Guys, two brief points:

[Rhythm and Blue]

1. Hillary is not a Republican. She is a Democrat through and through, and will be competitive in as many states as any other Democratic nominee. While she occasionally panders to the center, all successful politicians do. She would make a fine candidate and a fine President.

2. Obama is not a fundie, and is not too naive to be President. He is deeply religious, but at the same time keeps that divorced from his policy positions. His proposals are sound, clear-eyed, and reasonable. While he occasionally panders to the religious, all successful politicians do. He would make a fine candidate and a fine President.

You may now return to your civil war.

[AtomicKitten]

1. Indeed.

:thumbsup:

[SteppingRazor]

2. Hmmm... wonder if you'll catch flames from both sides for this.

In any case, I agree 100 percent. "thumbsup:

[XemaSab]

3. You ruined my copycat!

:cry:

[Rhythm and Blue]

4. And now I ruined this post!

I wouldn't dare ruin something so clever for the sake of a clearer thread title.

[XemaSab]

7. I owe you one

:pals:

[cuke]

5. One more brief point

They are almost identical on policy

[Rhythm and Blue]

6. Indeed they are. I think that's the basis for all the garbage that gets thrown around.

There aren't any actual differences to attack, so we just go for meaningless bullshit.

[Bitwit1234]

8. The problem is...only the Obama side bashes. The Hillary

side gives feedback in the threads trying to counteract. Just show me threads where Hillary supporters purposely bash and shred Obama. It is definitely the other way around.

[Rhythm and Blue]

9. Not true. Both sides do.

These are from the current front page of GDP.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3628943&mesg_id=3628943
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3628867&mesg_id=3628867
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3629027
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3628319&mesg_id=3628319
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3626844&mesg_id=3626844

[jefferson_dem]

12. Have you not been paying attention...

or are you trying to purposely mislead?

[silverweb]

10. OMG... reason!!

:D

Hillary is not my first (or even my second) pick, but IF she gets the nomination, I will support her.

Meanwhile,

GObama!

[Kermitt Gribble]

11. Great post!

:applause:

[incapsulated]

13. Splitter!!

:mad:

[Rowdyboy]

14. Common sense really isn't all that common....

Good points and a rec.

[Milo_Bloom]

15. Both candidates move the bar in a dangerous way. (nt)

[Rhythm and Blue]

17. The freepers say the same of the leading Republican candidates. (nt)

[Milo_Bloom]

20. So, I should vote for the republican? (nt)

[Rhythm and Blue]

21. Certainly not.

The point is that hardcore liberals always believe that the Democratic nominee is making unacceptable concessions to the right, and that hardcore conservatives always believe the Republican nominee is making unacceptable concessions to the left. In reality, all that's happening is that both parties are talking to the center. If they don't, they get their asses kicked in the general.

[Milo_Bloom]

31. Its about compromising principles.

The democratic candidates are currently compromising principles for politics and although I am FAR from a hardcore liberal, it is completely unacceptable, which is why I will not vote for Clinton, Edwards, Biden Dodd or Obama in the primary OR the general election.

[Rhythm and Blue]

33. Would you vote for Gore?

If yes, how is your argument different from the people who voted for Nader in 2000?
If no, do you believe that the 90,000 Floridian Nader-voters in 2000 had a positive effect on the nation?

[Milo_Bloom]

34. I don't have a problem with the Nader voters

I would vote for Gore and did vote for him in 2000, but in the long run of the nation, what happened in Florida DID have a LONG TERM potential positive effect on the nation... it all depends on what the democrats do with it today.

[Rhythm and Blue]

38. Long term positive effect? This'll be interesting.

Since then, the Democratic party has learned that the liberal fringe is fickle and unreliable, and has shifted to the center to compensate. Meanwhile, we've had eight years of George W. Bush. How exactly does that combine to create a positive for America?

[Milo_Bloom]

40. The premise is untrue

"Since then, the Democratic party has learned that the liberal fringe is fickle and unreliable, and has shifted to the center to compensate"

The democratic party had been shifting to the "center" since 1972 and as a result shifting the bar more towards the right, making progressives APPEAR to be fringe candidates.

The positive effect of bush, is taking the neo-conservative movement to its end game. The currently leading republican IS in fact more moderate, because all candidates need to steer clear of the crazy right occupied by bush. Although I wouldn't vote for him for other reason, with Guiliani you get pro-choice, gun control, pro-gay rights and the removal of "baby jesus" from the campaign. Romney is more moderate, despite the fact that he is trying to run right... they wanted him to run BECAUSE he was a more moderate republican.

For the first time in 30 years, we have the opportunity to start moving the bar back to the left, to put the CENTER where it really belongs, in the CENTER. However, this current crop of candidates don't accomplish this... in fact, they encourage a CONTINUING shift towards the right.

Health care is a perfect example.

The left position SHOULD BE health care is a right and all people should be covered equally. Single Payer Universal.
the right position IS, the health care system is fine, those with the most money, get the best care.

If neither side can get wide support on the issue, the COMPROMISE position (aka CENTER) is at least let get everyone insurance, even if it results in sub-standard care.

So what do the democratic candidates do? That START in the center from the compromise position and now, we will, at best, if god forbid one of these people are elected, wind up with something between pay for what you get and everyone gets crappy insurance.

So, the positive effect of bush, is to stop 30 years of sliding to the right. To actually offer progressive ideas and not be seen as a radical fringe. to paint the neo-cons for exactly what they are.. the radical fringe of the gop and not the norm.

[MethuenProgressive]

16. And, there's little difference between them on Iraq and Iran

Since he's been in the Senate, where it matters.

[Nimrod2005]

18. Hillary can be a registered puke, noone will notice the difference...

[Rhythm and Blue]

19. Fail. nt

[incapsulated]

35. Also fail for the use of the non-existent word "noone"

DON'T get me started.

[wyldwolf]

41. nimrod

[LWolf]

22. I'm not a guy, but I'll respond with two brief points:

1. Neither Clinton nor Obama are fine candidates, or would be fine presidents. Their drawbacks far outweigh whatever benefits they offer.
There are 6 better candidates in the race. The obvious smart move is to rally behind one, some, or all of those, rather than the two most divisive.

2. I believe you are correct about the "civil war;" I just don't think it's between HRC/Obama supporters. That's campaigning. The civil war is between centrist/dlc/corporatists and progressives, and it's deeper, more widespread, and more significant than campaign brawling between two centrist candidates.

[Rhythm and Blue]

23. I do not believe they are our two best options.

(Personally, I believe Richardson is our best option, but I am in a minority in believing that.)

I also do not believe that either a Clinton or an Obama presidency would be a net negative for America.

[Think82]

24. I think Biden is our best option and heres a link to an exampleof why:

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3756981

[rucky]

25. Very Nice!

He's the whole package.

[LWolf]

26. That's where we differ.

I DO believe that Clinton and Obama are a net negative for America.

I WILL NOT go into an election anxious to promote the lesser negative.

There are other, better choices. The party that chooses a less extreme negative, instead of working for, and fighting for, a positive, is the party of failure.

That's the worst negative of all: willingness to concede the fight for the highest good out of fear.

[Rhythm and Blue]

27. I don't see anyone suggesting that. nt

[LWolf]

30. I do. I see a Clinton or Obama candidacy

as just that declaration.

[Rhythm and Blue]

32. Don Quixote saw giants instead of windmills. nt

[LWolf]

36. Some people see saviors instead of politicians.

Personally, I prefer Don Quixote to many politicians. :D

[smalll]

28. Aboslutamente! -

take a rec! (Only cavil: Obama's not too naive, but still, he's not quite ready for Presidential prime-time. He'd make a fine VP though! ;))

[Grandrose]

29. Points well taken!

May we not return to the civil war! Please...war is not the answer! :-)

[ProSense]

37. Another brief point:

While there is no absolute proof, there is no need to categorize someone's beliefs as wisps of conspiracies.

Some of us actually believe the http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3631075&mesg_id=3631592">Republicans cheated.

[Rhythm and Blue]

39. A thread for every argument, and every argument in its thread, please. nt