As Democrats, we must, at some point ask ourselves.....

[littlejoe]

When do we quit supporting a candidate that has little or no chance of winning the nomination, if it may appear to hurt the front runner?

We all agree that the most important goal is to get the hapless maniac out of the White House. Using this premise to start with as a thesis statement, then we must assume that, in order to do this, we need to get behind a candidate who has a real chance to do just that. Or, we can be much like we have in the past and fight amongst ourselves, while we anxiously watch the prize slip away.

The Bush campaign is cranking up to go after Howard Dean. It is hard to fight a war on more than one front. Governor Dean is busy going through the primary process, as are all of the other candidates. No one democratic candidate has the luxury of focusing solely on the president. This is a decidedly real disadvantage.

So, we must ask ourselves this question: How long can I support my candidate, without hurting the party's chances of beating Bush in '04?

I am fully aware that not one single vote has been cast yet, and I am not looking for a Dean coronation, although I am a Dean supporter. And I realize that those of you who support other candidates are passionate about them, and are holding out hope, which is what I would do. But if, let's say, that after Iowa and New Hampshire, Kerry, Sharpton, Kucinich, and Edwards do miserably, and their resources dry up, then does it become a matter of pure vanity, at the expense of the party to continue on? Will you still consider supporting them, even though you know in your hearts they don't have a snowball's chance?

I am just thinking out loud. What are your thoughts?

[bearfartinthewoods]

1. i'm thinking it's premature ,

[metisnation]

4. YOUR ARE CORRECT

THE GOP WOULD LOVE IF WE WOULD SETTLE ON ONE CANDIDATE SO THEY COULD PINPOINT THEIR ATTACK. by diversifying the field we can triangulate their positions. This is political warfare...Laura Bush even said on Larry King that their campaign will change when they find out who the front runner is. So right now I am supporting all candidates.

:kick:

[jumptheshadow]

21. That is an astute observation

eom

[impeach the gop]

2. First I'd like to cast MY vote

Then after WE decide who WE want to represent OUR interest, WE will support the next ELECTED President of the United States. That US, not rnc, or dlc.

[corporatewhore]

3. support our troops vote kucinich (or sharpton)

the sad truth is my father will be redeployed in 2005 under dean clark or bush. I praying that kucinich or shapton gets the ticket. we need both of them to keep running and fighting for whats right

[DinkyDem]

37. Sharpton has the momentum

the message, and the charisma.

Kucinich only has the message.
Why settle on 1 out of 3 when we can have it all in a candidate?

[theboss]

5. Because it is a Primary

This is going to be my mantra. It was going to be "poop" but that was taken.

You back your candidate in the primary. That's what you do.

[sandnsea]

6. This has to stop

What the fucking goddamn hell is wrong with this country???

At what point are you prepared to stop campaigning next year if the Democrat has little or no chance of winning and the continued campaign hurts United States credibility?

Nothing is anywhere near decided until at least February 3. And as to NH in particular, I sure as hell don't want THAT tiny state deciding who our Democratic candidate will be.

I really like democracy. I wish other people did too.

[IrateCitizen]

9. He's talking about the PRIMARIES, not the GENERAL!

Next time, read the post thoroughly before you spout off some half-cocked nonsense and insults.

[sandnsea]

29. Make the connection!!!

How would you like it if somebody told you to shut up in the GE? People are being told to get behind a candidate before anybody has even voted. It's outrageous and needs to stop.

[salin]

34. I agree.

It is completely inappropriate to declare a winner (or set a small number to advance) prior to any votes being cast.

Heck the news of ABC's pulling coverage on three candidates - inspired me - to donate to each of those campaigns. I think the primaries are important.

I may take to task the degree that folks sow divisive anger among camps that may hamper our full efforts in the GE (because, imo, we all need to do much more for a dem win than vote - or even than vote and donate... we have to hit the pavement, give hours etc... and if we all hate each other and possibly the candidate and/or his supporters... then we have harmed ourselves...) But I think the process itself is important - and trying to cast a definitive status on some candidates, and remove choices from voters, is awful.

I got the analogy right of the bast sands - it is a good one.

[bearfartinthewoods]

38. did you notice the new MSNBC ads?

subtle but turning the knife as it emphasises that they have embeds in all the campaigns.

[Droopy]

10. I'm with you

I like having a choice as to who is going to represent me. I hope they all fight until that can't fight no more. Whoever is the nominee will have plenty of time after the primaries to take it to Bush. Asking people to quit supporting a candidate just because you think he's unelectable is quite arrogant in my opinion.

[littlejoe]

12. It isn't arrogant

How arrogant and selfish is it for a candidate to spend other peoples money, taking up time space and pulling focus from the frontrunner, knowing that have haven't a chance to win?

[Droopy]

14. Who ever gets the nomination

Is not going to be weakened by what happens in the primaries.

You're asking everybody to fall in line before the first vote is cast. To do so would be a great compromise in my values at this point. I will probably have to do that later with the eventual nominee, but I'm not going to do that now while I have a choice.

It's simple. I think another candidate is best for the job. He aligns closely with my own values. I'm not going to sacrifice my vote just because another candidate is leading in the polls. If that candidate gets the nomination he'll get my vote.

The primaries are not meant to be a cake walk for a certain candidate. They are meant as a weeding out process so the best politician rises to the top. Who ever comes out of this with the nomination will be stronger because of that process, IMO, not weaker.

[Ficus]

19. polls are a self fufilling prophecy

too often. I could say right now, "Oh Dean is ahead in my state so I think I should caucus for him." How much sense does that make?

I don't believe in jumping on a bandwagon because someone is ahead. .

I thought our nominating process was frontloaded, but calling for others to switch support in December is insane.

[sandnsea]

30. Why have democracy at all?

This is just incredible that people think we should stop campaigning before half the population is even truly paying attention. Iowa and NH aren't the end all be all of this primary. A few national polls that are equally based on name recognition aren't good indicators either. Especially polls by companies whose techniques are questionable anyway. This is just crazy that Democrats would suggest stopping the primaries before a vote has even been cast. Democrats!! The country has gone mad.

[littlejoe]

36. The republican leadership may be

our worst enemy, but we do a pretty mean job on ourselves, also. Nine candidates? Come on. Get real.

[LuminousX]

7. The simple and correct answer

You support your choice, the person who your guts tells you is the best option by whatever criteria you have decided is important to you, all the way up to the convention. And if for some reason beyond your control, your choice does not get the nomination, that is when you stop campaigning for your candidate. You don't stop supporting him/her, god, no. You just no longer attack the nominee.

I can't think of anything worse than a group of supporters who don't have a sense of loyalty.

[littlejoe]

13. I can't think of anything worse

than knowingly leading a group of loyal supporters down a dead end path, to the detriment of the party. It is selfish and arrogant.

[LuminousX]

20. They have loyalty because they believe

And it isn't a detriment to the party. If the candidate just dropped out, those supporters wouldn't go to the polls.

I speak from personal feelings. If I can't vote for Dean in the primary, I won't vote in the primary.

[redqueen]

8. After one has won the nomination. n/t

[Rainbowreflect]

11. I think that everyone should support who they support.

But I also believe the dems as a whole would be better off if they only attacked bush & not each other.
Tell us what YOU would do to fix bush's screw ups, don't tell me what's wrong with what another candidate would do or has done.

[GalleryGod]

15. Until California.

:argh:

[littlejoe]

18. Most likely,

by then it will be too late. A noble sentiment. One that plays right into the republican's hands. Things are moving fast this political season, maybe too fast. But for some of the candidates, it may well be that their race is over before it has begun. The reality is that time IS of the essence.

[Duder]

16. Check the Gallup poll in January

If one candidate has the national lead above the moe that will be the nominee.

Go ahead and support and vote for your candidate until the end but try not to help Bush along the way after January, i.e. attacks on inevitable nominee.

[Ficus]

17. I will support Kucinich

until he drops out. That doesn't hurt anyone. I know right now he doesn't have much of a chance, but he still adds a lot to the field, and I hope he in there until the convention.

[littlejoe]

22. For the good of the democratic party,

I hope that he drops out soon. If you feel that I think he is a nuisance and a distraction, you are correct. I want to back someone that, not only can I believe in, but who also can beat Bush in '04. Kucinich is not that man. He has not even the slightest of chances. It is my wish that, after New Hampshire his resources dry up and he drops out. But, not just Kucinich. I hope that for Sharpton, Edwards and Braun. Let's get serious about beating Bush in the national election.

[littlejoe]

24. The truth is,

that no one with the base of support as a Kucinich, and we all know it is far left leaning can never win a national election.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

25. "Let's get serious about beating Bush in the national election."

How, by nominating who the media tells us to?

TWL

[littlejoe]

31. Do you live on fantasy island?

[ThirdWheelLegend]

27. Which Ted are you? Koppel or Rall?

:)

TWL

[mmonk]

23. It all has to run its course

[littlejoe]

26. Naturally it has to run its course.

They are not going to cancel the primaries. But again, at what point does futility become obvious? What point does it serve to continue to support someone who was finished before he or she started? At what point does it become counterproductive.

[mmonk]

33. I think its best

when the candidate begins to realize they can't muster the support and drops out, either by money or sheer numbers. Some probably hang in too long, but I guess its their call. It shouldn't have to get to a point where a staffer has to suggest it. However, if someone is having a vanity candidacy to carry a political point to the convention, I guess its their right.

[Beer Snob-50]

28. Your post is relevant

in that if this was the general election and your support was going to one of the fringe independant candidates as a means of protest, you are hurting one of the general candidates (see al gore in 2000 with ralph nader)

[freestyle]

32. Each candidate has strengths, weaknesses, issues

In the primaries, you should support the candidate who excites you, who you agree most with, whi fits your ideas and ideals, whatever. That is what primaries are for, and often the "fringe" candidates are raising critical issues that would be left out otherwise. Without Dennis Kucinich in the race, we would not hear about a Department of Peace or a worker's White House. Sharpton and Mosely-Braun add dimensions as well.

After a nominee is chosen, then it become's everyone's job to rally around that person and focus entirely on beating Bush. I did not vote for Clinton or Gore in the primaries, but I damn sure worked hard for them in the general election. If Dean is not the nominee, I will again work hard for whoever our nominee is, and hopefully that nominee will strengthened by having had to respond to the issues raised by so-called "fringe" candidates.

[Tela Zasloff]

35. Democrats. . .think, think.

Kerry best one to beat Bush

Democrats, Democrats, what are you thinking? In the next few months, we have to choose a presidential candidate who will stop the radical rightwing revolution in our country that is ripping our democracy apart at the seams. Our task is just that large, and we need a very large man to lead the way.

Oh yes, by last summer many of us were attracted to those candidates who most loudly expressed our anger at Bush, at his outrageous seizures of power, beginning with the Florida election, and at his arrogant, wrongheaded conduct of the war on Iraq. But there’s been a shift lately among us, from anger to fear—fear that Bush will win in 2004—and that fear instructs us that we need more than the satisfaction of venting our anger. We must find the candidate who is most qualified to stop this madness, by taking a principled and powerful stand against it. That has to be John Kerry.

We need a leader of his caliber, who can best paint the big picture, who talks to us, as he has already started to, about what this creeping radical assault on our liberties will mean to our lives. About special interests’ corrupting influence on our rights, including our voting rights, and on our environment and natural resources; about the betrayal of seniors on the Medicare vote; about the stonewalling of the 9/11 investigation; about Patriot Act II, the shrinking of our civil liberties, the stifling of dissent and the courage of dissenters, particularly war protestors; about the hate talk against Liberals and Progressives and the federal government itself, from media uglies like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and from the radical Right members of Congress and the Administration, like DeLay and Cheney and Ashcroft; and about how this hate has polarized us and created a civil war climate that threatens our whole democracy.

Kerry addresses these dangers from the heart, because he has spent his life as both a fighter/protestor and a builder of new, Progressive directions at the national level. No other candidate comes close to him on these two qualities. Look at what he envisions for the first hundred days of a Kerry administration: a National Education Trust Fund; a new National Service; affordable health care; end of influence peddling from special interests; repeal of Bush’s assault on the environment; making the U.S. energy independent; rewarding companies that create jobs, not phony corporate profit; creating a middle class economy, not a privileged class economy; cutting the deficit in half in four years; rejoining the community of nations.

John Kerry is our strongest and wisest defender and offers us a way out of the long nightmare. We have to get behind him to beat Bush.

Tela Zasloff
Williamstown, MA

Tela Zasloff is the author of A Rescuer’s Story: Pastor Pierre-Charles Toureille in Vichy France (The University of Wisconsin Press, October 2003). Her earlier books are Saigon Dreaming, Recollections of Indochina Days (St. Martin’s Press, 1990) and Restoring Vision, An Ethical Perspective on Doctors Curing Blindness Around the World (University Press of America, 1996).