode to St. Reagan" and I truly never thought I'd praise Hillary over Obama. If she keeps it up, she'll have my vote, again, if she is the nominee.

I voted for Bill. Boy was I disappointed. So much so I didn't vote for him a second time.

it'll be a cold day in hell before I vote for another Clinton!

If you want change you need to look outside of the statuesque.


:banghead:

It's a strategic vote. The least-worst option. The passion is in my opposition to modern Republicanism. Their goal seems ultimately to destroy the Constitution and replace it with empire.

Maybe I'm delaying the inevitable, but I have a twelve-year-old daughter who I would like to grow up in a country that respects her rights. If Republicans continue to gather strength, she will live under a government that considers her an underclass.

you want for your daughter? She stood by her lying, cheating man for personal gain.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I think you're enabling the paradigm you fear for your daughter?

Im still undecided but I don't want gender to trump my very liberal leanings.

And after 8 years of bill, the Clintons are anything but liberal!

When did I express that I think Hill should be a role model for her? I'm talking about law, as in "keep them off her body." Though Hillary Clinton is no "she-devil" as Tweety would say, she's certainly not my number one choice as a role model for my kids. That's not the point.

of compromising when it comes to laws.

DOMA, DADT, NAFTA....etc.

NEVER TRUST A CLINTON!

It's about them not you!!!!!

She likes Hillary because of the "experience" thing. I like to point out that Obama and Edwards have essentially the same experience she does...other than having a 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue address for eight years.

If you listen to Hillary it's all about "I can do such and such" and "I bring X to the job." She sounds less like she wants to be president and more like somebody who's trying to get a job at McDonald's.

hillary or repuke...i don't care for her either, but i'll be damned if i'll vote for a repuke! you have to think of the other things besides the "presidency" that would change with a dem in office. SC, etc.?

Try using some critical thinking skills a little..

NONE of the Republicans will do it. On the contrary, they will likely continue to hump for more war. Their oil bosses will demand it.

that fellow Dems try to "fear my vote out of me" the less inclined I am to care...true story. Make me like Hillary and then I can vote for her..so far not so much...

This has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with anger. It's all fight, no flight.

The Republicanism that began with Reagan needs to end with Bush. The Republican party as it exists today - a coalition of corporate kings, their media lapdogs, ex-Dixiecrat racists, Dominionists and ignoramuses - must be broken into tiny pieces. Perhaps it may rebuild itself later in another, less odious form. But for now, it has to go. If by electing a Democrat we can sow the seeds of a Republican diaspora, we must do it.

"The Republicanism that began with Reagan" has thoroughly infiltrated and corrupted the thinking of the Democratic party leadership and that of many of the most vocal activists and party supporters. If that were not true, we would not have the Bush administration.

We can't control what the Republican party leadership does, but we damned sure can demand better leadership and a strong committment to traditional Democratic party ideals and principles from our own leadership. Anything less makes us no better sheep being led to the slaughter, and allows the leadership to move further anf further under the control of wealthy and powerful people.

Baaaa. Vote Demcratic no matter whaaaaat. Stop criticizing the paaarty. Baaaaa. They're better than Republicans. Baaaaaa.

You don't even know me. You've never met me. Does internet anonymity make you so smug that you can accuse somebody you don't know of thoughtlessly getting in line and going along?

If you don't like what I say, fine, but do NOT idly throw names around. Remember you are talking to people, not video screens and keyboards.

Of course not. Read my post again.

I said that we would have to be sheep if we did not make demands on the party leadership and if we gave them unconditional loyalty no matter what.

"We" means everyone except you. The only thing I suggested about you is that you were asking us to be sheep. In my humble opinion.

I thought it was getting personal in here.

I stand corrected.

Spiffarino if I didn't think that you were a reasonable and thoughtful person, I would not have weighed in on this subject or come on so strongly about it. I just disagree with you about this, and all I ask of you is to consider the question from a different point of view. This is a very sore subject for many of us who have been beaten up with it for literally decades. Before every election, the calls for loyalty start again, before we even have a candidate, and always directed at the left. No matter that I have voted for every Democrat in every election for 40 years, no matter that I have worked and canvassed and solicited and volunteered in every election. No, still, I have to be lectured about loyalty if I try to express the point of view of the traditional left wing of the party and point out that the party is drifting further and further to the right.

I am loyal to the American people first, to the principles and ideals of the party I grew up with second, and to the party itself third. That is the approach that I am convinced is not only morally sound, but also the approach that has historically brought the party its greatest practical electoral success, as well. Still, the party leadership is less loyal to the people, to the principles of the party, and to us than any of us would ever consider being. So who should be lectured? The critics of the party, or those who try to silence that criticism with calls for loyalty?

I only plead that we come together in November and keep as many Republicans out of DC as possible, starting at the White House.

In a number of ways, I am ashamed at what the Democratic Party has become. The fear of the Limbaughs and Scaifes in the media, the inability to stick to our core FDR-style principles, the pandering to the powerful and wealthy...it's disgusting.

So I back John Edwards and push his campaign's message whenever, wherever and to whomever I can. I donate money, and soon I'll donate time. And I will try in some small way to make the Democratic Party the pride of FDR, and of John and Bobby Kennedy.

In the end, though, I just can't handle the idea of another Republican president. So much that I would be willing to crawl on my belly for a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama - Semi-Dems - if it means I won't have to endure another Republican troglodyte for four years or more.

I'm afraid this - among other things - is what makes me so brittle and so inclined to miss that you weren't being nasty at all. I'm really sorry I didn't re-read you post before responding. I did afterwards and it was damn good.

But that is the effect.

I have never in 40 years said "I refuse to vote for the Democratic candidate." Never. Very, very few ever do, and most of those were either not very committed to voting Democratic to begin with or wind up voting for the Democratic candidate anyway once they get their frustrations expressed - and more importantly, heard, and respected.

Nevertheless, criticism of the Democratic leadership gets met with "whaddya gonna do? Vote Republican?" or "how'd that Nader thing work out for you last time, hmmm?" and other obvious attempts at ridiculing, trivializing and dismissing critics of the party leadership. That is an attempt at silencing debate. No way around that.

Let's look at the last election. Once Kerry was anointed by party insiders, no criticism was to be permitted, even about tactics or rhetoric. "Right now we have to get a Dem elected, and we can deal with all of that other stuff after the election." OK, great. I worked my ass off for Kerry in a very conservative district - if that isn't the ultimate sacrifice and an almost impossible task, trying to sell a pedantic erudite professorial New Englander to rural people - I don't know what is. But I made a personal commitment to a goal of getting 100 Republican voting neighbors to at least not vote for the top of the Republican ticket, and hit that goal. I could never have achieved that result by selling Kerry - it just wasn't going to happen. I waited 'til after the election to do anything other than cheer lead for the party.

The what happened after the election? Did everyone dig right in and tackle the serious problems within the party? Was the left wing of the party heard and respected? No. Right away - and I mean the day after - we were talking about "Hillary in '08" while serious issues, such as the mountain of evidence pouring in that showed that the election had been stolen were buried and those who wanted to talk about that were attacked as “conspiracy theorists” who were “hurting the party” by “making us look bad.”

So between elections is not the right time to criticize the party, during the campaign is not the right time, after a devastating loss is not the right time, during the primaries is not the right time - at what point do we face the fact that the calls for loyalty are really a tactic by one wing of the party to shut down the other?

...more, that is.

I nearly gave up on being a Democrat and probably would have. Then Bush started into his second term. That changed everything. His arrogance was only outmatched by his intolerant foolishness, and his lapdogs in Congress only encouraged him. Now I'm certain that the worst possible outcome in '08 would be four more years of uninterrupted Republican rule.

Kerry's laying down and giving up after the election was clearly stolen ended my support. I joined the campaign in March of 2004 and got a lot of blisters helping Kerry, only to be seriously screwed by his gutlessness. But I learned a valuable lesson; get in early and support a person who stands up for what matters. That's why I'm working for Edwards. As much as his campaign is lagging right now, he's worth the time and money to get his message out.

And so, in hindsight, the timing of my OP sucked. The primary season is precisely the time to help mold the party into the one we want. My concern was only that the venom being spewed by many at DU (TA excepted, of course) may become erosive. I had hoped that my post would be a rallying point. Wrong. If anything, it seems to have brought out the worst in some people.

Since writing the OP, I've been accused of being hateful, arrogant, stupid, a shill for Clinton...the list goes on. I always thought this place was fairly tolerant, but now I'm not so sure, so it's time to get away from this forum and try to do some good. It's time to focus on Edwards' campaign exclusively.

Thanks again for responding so thoughtfully.

Thanks for your patience with me.

Plus, you rite real purty. :D

There is much value in our exchange here that could be easy to overlook. We actually are allies in every important way, yet as with so many discussions it threatened to go down the crapper because we were struggling with one of those "how about we beat each other's brains out over this" set ups that are so prevalent in every political discussion. I appreciate you hanging in there and working through it with me. If we could do that more often with everyone the benefits would be incalculable.

This was therapy.

How much do I owe you?

And for Democrats, Progressives (I use the term lightly regarding Hillary haters) and Independents, there is a clear choice, NO more Republican rule, period.

.
.
.

That was fun.

The debate is not about the goal, it is about the method for getting there.

Yes, they are out of their fucking minds. Some of them actually believe that having a Democratic president is exactly the same scenario as having a Republican one.

Yep, a Democratic president will nominate someone like John Roberts to the Supreme Court (twice), gut social programs, throw money at Halliburton, keep us in Iraq for another 100 years, wreck the education system, privatize social security and end abortion, civil, and GLBT rights.

To believe that, one would have to be nuts.

I don't see anyone saying that "having a Democratic president is exactly the same scenario as having a Republican one."

so our view on the differences between the parties tends to be on a foreign policy scale where they are impossible to find.

Please explain what you think any Democrat would have done to sustain the US economy in the face of the world's second largest oil producer trading in Euro's?

...on primary night in South Carolina - his "must win" state - crestfallen as he goes down to defeat.

Works fer me! :D:thumbsup:

Oh, yeah. Nader, about Bush and Gore. And some on DU believed him at the time. How did that work out?

Jackpot. This is precisely what I was aiming for. If you were next to me I'd hang a blue ribbon around your neck.

Nader never said there were no differences between Dem and Repube. He said there were few major differences between the two parties that they were willing to fight over, and that the similarities towered over the differences.

I voted for Nader and I believe it's a mistake to say Nader cost Gore the election. However, the attitude that "they're all the same" certainly made a difference. After 2001 we learned that the differences between Democrats and Republicans in positions of great power are vast and important.

The last seven years have been among the worst in American history. I won't be part of it again. Edwards gets my support until he's either president or a king-maker. But I'd rather be dead than get stuck with four more years of Republican rule.

Just askin'.

it didn't prevent Gore winning. Being piss weak in the face of clear election fraud did however.

How the fuck is Nader STILL being blamed for costing the Democrats the election, apart from the arrogance of assuming that all those who voted for Nader would have voted Dem had he not run (entitlement complex much) it ignores the simple demonstrable FACT that Gore did win!

Hillary is beyond my nose holding capabilities.

I'll be voting for the most progressive, anti-war, candidate on the ballot. Even if I have to write one in.

to the Lounge.

First, your post could never be effective at achieving its purported aim.

"Are you out of your minds?" you ask people. Which people? What is the supposed problem that your post addresses? Even if a person had never considered not voting for the Democratic nominee, they could easily resent your attempt at enforcing loyalty. There is no mass "don't vote for the Democrats" movement going on that requires suppression, and even if there were your post would tend to increase that trend, not stop it.

Secondly, politics is a little more complicated than making a static choice, as though we were merely consumers selecting merchandise and making the "right choices." So it is not correct to set out your peculiar way of looking at politics as though it were the only possible reality. It could be argued that weak and ineffective centrist Democrats in office are worse in the long run than no Democrat in office.

Do we really imagine that the Bush administration arose in a vacuum? Years of weak and vacillating and accommodating Democratic party leadership contributed mightily to what has happened. All the time that Clinton was in the White House, the right wing was free to build and consolidate their strength - maybe more easily then they could had they held the White House. Now we have a weak and ineffective Democratic Congress that is refusing to stand up to the administration. That amounts to enabling the opposition, and may well be making things worse, not better.

Thirdly, we are now in the primary season for the party, and what is happening is a struggle for the heart and soul of the party. This is the chance - the only chance - that people have to demand a stronger Democratic party, a Democratic party that is true to its traditional principles and ideals, and enforcing loyalty tests in the middle of that suppresses those voices and short-circuits the process - the very process that may actually be more vital to the future success of the party, and that may more dramatically effect the electoral success of the party than any loyalty test could ever do.

Fourthly, your argument is dishonest, since the only reason such a loyalty test would be needed would be if we were anticipating that we will in fact wind up with a weak drifting-to-the-right nominee, and that the people on the left will then need to be bashed and ridiculed once again and driven back into the fold, or ironically told to get lost or both. But you are starting that process before we know that this will be the case. That makes your post a covert and disingenuous promotion of one faction of the party over the other, not the plea for loyalty that it pretends to be. That stuff is bad enough once there is no choice. But as of right now, we still have hope of having a voice, ad there still is a choice between the two factions within the party. You are trying to snuff that hope out. You are simultaneously telling people on the left that they aren't welcome, but that they better dare not leave. That makes the problem you are supposedly trying to solve worse, not better.

Imagine if Kucinich won the nomination. Do you think that Kucinich supporters would be screaming at Clinton supporters that they had better remain loyal? No, of course not. Why is that? Because it is not really an issue of loyalty that you are raising, it is about a battle between the left wing and the right wing of the party. The right wing has the money and the media, so they are the default winners even though they are not usually the majority among the activists, and many of us believe would not be the majority among the public were it not for their superior war chests and media access. No, if Kucinich were the nominee no one would need to be harping on the “he’s at least better than the Republicans” theme. Why? Because there would be no question in anyone’s mind that the Democratic party nominee was substantially different than the Republicans.

Calling for loyalty tests at this point is a covert and dishonest way to aid and abet one side, and to tilt the playing field in favor of one of the factions fighting for control of the party and its direction.

No doubt "any Democrat is better than a Republican." But all of us on the left have been around this block a few times, and we know what that statement really means. It means shut up and go along with the centrist right wing Dem, or go away, but if you do go away you are evil incarnate and to blame for everything that is wrong in the country, you are lucky we even tolerate you, we don't want to hear you, but you have no place else to go to suck it up you losers. Believe me, we know all of that. No need for you to rub salt in the wound. Right now is our only chance to be heard. Don't take that very brief time at the table away from us. And don't be too confident that the day is not rapidly approaching when the tables will be turned. I believe that day is coming soon.

:yourock:

Well stated. :thumbsup:

No only are you overanalyzing, you're making an awful lot of assumptions about me from a few paragraphs.

...the decision on whether to vote for clinton or not is not easy for me. i am very far left. the democratic party, in general, is ALWAYS a compromise for me. one problem i have is that my nose-holding votes aren't counted as such, they are just votes like any other. they go to provide support, if not mandate, for the dem victor, who turns around and says, "look how many people voted for me!" and thus continues the vicious circle, with my support.

i want to break the cycle of the dems ignoring the left. how can i do that AND vote against bush? quite a dilemma, as i see it.

i'm beginning to think it's time for a real change in strategy for progressives.

love your sig line, too.

It is the context within which the Democratic party operates, not which personality we select within that context that matters.

All of us on the left should know that on a level playing field we would see the politics of the New Deal getting the support of 60-70% of the people. It takes a persistent and aggressive effort at all levels by those in league with the wealthy and powerful people for us to keep having a weak and compromising opposition party.

The 50 state strategy Dean has been running is part of the solution, because that is breaking up the stranglehold that a small segment within the party has over all of us by bringing in more people and a broader range of perspectives. Edwards campaign, similarly, is attacking the context - the premises and assumptions that are driving the direction of the party. Both of them are saying "wait a minute, we have forgotten what the party stands for and who we should be fighting for."

Whether or not any of us "like" Dean or Edwards, or would make them our "personal choice" or think that our "values match up to theirs" is not relevant. It is that approach to politics that is bankrupt - personal choice, and matching up personal values, all of which is a matter of personal likes and dislikes, prejudices and preferences as though it were an exercise in making a consumer choice of a product.

Politics is not about personal choice. That is something the Republican propagandists have foisted on us. It is inherently divisive and alienating, and the Republicans succeed when the population is divided and alienated. Shopping is about personal choice. Religion is about personal values. Politics is about concern for others, concern for the larger community, and it is about power - who has it and who does not and why and how they have it.

Look at the larger context and what is happening there. Look at which leaders are challenging the context, as opposed to shifting around content and leaving the context untouched. If we can change the context, the content will easily be changed.

The context is this: a very small number of very wealthy and powerful people, and their witting or unwitting allies and enablers among Democrats, control the entire political process, and therefore control virtually all aspects of our lives.

...but who are you voting for?

I can vote Socialist, then Greens then ALP. The ALP are almost definitely going to win but if they do it only after Greens/Socialist votes are counted they start getting the hint.

I think the poster you are responding to is from Australia.

I thought it was pretty obvious but I forget that sometimes anything outside the US is unknown.

With preferential voting you could send a protest vote without risking a republican win

The 3rd paragraph is key. When we put up weak Democrats that don't represent our values, people don't know what we stand for and they have no reason to vote for us. I don't agree with a damn thing Reagan did, but he stood for something - something that all those freaks on the other side rally around nearly 20 years later! You have to do more than not offend anyone to inspire people.

You really nailed something here.

I remember when Dean was running and I was canvassing in rural neighborhoods, and so many people said to me "I don't agree with everything he says, but you know where he stands and he means business" and they were ready to vote for him. Many, many voters are more than willing to vote for traditional Democratic party positions, if anyone were strongly expressing them. The Republicans run circles around us on this - taking clear and forceful stands and expressing them in easy to understand terms. Of course they are usually lying, and they are still successful by standing and speaking strong. We could tell the truth and be strong, and sweep the field every time. Carter and Clinton were not effective at using the bully pulpit, either. "None of your damned business who I had sex with" would have been nice to hear from Clinton. Or "I am committing this nation to rebuilding our public transportation system" from Carter, rather than "turn your thermostat down and change your lifestyle" would have been powerful, as well.

That is the main reason I am supporting Edwards, because I think he has a strong sense of the power of the bully pulpit. Some dismiss him as "all talk." Well, we need some of that talk. Talk took Bush and Reagan a Hell of a long way.

I think part of this is a habit of caution on the part of candidates. Republican propaganda has so trashed out all of our positions, that the candidates are fearful and on the defensive all the time. But another part of it is more ominous - too many of our leaders are trying to please two masters - the big money insiders and the people. They are afraid to alienate the big money insiders, so everything comes out couched in vague and vacillating terms. Many voters are not so much rejecting what we have to say as they are rejecting the way we say it. If we don't talk as though we have confidence in our ideas, how can the voters have confidence?

"Do we really imagine that the Bush administration arose in a vacuum? Years of weak and vacillating and accommodating Democratic party leadership contributed mightily to what has happened. All the time that Clinton was in the White House, the right wing was free to build and consolidate their strength - maybe more easily then they could had they held the White House. Now we have a weak and ineffective Democratic Congress that is refusing to stand up to the administration. That amounts to enabling the opposition, and may well be making things worse, not better."

That is the plain truth.

This is why I say primaries ARE important and you SHOULDN'T throw your vote away there . . . so we don't get stuck with a candidate who thinks like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3873196

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/HughBeaumont/32

Wish I could recommend your post. It's the best one on here. I don't want to be part of a party that takes its constituents for granted and "settle" on a bad candidate that fills me with indifference.

:thumbsup:

but I feel like recommending just so people read your post

You are simultaneously telling people on the left that they aren't welcome, but that they better dare not leave

Well said, I'd add the contradictory refrain that there's too few of us to make a difference but that if we don't vote Dem (or ALP in my neck of the woods) we're helping the Republicans (or Liberal Party)

If there's so few people looking for a real progressive choice then why get so bloody screechy when we wont vote their way, we're supposed to be insignificant?

The uber-hipsters of the Left are almost as bad with the hate as their Rightist counterparts.

The slightest deviation and, bang, you're a Republican. They lack all ability to make critical distinctions, but they preen about how "nuanced" and intelligent they are -- and how other people are "sheeple".

This elitism is rampant among people who consider themselves to be radical. Ironic, isn't it? Yet they wallow in the cheap irony they themselves love. It's the lack of self-criticism that sinks them. They are unable to consider themselves as being wrong about anything, and they are angry about the entire world beyond their own cliques.

Fortunately, their numbers are small. In spite of their hatred for liberals, they tend to share most of our same basic beliefs. Also fortunately, they talk a good line about activism, but seldom do anything more than complain.

They will grouse about Evil Hillary until the cows come home; and many will also complain that Barack Obama and John Edwards are "corporate". (You can take that to the bank!) But most of them won't do much more; most won't even vote. Perhaps it's just as well. We will have to work a little harder to get out more of the liberal vote to replace the uber-hipsters who don't, but that itself will be worth the effort.

--p!

But then, I dye my hair, so I've been exposed as a troll (true thing)! What do I know? :rofl:

Spot on, PW. :thumbsup:

I do hope you are able to consider yourself as being wrong about everything.

And you?

--p!

It is a real shame that the Republicans are not on a relentless campaign to destroy and eliminate their "fringe" and don't run to the center. They know that they represent the wealthy and powerful, know what it takes to get the public to go along with that "fringe" agenda, and lead with their strongest foot forward. They go all out, no holds barred, and reward praise and follow those in their movement who best represent and promote the interests of the wealthy and powerful few.

Yet Democrats do just the opposite. Those of us who say that the party should strongly and unambiguously represent the interests of the other 90% of Americans - all of us who must work for a wage if we want to eat and who are living paycheck to paycheck and losing ground every day - are viciously and continuously smeared, dismissed, attacked and ridiculed as the party moves further and further to the right. Once again, we are told to "love it or leave it" as centrist and right wing Dems dance on our graves in glee.

Smash up the left if you like, and make no mistake about this, the Republicans could never do the job without much help from inside the Democratic party - but it is not our grave you are dancing on. It is the grave of the party and of the hopes and aspirations, the well being and survival of the American people.

A lot of the more-radical-left is populated by people who are cynical, elitist, and like to play at being revolutionaries. Nearly all of them are the children of the moneyed classes. They are the ones who accuse Bill Clinton of being a mass murderer and Hillary of eating babies. No amount of reason will dissuade them, because their tribe has issued fatwa.

Remember, in 2000, when Al Gore supposedly financed the genocide of the U'we indians? There's plenty more. Counterpunch still sells books detailing "crimes" of Gore's that have been long debunked. Bill Clinton is still accused of singly being responsible for the deaths of half a million Iraqi babies (even here). Hillary is still accused of being an anti-Semite. These accusations all come from the Left.

The fringe agenda is a sectarian hatred agenda -- Trotsky and Lenin wanting to overthrow the liberal Duma. It's like that in any party or political tendency, our own included.

--p!

the Republican will again win the electoral vote due to vote count manipulation in several key states . . .

(see 2000 and 2004 for precedents) . . .

...that you are right.

That's why I made the post. I want to do something to remind folks to vote out Republicans, even something as inconsequential as a crappy post on an insane forum. The more votes we get, the less chance they have of stealing it again.

either the domestic leadership or foreign diplomacy one expects of a president.

So no. Actually, Hell No.

As I've said ...
But YOU add yet another piece of bullshit rhetoric. YOU speak of love of family and love of country. Bizarre. As we have a thread asking whether we'd give our lives "for our country," DUers are falling all over themselves to say "Hell, no!" or are avoiding the thread like a plague.

As a combat veteran, that was something very real. The bargain someone in military service makes is to surrender their own will, and even their life, to the will of the People - the nation as a whole. But DUers are so much more sophisticated. DUers talk about what they'd do "if my child" were drafted. I hear that and have to wonder why they're not doing that already? After all, the neighbor's child is being killed. Are folks not already doing everything we can? Why not? After all, that's the bargain ... do only that much that's "worth it" ... to "me."

Well, I made it back from Viet Nam alive. The reception I got - for putting my life on the line for the will of a Nation - was something less than salubrious.

I'm AGAIN being told to surrender my OWN will - and my own conscience - to the will of others in casting a vote. This time they're pissing in my face already.

No.

"Fool me once ..."
:puke:

I have no idea where dying for my country comes into play here, but I'm gratified that a bona fide VV would respond to my post however angrily. While I couldn't qualify for military service my father, my brothers and my first cousins all served. My dad was a twice-wounded Marine (SS-2PH). My first cousin is still standing guard at a shitty outpost near Tikrit as I type this. So yeah, military service kinda matters to me.

I don't expect you to vote against your will. Read the post again - preferably when you're a little less irritated - and tell me again where I tell you to surrender your will.

Let me be crystal clear: I do not urge to vote for Hillary Clinton; I do urge you to vote against Republicanism. With great enough numbers, it's unlikely the Republicans can get by with stealing another General Election and will be forced to slink away for another four years. It's simple pragmatism.

As for what is to become of the Democratic party, I don't know. I hope that by becoming active - and by pissing off a few people with my opinions - I will play some small part in reshaping it.

Isn't Democratic urine really salubrious? If you were a real Democrat, you'd think so.

Sorry, I just think it's funny to see a word that I learned from a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon.

I don't think of it as dissing Michigan though. The Democratic Party has to be fair to the other 49 states too. Either we have rules and follow those rules or we have some sort of anarchy were everybody keeps moving their primary up in order to be first. In Kansas, we are kinda excited to be having a choice this time unlike previous years.

Michigan is obviously more important than Kansas, but the KDP played by the rules and only moved our caucus up to Fat Tuesday.

Well, let's make some (God Forbid!!) comparisons between the Republican and Democratic Parties ... BOTH of which faced the EXACT same conditions: Primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina and caucuses in Iowa and Nevada and "early" primaries in Florida and Michigan.

(1) ALL the Republican candidates spent both time and money in Michigan. Only Kucinich did among the Democrats.
(2) ALL the Republican candidates were on the Republican ballot. Only Clinton, Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich were on the Democratic ballot.
(3) The Republicans claim that only HALF the delegates will be seated at their convention. The Democrats claim that NONE will be seated.

Now ... all the blame-shifting and finger-pointing in the world regarding the behaviors, all of which are part of an "internal party power struggle," cannot change these obvious facts.

From a partisan standpoint, I'm virtually CERTAIN that the Democratic Party surrendered about 5% of the vote in both states come November ... both of which have been regarded as "battleground states" in the last few elections. SOMEONE in the Democratic Party apparently thinks it's worth it. (I think their initials are DLC, personally.)

From a VOTER'S standpoint, the Democrats care NOT AT ALL about our preferences and issues ... and the GOP at least went through the motions.

Michigan is labor, minorities, the unemployed, working poor, health care deprived, women, and retired people. We've been thrown under the bus. As the state with the HIGHEST unemployment, one might think the Democrats had something to offer. Apparently not. Campaign money CONTRIBUTED by Michgan voters is spent in OTHER states ... better off economically than Michigan.

Only Kucinich.


FWIW ... my Norwegian immigrant grandfather, with only a 4th grade formal education, was obsessive about language, classical music, and history. Self-taught, he spoke two languages fluently and two others conversationally. Even after his five children ahd graduated high school and gone on, he beat them at Scrabble. As his only grandchild, for the first 15 years of my life, I benefited from his loving attention and developed a vocabulary that dwarfed those of my classmates - and some of my teachers - in elementary school. "Salubrious" has been part of my vocabulary since about 4th grade ... loooong before Calvin & Hobbes was even ink in the pen of their creator.

and I still am not certain what it means, although I still remember the cartoon.

Depending on what the polls say, I am sure our candidates will eventually spend more time in Michigan and Florida than they will in Kansas, or even Missouri. Many of the states on Fat Tuesday are not gonna get that much time or attention, not to mention later states. Because Republicans campaigned in Michigan, they kinda short-changed South Carolina and Nevada. Should voters in those states be upset? Me, I am just a traditionalist and think that the person who cuts in line should get the crap beaten out of him. It's only fair to all the other people waiting in line.

I think the DNC is making a huge mistake with Michigan. They need to find a solution quickly and fix this mess before the convention. Michiganders (?) are a natural FDR demographic and the Democrats are insane to disrespect its voters.



Salubrious is a good word that I never use. It sounds vaguely sexual and nobody around here knows what it means. They'd think I was a perv.

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20071217&s=moser

Fumbling Florida

by BOB MOSER



Orlando

On the final Friday of a parched and quarrelsome October, Florida Democrats were bumping around a hallway in Disney's faux-elegant Yacht and Beach Club Resort on the opening night of their state convention, perusing campaign items for sale (three Hillary buttons for $5!), sussing out the evening's schedule ("The progressives are supposed to be having a party, but where are they?") and, mostly, grousing about the conspicuous absence of presidential candidates.

"This whole thing here is a joke," said John Taylor, a hulking schoolteacher from Jacksonville wearing the tallest, most bodacious Chef Boyardee-style, star-spangled red-white-and-blue hat you ever saw. "How stupid the Democrats are--we're shooting ourselves in the foot!" Taylor angrily recalled some of the Republicans' tactics for suppressing the Democratic vote in 2000 and 2004. "They stole two elections, and now we've been working six years to make sure that don't happen again. And the Democrats screw us!"

"Forget that," his friend said. "You're beating a dead horse. I blame the candidates. You've got, what, ten or eleven of them? And not one of them shows up here?"

(and so on...)

I was stunned to see the answers on that thread, and I am glad to see you talk about it. I think I was the only person to answer with an unqualified "yes."

There is some profound contradiction at play here. Most people are arguing for working within the system, voting for whatever we are offered up, and are deeply resistant to a radical analysis of the political situation or to advocating or working for a significant overhaul of the system. Yet they are unwilling to sacrifice for their country? Those two positions cannot be simultaneously held with any integrity. The first position argues that the status quo is worth saving, the second says "so long as it doesn't cost me anything personally." That is hypocritical and cowardly.

How can the country not be worth sacrificing one's life for - actually it is worse than that, since there are also many who would not even go to jail for the cause of social justice - and at the same time not be in need of more radical change?

we have people saying that if you don't vote, or don't vote a certain way, or continue to argue for left wing positions and upset people by being a "whiner" or a "purist" or "fringe" that you then have no right to complain and that whatever bad happens to the country is your fault. But they themselves are not willing to take any risk, to put themselves in harm's way, and are not willing to make sacrifices for the country?

Anyone not willing to put their life on the line to protect the country had damned well better be prepared to put their life on the line to change the country so that it IS worth defending with their life.

That's MY loyalty test.

on edit - the link to the other thread. I hope people can see the connection that Tahiti Nut drew between the two discussions.

Would you lay down your life for your country?

That's a very good way of stating it, I think. I think of it as "nation" ... people. People including family, neighbors, loved ones, friends (even those I haven't met) ... and the values and principles that are our HIGHEST aspirations (and not the lowest 'standards' we can get away with.) For me, it'd be impossible to have something to live for if I didn't have something I'd die for. Whatever I wouldn't die for has to be something that's worth less than a few more years of self-indulgence. That's a pretty low 'standard.'

Most of us who've been under fire in a combat zone have thought about such things - what we'd die for and what isn't worth saving our own lives. There have to be some limits, I believe.

I've said before that I believe we've become a nation of cowards and criminals - and that's tragic. The words "land of the free and home of the brave" ring hollow to me - as we torture people, imprison people without charges, wage a continuous assault on millions of people who posed no threat to us and kill many hundreds of thousands of innocents. This doesn't even remotely resemble the behavior of the nation my grandparents immigrated to and raised a family to honor. Yet I'm told that I'm somehow obligated to vote for people who'd only slow its decline because (God Forbid!) someone who'd REVERSE that decline is "unelectable" ... or not even running. Yeah. Riiight.

(sigh)

The truth is, this will he an historic event - and women will be turning out in huge numbers to elect our first woman President.

I will sooner vote for someone I agree with about 65% of the time (if those quizzy things are anything to go by) than someone I agree with 10% of the time. Let's face it, the chances of a Kucinich becoming president are only slightly greater than my own. Let's get real. Would any of us here on DU prefer a Democratic or a Republican president? And no, for the record I am not a Clinton supporter per se, and I do believe she is a Democrat, albeit a lukewarm one.

You gotta play the hand you're dealt. If she's the party's nominee, then I'm voting for her.

The U.S. system is winner-take-all. There are no provisions in the Constitution for putting together small coalitions of like-minded individuals. If you have a minority opinion, you're basically screwed unless you can cram your issue-plank into a large party's platform. The United States of America isn't a true representative democracy.

Since we're forced by law and custom into picking from among a small number of candidates, we are often left with the decision to pick a bad one, a worse one, or no one. Not much of a choice, it's true. But what happens when you don't vote?

George W. Bush.

You vote as you choose, and I'll vote as I choose.

The same overly familiar song I've been hearing since I started voting in 1965. Different cast of "not as bad" candidates, but the tune is the same.

I hope I don't see you here complaining about President Huckabee.

But, do get back to me if my one vote decides the fate of the world.

I will absolutely cast my vote (in the primary as well as the general election), but it won't be for Mrs. Clinton.

In this thread. It does a body good to exercise the red X.:smoke:

That is the problem, and that is what people here are so passionate about.

A "red X" has been placed on millions of people in this country, and they are completely ignored. Edwards is the one politician who at least recognizes that they exist. The other America - the people you have X-ed out.

The only way they can get people to vote for HRC, is to threaten them with a Republican president. Yet they're never able to persuade people by all of HRC's positive points.

Wonder why that is?

She is my least favorite candidate. However (and I suggest strongly that you read the OP), she has positions I agree with on many issues and I will suffer no pangs of conscience whatsoever over pulling the lever for her if that's what it comes down to in Nov.

--Pro choice. 100% pro choice voting record.
--She has a health care plan. It's not great, but it's still better than anything the other side has going.
--She is finally coming around to the idea of ending the Iraq war (day late and a dollar short, but never mind. At least she is not committed to staying there for another 100 years like McCain).
--As one of her constituents, I can assure you that she is usually responsive to the voters. She does listen and she generally votes with the majority of NYers.

I'm not here to defend Sen. Clinton. I'm not even here to give you her positions, which you can look up yourself. Doubtless you have. Like I said, there's plenty wrong with her. There's just plenty MORE wrong with Republicans.

It's not a threat. If you choose not to vote for a Democratic candidate, you must accept responsibility for helping the Republicans. How many times have we said it on DU that if the one-issue Republicans would just stay home, Democrats would win? That's all it takes--get your opponent to stay home. They're playing divide-and-rule and we're falling for it.

Am I sick of compromising? You bet I am. Will I do it again to fend off another 8 disastrous years of Republican rule? You bet I will. I don't think we'll survive another 8 years of Republicans. We may barely survive Hillary, but I'll play those odds.

You're not exactly selling me the 'product' Hillary Clinton.

I take issue with: If you choose not to vote for a Democratic candidate, you must accept responsibility for helping the Republicans. That's bullshit. That's a scare tactic and a way of bullying progressives into voting for a corporate-owned Democrat whose similarities with the Republican candidate are bigger than the differences. What about turning it around? "If you nominate a corporate-owned status quo DLC Democrat, you must accept responsibility for helping the Republicans." You need to stop acting like the Democratic nominee is automatically entitled to our votes. No. He or she has to earn them. So instead of bullying us into voting *against* a Republican, persuade us to vote *for* the Democrat.

So far you haven't done a very effective job.

Yes, HRC has a health care plan. So does Mike Huckabee. And Mitt Romney. I'm sure even Duncan Hunter has a health care plan. What does it matter as long as it is still a disastrous plan? A plan in which the insurance companies, the HMO's, are still the ones who get to decide and they keep screwing the average people over and over again?

She is finally coming around to the idea of ending the Iraq war. This is going to convince me... how? *Now* she's coming around? It's 2008, for the love of God! She voted for the war! She voted to fund the war! She stood by her vote and cheer-leaded the war until at least March 2007!

How many times have we said it on DU that if the one-issue Republicans would just stay home, Democrats would win? That's all it takes--get your opponent to stay home. Then why are so many people arguing that a HRC nomination will bring out all the Republicans who would have normally stayed home?

If she is the nominee and you vote for a Rethug, you get what you deserve.

You will be the only one who is sorry. You know there's resentment against HRC within the Democratic party, and instead of persuading people to vote for her, you are being an arrogant ass and you say: "we don't need your vote!"... Well, go along. Say that to every person who is, at this point, unwilling to vote for HRC. Your approach will only assure people not to vote for HRC, and you will be sorry for it when she loses the general election.

On the one hand you need us to vote for your corporate owned candidate, on the other hand we're "traitors" and we "deserve what we get" when we don't. You could use a few lessons in PR.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:shrug: A legend in his own mind. :rofl:

as a child who feels the need to tell someone that they're not talking to them anymore

"fuck it we don't have to persuade anyone to do anything"

:rofl:

The sad irony of your position is that it is precisely the "left" (what is deemed left in the US is centre left at best in the rest of the world) that you need to persuade if you wish to see a Democrat elected.

Republicans will vote Republican (and certainly wont be swayed if Clinton is the nominee) Dem loyalists will vote Dem. The people that have pushed recent Democrat presidents over the line have been the left who have held their noses and voted for the (very slightly) least worst candidate.

If you refuse to listen to them then YOU are destined for a long time in the political wilderness. Actually more pointedly if Democrats refuse, because your posts make it abundantly clear that you have zero activist experience - no-one who thinks "we don't need to persuade anyone" is an effective campaigner, hope for the sake of the UAW's membership that you're not a shop steward

I see Clinton supporters don't try to s "sell" us their candidate, they simply say she's going to win, so you better just vote for her...or else.

. . . I'll never vote for someone I'm not proud of, nor will I vote for someone because of the feeling I'm being FORCED to.

Maybe we should try harder next time, I don't know. If there IS a next time, that is.

there's nothing you Hillbots can do about it!

You can't bully me!

An appeal, even begging you to vote for your least-worst option...but a loyalty oath? Put some Vitamin E on that comment, or it'll get stretch marks.

But your wonderful analysis will fall on blind eyes here. The haters have come home to roost.

...because they are practically the same.

The problem with your kind of reasoning, is that it legitimates the Democratic party to keep shoving corporate-owned status quo candidates down our throats (who will never provide for things like universal not-for-profit health care). Why? Because they *know* you all will vote for them *anyway*! "What are you gonna do? Vote 3rd party? Then welcome the next Republican into the White House!" As long as progressives/liberals and Democrats in general fall for this tactic, nothing will ever change and you will be forced to vote for 'the lesser of two evils' while holding your nose for the rest of your lives.

Practically ain't totally. It's the difference between lightning and lightning bug.

Roe v. Wade.
Samuel Alito.
Elections have consequences.

They worked to get DLC'ers Gore and Kerry elected, although they were/are far from progressive. They worked to get a Democratic victory in the elections for Congress in 2006. And what have they got in return? Nothing. Why can't it be the other way around?

And why should progressives vote for HRC? The difference between 'practically' and 'totally' is very, *very* small. Don't kid yourself. It doesn't matter whether a Republican wins or a Democrat who acts like a Republican. No, not even when you take Roe v. Wade or the Supreme Court into account. These are threats that the corporate-owned Democratic candidates hold against you. And they will be able to get away with that as long as you put up with it.

It's clear that you are a much better human being, right?

If we have the ill luck to have her as president, and you see the way the country continues it's downhill slide, *maybe* you'll apologize for your unreasoned hatred?

No, probably not.

I wasn't feeling an ounce of hatred when I wrote that. It was an attention-getting device. Seems to have worked, too. Lordy!

I seem to have offended you with my boldfaced sentence, so I'll summarize and save you having to read it again. I am pleading with DU to come together to get rid of Republicans. Yes Hillary sucks, but in the end she may be all we've got to stop them. And I really, really want to stop them. Enough to suck it up and vote for a mini-corporatist over a pack-the-courts-with-racists-homophobes-and-dominionists Republican. I have a young kid and two grown ones. Their lives will suck under another Republican president. I don't want that.

That's about it. Sorry.

dissing.

You seem to have a natural knack for it.

And I am honored to make you the first entry in my ignore list.

of DU posters that they're out of their fucking minds. You then take the 2 year old exit and tell someone they're on ignore (why don't you just stick your fingers in your ears) and then call other people angry and sad?

Pot...kettle...black

The "out of your fucking minds" part was an attention grabbing device. The follow-up was a list of what we could expect from the Republican candidates using a bit of humor. It was in no way meant to demean or denigrate, yet it was taken that way by many a sensitive soul.

My friends tend to be able to relax and laugh even at issues as serious as the future of this country. I was under the mistaken impression that a majority of people on this board were of the same mindset. I stand corrected. It seems a large number are pretty uptight and strident.

Sensitive? nice way to dog whistle that anyone who disagrees with you is hysterical.

Just admit your OP was poorly written, had zero evidence to back up your assertion and was nothing more than a call for everyone to do as YOU do

Not going to go there after all...

But now I may just vote for her in the Primary if Edwards drops out. Obama's, Reagan BS comment the other day makes me want to puke. So I'll be voting for her in the general election if she wins.

or the media.

AND I DON'T VOTE FOR FUCKING CORPORATISTS

:smoke:

"because I am completely incapable of forming an intelligent and rational argument and it scares me when people confront me with reasoning that is completely beyond my understanding"

I really, really, really, REALLY do not want another full-on Republican. That's what sucks about this whole thing. I never get to vote for someone, I always have to vote against someone. And because I have to vote against the even worse person, I have to vote for someone I do not like or want at all. The people get fucked every time.

I was very disappointed in that endorsement. I remain a huge fan of Wes but I will not follow him down that path. I would so much rather that he was running.

...we've been handed a crappy electoral system. Winner-take-all is not exactly representative. It leaves us with too few choices.

Unfortunately, in the end we're usually stuck with the "South Park option" - Turd Sandwich v. Giant Douche. In 2000 I felt the same way and opted not to vote for Gore. I got Bush.

This election is too important. If Turd Sandwich 2008 is a Republican, I'll vote for Douche. And, if he/she sucks at being a Democrat, I'll bitch in an ear-splitting manner.

I just have a feeling I'm not going to like it.

Let me take care of that

No just reading this thread dickhead - keep it up and you'll be talking to yourself.

BTW I bet a million dollars you unignore in order to read this comment

At least the neoconservatives don't like Clinton.

Because it ain't just me that won't for her. It's MILLIONS.

But I won't be one who stays home or writes in. I don't care for her or Bill's politics, but I have far fonder memories of 1993-2001 than of the last seven years. If I have to take a Xanax first, I'm pulling the lever.

I hope DK stays in the race a while longer, though. Between Edwards and Dennis, Hillary and Barack are having to reshape their messages to appeal to actual Democrats. This can only be a good thing.

Worked on me then. Didn't turn out so hot in the end. Fool me once...

I worked like a dog for that campaign. I was getting exit polls all day. Kerry was kicking ass in North Carolina and all over the country. The 2004 election was a sham.

We can't let the next one be close.

I question the logic that the answer to stolen elections is to get out the vote. That is what we did last time. I also question the idea that demands for loyalty are what gets out the vote, as I said upthread.

Imagine you have a bank with no paper trail and no statements and the money you deposit keeps disappearing. Would you then put more and more money in with the idea that if you put enough money in they can't steal it all?

I'm more referring to how Kerry just utterly bailed on us the day after, having promised that he'd have our backs. No fight, no nothing. I remember watching that speech, and I have never been so absolutely furious in my entire life.

And while I wasn't terribly enthusiastic about Kerry, I could at least bring myself to vote for the guy, even if I felt like a sellout doing it. Hillary? Not in a million years. I never thought we'd nominate someone I could stand less than Kerry but damn, we appear to be well on our way.

The bad news is...she's still Hillary.

And not out of my mind*, just living in California, which will most likely go to Hillary or Obama in the GE if either of them winds up on the ballot - very likely scenario. Cynthia McKinney might get my vote in the GE, or I could write in Dennis K. None of the "conservative" candidates will get my vote, though.


*at least not on that "evidence" ;)

but I would never vote for a rethug over even Hillary. Never. Just the thought of another rescumlican sitting in the oval office come 2009 is too disgusting for me to conceive of.

No I'm not kidding, but I did say perhaps.

I'm not sure that what's best for the country is consistently choosing the lesser of two evils. One might argue that what that has gotten us is a slow decline where in many things slowly get worse and worse - but hey at least its slowly, interspersed with brief upswings.

Sometimes in order for things to get better, they have to hit bottom. Kind of like someone who needs to make serious life changes - many times its not until they really face bottom that change is even possible.

So, you have to consider the possibility that when you keep threating someone with "you're gonna get a republican elected!" they might already be well aware of this, and think that it may in fact just be better for the country in the long run then continuing to vote for the party that is screwing the country over more slowly than the other one.

I'm not sure that these opinions reflect my own - I admit I waver, but have voted Democratic. But you should at least understand that this is where people who refuse to vote for a democrat they don't believe in are coming from.

:made:

Perhaps it is time to recognize that the country has already been run into the ground?

....crazier than a bed-bug....are you worried things are going to get shitier?....shitier than bushco?

....you know, it's not too late....the dilemma for some that you speak of, can still be avoided....talk to you corporate buddies and friends....

....just don't give her the nomination; see, wasn't that easy?....

From your keyboard to God's ear. I just hope Edwards gets a $7,000,000 surge of campaign energy tonight. He needs to be the nominee.

that a system in which one needs a multi million dollar war chest simply to gain party nomination (let alone the presidency) is one which is utterly corrupt and irrelevant to the overwhelming majority?

retract your inane OP

Nah.

Are you for real, or are you here trying to stir up shit?

pathetic OP calling other people outta their minds if they don't vote like YOU do??

So who do you think could best be described as purely looking to shit stir?

Generally if I go to the trouble of posting a thread there's some information I want to impart not simply instructions

Come back when you've learnt how to have a political debate - hint it involves BACKING up your assertions not just making them and getting all screechy when you're called on it.

Here's an example of why you will never convince anyone of anything:

I ask - don't you ever think your system is corrupt and irrelevant.

YOU answered that you do "constantly"

I suggested in that case you should retract your OP. You admit that not voting for Clinton may be a result of seeing the system is useless - yet your OP claims it could only be because they are out of their minds.

Clearly ONE of those positions escaped your mind while you were posting your original insulting and inane thread - which was it?

They don't. There's your answer: Vote for her!

(Incredible that we still have these discussions, after Nader in 2000.)

I just loves me some Huckabee. He will be much nicer to the voters in Michigan and Florida and thats why I am voting for some Huckabee for me. I Heart Huckabee.

Isn't he dreamy?

Don

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

Shuh-zayum!!

But I'd prefer to vote for one in the correct party. At least it's honest and upfront anti-worker, pro-corporatism. Hillary displaces a real Democratic choice and therefore betrays democracy.

No. I am not out of my fucking mind. I am in the reality based community and my eyes are open. I have been fighting this corporate takeover of our republic for decades in many ways. It is almost done and over. This is a last gasp. Good luck to us all and hope Edwards wins.

...did you make your contribution today? The MSM may not pay any attention to his message, but seven million dollars will sure make them take notice.

they might as well be republican and i'm not voting republican

in which their vote matters. Illinois will go to the nominee no matter if I vote for Nader (;(Nader2000) or Saddam Hussein or if I don't vote...

the dem party, at all.

I'm sorry, but I am not a democrat at any cost. I will not partake in right-shifting the Democratic Party any further than it's already gone.

If we go with Clinton, then not only will I not partake in the elections, I will seriously reconsider my affiliation with the DP in the future.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I agree with you, but there's plenty of time for Democrats to rally around the anointed one, after the convention.

Until then, YOUR candidate sucks, and I'd rather vote for another Bush, Nixon, Perot, Lieberman, or Nader. If you can't see that MY candidate is the only reasonable choice, then you must be a MORAN!!!

:hi:

Yeah, I got ya.
:D

About as productive as our Steeler's Wheel American electoral system.

Like it was said above: any more, we're always stuck with voting AGAINST something, instead of strongly standing and voting FOR something.

Maybe that, in turn, is why we've had only two Democratic presidents in the past 40 years?

Well, that and the fact that they have all the money, corporations, rich people, media and voting machines firmly on their side.

I donated $50 to John Edwards yesterday. So you pretty much know where I stand with Ms. "There are positives to outsourcing".

I am not giving up on JRE. I won't support any other candidate until there's no chance he can win. If he does, yay for us. If not, I'll not let another Republican in the White House without a hellacious fight.

no thanks

I am in Massachusetts and my vote will be effectively meaningless. I will cast it for the person I can support in good conscience.

The court system is already screwed. The Congress caved on Alito, refusing to sustain the filibuster that my two senators began, and the damage has already been done. Every decision handed down by this court demonstrates that. The critical moment has already passed and our side failed.

My vote means diddly in Texas, so I also get to vote for whomever I choose.


And the courts have been in bad shape for years, due in no small part to the repubs blocking so many Clinton nominees in the 90s. And the Dem party did what to fight them on the courts then?

Look, I'd rather have a weak rep. like Huckabee then Hillary, I won't get into reasons, but I'll say it has to do with her illegal and unethical activities of the past 35 years, it bothers me, as it should you!

At least not for now. It'd be a cold day in Hell that I'd vote for Clinton in the primary. I'm only talking about the general, and then only to defeat a Republican.

I think Huckabee is about as good as you'll get for a Republican and I still won't vote for him over Clinton if only to prevent another Clarence Thomas from getting into the Supreme Court.