The Democratic Party is Teetering on Irreparable Divisions.

[David Zephyr]

Yes, I am a supporter of Barack Obama. Let's get that out of the way.

Our party has had some very divisive years. It's the nature of our party. Will Rogers said "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." It's how we do business.

That said, the fight that began in 1968 and continued up until Jimmy Carter pulled the party back together in 1976 after two losses in national landslides against us was the worst I've ever seen. But we are close to going it one step further.

Be certain on this: the Clinton campaign's messing around with calling voters in Iowa that Barack Obama was a "muslim" and their campaign's continued talk about his admitted taking drugs as a teen and with the MLK/LBJ talk is leaving a lot of hard feelings. The continued "accidental" references to race are not easily ignored. If the Clintons win the nomination on race, they will surely lose the General Election because of it.

Should Hillary be the nominee, it will take far more than just superficial kissing up to address these sore feelings. People who have been turned off don't have to vote against our nominee, they simply just don't have to show up on election day when she will need every vote she can get.

Candidate Hillary would start out as our nominee with all the right-wing Clinton-haters lined up and licking the chops and radio talk shows with their established repertoire. We start with that right wing shit from day one.

And unfortunately, Ralph Nader can be counted on to suck away our most liberal, anti-corporate supporters and many Greens...and while that may only be as few as 3-4% of the electorate, it could prove fatal to us as we saw in Florida in 2000.

And now add that to a now probable run by Mike Bloomberg as a socially-progressive independent, I think that Hillary and Bill and their supporters had best ixnay on all the personal bullshit about Barack Obama.

Otherwise, Hillary may get the nomination in Denver, only to lose resoundingly in November.

Bill Clinton's behavior of late has even caused Hillary's biggest supporter Rahm Emanuel to tell them to knock it off. No Clinton hater, Rahm knows how bad the damage is quickly becoming. Even Ted Kennedy is telling the Clintons the same thing.

Watching Bill Clinton on the television with his red-faced anger in Nevada was a real turn-off. I don't know if I can overlook a lot of this. I know I am not alone.

As a business executive, I can tell you this: as long as an unhappy customer is yelling at you, you still have them. When they disappear without ever telling you why is when you are in trouble.

When the offended stop fighting back, the Clintons might wonder why the silence got so loud.

[IndianaJones]

1. Unfair...

[madeline_con]

2. Alarmist Alert. n/t

[Jamastiene]

111. It's the primaries on DU.

Everything looks normal to me.

[DaLittle Kitty]

184. Yep! Cause The DLC Put Up TWO Totally Devisive Candidates... So As To Cast A Shadow on ANY

Legit Challenger representing The Progressive Movement... That Is ALL That This Has Ever Been About... :puke:

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. You make it sound like it is not too late

And why is it that no one bothers to ask WHY Nader and the Greens "suck away" the Party's most liberal, anti-corporate suporters?

[David Zephyr]

33. I ask that question a lot, TechBear_Seattle

It's an important question, too.

[anakie]

82. and my standard response

why blame Nader and the Greens when up to 40% of eligible voters didn't vote. And you anticipate the same thing happening. Dems not turning up to vote if ...insert name here.... is the candidate; then blaming the third party for that low percentage that would have won it.

Democrats, a call from a foreigner. Wake up to yourselves and direct all this energy on the real opponent - the Judean Peoples Front (joke) - the republicans and save your country and the world from the wacko right wing nutters.

Peace

[JAbuchan08]

134. Liberals abandon the Dems because they hate themselves

if they knew what was good for them, they'd skin themselves and make a red carpet for Hillary's inauguration walk.

[DaLittle Kitty]

145. Time For A Clean Candidate Free of Vulnerabilities... John Edwards! Who Learns from his Mistakes

and DOES NOT Repeat Them!:)

[TeamJordan23]

4. I think the Clintons have already turned many Dem voters off from voting for her. nm

[stravu9]

5. The Party is IMPLODING!

and pelosi and reid aren't helping either.
We need "V"!

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aquart]

20. Sweetie, movies aren't real life.

Maybe you want to let Netflix go for a while.

[stravu9]

24. IF EDWARDS ISN"T THE NOMINEE THIS PARTY WILL BE LIKE A HORROR MOVIE

And people like you should be the monsters 1st bite!

[mac2]

157. A continuing horror movie I'm afraid

[stravu9]

158. sad but true!

:-(

[Hieronymus]

164. You got it ... Edwards is the change candidate and can beat republicans..

with his message. Hillary and Obama take too much money from health/insurance industry.

[stravu9]

165. Hieronymus? As in Merkin?

forgetting Mercy Humpy?

[Hieronymus]

166. Huh?

[stravu9]

173. An Anthony Newly Musical

brilliant lyrics , little known, evidently not known my you either! Thought you might be a fellow traveler!

[Jamastiene]

113. Oh, noes, it's just like the movie The Attack of The Killer Tomatoes.

Who will be our hero and save us from the primaries on DU?
:sarcasm:

Calm down. It's just the primaries in GD: P on DU. If it's too much for you, we have a dugout called the Lounge complete with refreshments and sympathetic souls who will treat your wounds and make you feel better. I'm serious about this part. Take a break if it's getting to you. That's what many of us do. :)

[JVS]

178. PUBERTY! Puberty love.

[dsc]

6. and of course your candidate hasn't been devisive

He didn't invite an anti gay speaker to a fundraiser (no wait he did).

His supporters didn't accuse black supporters of Clinton of having a plantation mentality (no wait they did).

Sorry, but this isn't even close to being one sided. And until supporters of your candidate acknowledge this it will still be a problem.

[David Zephyr]

43. dsc, here's one of your many anti-abortion comments attacking Clinton's manipulating black voters.

"...blacks who vote with us 90% of the time saw high profile people like Guineer and Elders thrown to the wolves while Sister Soljah was called out by Governor Clinton."

Are you still anti-abortion? Just curious. How do you square that with supporting Hillary?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1969879#1970571

[dsc]

48. As I said in that thread

I don't vote on abortion. If I did, I wouldn't vote for many Democrats at all. As to what I said in that thread, I stand behind it. Both labor and blacks have every right to envy pro choicers for the constancy with which pro choicers have their interests fought for by our candidates. As to supporting Hillary, I probably do now, since Edwards is likely about finished and Obama is a no go for me.

[Yael]

59. dsc, stick with him. This is only 3 states

[dsc]

61. I will be lucky to have two names on my ballot

I vote in May. Honestly, Edwards pretty much needs to win SC and that is very unlikely. I had settled in to him as my choice when Obama really ticked me off and Hillary's campaign seemed to get off the rails. I can live with Hillary. Heck, I hope you're right but I just don't see it.

[Yael]

66. He has the opportunity to shape the platform if he doesn't win

Keep your eye on the prize. We are in for a VERY bumpy year, and my prediction is that the next axe to fall will be the Bush Cabal sacrificing Social Security on the altar of Big Banking and dumping the entire escrow account into the free market (if not selling it outright to the Saudis).

We NEED this man's voice in the game and calling them on this shit as long as we can.

[dsc]

92. He isn't going to have the money to continue to pull the 15% he needs

to get delegates. I wish he could, but I just don't see how.

[creeksneakers2]

94. Platforms are meaningless n/t

[Yael]

97. The silence at the polls will be deafening in November

Is that meaningless?

[MichiganVote]

7. Nobody's voting for Bill Clinton

[yardwork]

8. I disagree and I think that this alarmism from the Obama camp is getting old.

Obama's campaign is creating divisions and then blaming everyone else for them.

[David Zephyr]

34. Keep the fingers in the ears if you wish.

.

[DIKB]

54. Not in the Obama camp.

Utterly terrified, b/c we need a win in 2008, desperately.

[wyldwolf]

10. so, essentially, the "progressive" wing is going to pout again?

[OKNancy]

15. and the irony is... Edwards is the progressive

in the race. It's not Obama. There is not much difference between Clinton and Obama policy-wise.
I'll be voting for Hillary, but if Obama gets the nod, it won't be me who rips the party apart.

[stravu9]

84. Progressives refers to Social Liberals Not Fiscal Liberals Edwards is predominantly FISCAL

SO Hill and Obama Are the progressives being referred to here I believe

[stravu9]

16. "Progressive" have run the Party since MCGOVERN!

!

[wyldwolf]

17. ha ha. No.

[stravu9]

23. yes yes!

That was when they kicked Hubert Humphrey to the curb, engineer of Medicare , Medicaid , Vista Volunteers in favor of George McGovern. We Haven't had a labor friendly President since.

[Samantha]

75. My take on it is we keeping allowing the DLC to determine

our candidates, which the base (the liberal portion) refuses to support. But wait, isn't that what the Dems are doing again? Hillary is the DLC candidate, and so many stated from the inception of this election they will not vote for her. So what, she will get enough disgruntled Republicans and Independents they will outnumber the liberals within the party, was the response.

Want to bet the election on that?

[stravu9]

133. No Bets! I Agree.

Someone in a post last week stated the Party Big Wigs would rather LOSE than allow the working class a place at the table.
This shows that!

[Kahuna]

32. That's why we keep losing. nt

[stravu9]

35. You Said IT!

.

[krabigirl]

36. I don't see how Obama is progressive. so I don't think so.

[enough already]

50. No pouting here

But I'm not voting for the lesser of two evils ever again. You can have your candidate of war and race baiting and corporate appeasement. I've got better things to do.

[Yael]

60. Ding Ding Ding!!!

This is exactly what the OP was talking about. And for the record, I agree with you.

[IndianaGreen]

88. Fuck the DLC

and fuck their bots!

[wyldwolf]

127. ha ha! Wait...

:rofl:

[rucky]

170. And that's not being devisive, because...?

[rusty_parts2001]

11. This is the latest meme from Obama

If its true, should we then vote for Obama?

[annie1]

18. it's really corny. and nothing is worse than trying to push the idea of...

being beyond repair. just awful. i keep hearing it on the news, it's so made up. who the hell is fighting? my boss likes obama i like hil, what the hell do i give a shit. ??

[Kahuna]

29. Keep it up all you naysayers. Keep insisting that there is no problem

in the way the Clintons are behaving. You're not helping them or the party. You will find that you will win your battle. But you will lose the war. Don't you realize that because presidents have most been republicans (5 out of the last 7) most people are already used to having republicans as president. What's one more?

[annie1]

12. meh. if people can't get over Bill Clinton getting a red face, they have serious problems.

[DURHAM D]

13. You are projecting the divisive behavior of Obama,

the Obama supporters, and yourself on to others.

Says a lot about you.

[David Zephyr]

25. Tell that to Rahm Emanuel.

.

[Kahuna]

30. Listen. If Rahm went to the Clintons it is because others went to Rahm

and complained. It is becoming very difficult for anyone-----that doesn't belong to du :eyes:--to ignore the obvious. Bill Clinton's campaigning is very divisive.

[DURHAM D]

53. Rahm can not go to Hillary.

She does not like him - she wanted him (or had him) booted from the W.H.

[NashVegas]

144. Really? That Just Gives Me A Reason to Admire Hillary

..

[Kucinich4America]

80. Rahm Emmanuel is one of the bastards dividing and destroying this party

And why the HELL is someone who wore the uniform of another country during the Gulf War serving in the US congress in the first fucking place?

[amandabeech]

103. Please explain.

I don't know what you are referring to and I can't find a reference.

[mac2]

152. I agree. See post #151.

[AntiFascist]

14. Great post...

also many of Clinton supporters so often resort to ad hominem attacks. Many of the most recent posts on this forum now refer to those DUers opposing Clinton as "extreme leftists." This cannot end well.

[Tulkas]

21. kinda funny actually

Obama moves to the middle by talking reasonably about Reagan, and his suppporters are attacked by being far left.


As Stephen Colbert would say:

PICK A SIDE !!!! WE'RE AT WAR!!!!!

[aquart]

19. We must elect Obama immediately to unite us!!!!!

That is what you're saying, right? Divide the country by screaming racism over every other word and then claim to be the only possible healer for the problem?

That would be different from George Bush making terrorism a problem and then claiming he's the only one who can stop it? In what way would it be different?

[alteredstate]

37. "Screaming racism over every other word"?

bull shit.

[mac2]

153. or his god.

[madfloridian]

22. I think the teetering has shifted to the right now.

And I don't think there will be any going back.

[H2O Man]

26. Exactly.

I was just re-reading Jesse's speech at the 1988 convention. It was a powerful presentation, advocating that the party reach common ground.

"We meet tonight at the crossroads, a point of decision. Shall we expand, be inclusive, find unity and power; or suffer division and impotence?"

That is the question we face today. We have the potential to unite and gain power, or to be divided and suffer.

"Common ground. That's the challenge of our party tonight -- left wing, right wing.
Progress will not come through boundless liberalism nor static conservatism, but at the critical mass of mutual survival -- not at boundless liberalism nor static conservatism, but at the critical mass of mutual survival. It takes two wings to fly. Whether you're a hawk or a dove, you're just a bird living in the same environment, in the same world."

We have the building blocks that can be used to construct a solid foundation upon which we can build our future. Or we can have confusion, and those blocks will be tossed about and make a dangerous rubble.

"The only time that we win is when we come together. In 1960, John Kennedy, the late John Kennedy, beat Richard Nixon by only 112,000 votes -- less than one vote per precinct. He won by the margin of our hope. He brought us together. He reached out. He had the courage to defy his advisors and inquire about Dr. King's jailing in Albany, Georgia. We won by the margin of our hope, inspired by courageous leadership. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson brought both wings together -- the thesis, the antithesis, and the creative synthesis -- and together we won. In 1976, Jimmy Carter unified us again, and we won. When do we not come together, we never win. In 1968, the division and despair in July led to our defeat in November. In 1980, rancor in the spring and the summer led to Reagan in the fall. When we divide, we cannot win. We must find common ground as the basis for survival and development and change and growth.

"The good of our Nation is at stake. It's commitment to working men and women, to the poor and the vulnerable, to the many in the world. With so many guided missiles, and so much misguided leadership, the stakes are exceedingly high. Our choice? Full participation in a democratic government, or more abandonment and neglect. And so this night, we choose not a false sense of independence, not our capacity to survive and endure. Tonight we choose interdependency, and our capacity to act and unite for the greater good. Common good is finding commitment to new priorities to expansion and inclusion. A commitment to expanded participation in the Democratic Party at every level. A commitment to a shared national campaign strategy and involvement at every level."

We will require the combined efforts of the supporters of each of the four democratic candidates now running, plus the supporters of those candidates who have dropped out. United, we win, and divided, we lose. It is that simple.

[KoKo]

41. The Divide is more diversified than then,though....it's Grown..through years

of disappointment and failure...n/t

[David Zephyr]

44. Excellent comments.

Thanks.

[Kahuna]

27. Clinton has been out of control since Hillary lost Iowa. He has made

numerous hair-raising remarks about Obama since then. In my 53 years I have never heard one candidate go after another on such a personal level. Bill Clinton has not been good for the Democratic party when you consider that he is the one who lost us control of congress in the first place. As another thread pointed out today, he did his part in Al Gore's loss in 2000. It's apparent that he is a very selfish man with a very large ego.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

28. If one looks back to the Dem Party, it was never the 2nd Republican Party....

.... so I fail to understand where all these right wing Democrats popped out from. Maybe someone could explain it. We already have a right wing party, where all the right wingers, light, moderate and extremist, can go. Why are some hanging around the Dem Party? Is there something I'm missing here? If so, please kindly explain it to me.

[NoPasaran]

31. The next person who says

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat," to me gets tased.

[alteredstate]

38. I... can't...stop...myself...

Don't tase me, bro!

[knight_of_the_star]

70. I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat

So when are you going to show up to taze me?

[NoPasaran]

78. When you least expect it

I advise you to make sure the door is locked whenever you're in the shower.

[knight_of_the_star]

117. Good to know

You do realize that threatening to taze someone is a crime in this country right? I do believe it is considered to be Assault, a definite Felony. Might want to tone down your rhetoric a bit there, unless that's the only thing you've got to use.

[NoPasaran]

118. Lighten up, Frances

[knight_of_the_star]

119. Why should I?

You were the one who dove headfirst into the pit with that one. Name-calling and all that is one thing, threatening violence against people who disagree with you is two steps from the Sturmbateilung.

[TankLV]

39. Not at all - if only by my own personal observations from today's caucusesusisuses...

(what's the plural of caucus and when do you stop?!?!)

If the repuke party and media whores are having that fantasy - let them!!!

they will be greatly surprised come November...

The average DEMOCRATIC voter is quit nice and isn't at all as mean as some have tried to protray here by personal example...

The average repuke - yes - even more so - but the average Dem - I am proud to say - is great people!!!

[HooptieWagon]

96. what's the plural of caucus

cauci?... :shrug:

[paulk]

40. no, it's not

this is just more of the same stupid shit that gets posted here every day.

[ruggerson]

42. That's a bit overwrought, David

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are indistinguishable on civil rights issues. When the heat of the campaign fades, the normal balance will return.

African Americans, like Latinos, like working people, like women, like gays, know that their interests are far better served by a Democrat in the WH than a Republican.

[KoKo]

55. I'm not sure...because what you said was so true in '04...but the country has changed so

much since then. Lou Dobbs Anti-Immigration Tirades, Housing/Mortgage/Wall St. Crookery Implosion, Revelations with Mainstream, Serious Documentation about Bush/Cheney Lies and Treachery.

So much has gone on since '04... Shifting of positions since then..are worth a look. Old Hack Bill Schneider on CNN Propaganda Channel...did have an interesting point: Said Dems are more divided than Repugs over: Gender, Race (Hispanics for Hillary/Blacks for Obama) and the Age Gap of older Dems vs. Young with another Age Gap between Older Women and Younger Women."

I know CNN is Propaganda and Schneider is a "Prop" but I think he makes a point that's interesting because I've seen it here on DU in the last year. The change and the divisions..that seem to break along the lines Schneider sees for Dems. :shrug:

[David Zephyr]

65. Wait until Hillary picks Bill Richardson for VP and then tell me I'm overwrought.

You'll be posting gripes here about President McCain for four more years.

[DemCam]

45. No...we'll rally around the ticket...just is hideous now.

Remember when we all hated that Kerry won?

[KoKo]

47. What I'm hearing is that

Progressive Dems where I am aren't gonna do the "ABB" route this time. That may change as things go forward...but there's getting to be stirrings of "rebellion" in the folks who work within the Dem System in my State...but are getting exasperated by the "Front Loading."

This could change...but there are stirrings for change that wasn't there with the "ABB" thing after Dean lost..and we Dems were urged to put our "differences aside" and rally for Kerry/Edwards. It's very much divided right now...different from then.

[David Zephyr]

49. Yes, and apparently trying to point it out only infuriates them more.

What some simply do not understand, which apparently Rahm Emanuel and Ted Kennedy do understand, is that people who don't show up to vote hurt you just as much as those who vote against you.

Honestly, even though I am an Obama supporter, I knew it would be a hard climb for him to defeat the Clintons, just as it would be for John Edwards and the other candidates.

And why they felt they had to go so low with the race issue ("muslim" "drug use" "drug dealer" "what he was doing back in the neighborhood that I won't say..." "LBJ did what MLK couldn't" and on and on) beats the hell out of me. They have alienated the single most loyal constituency in our Party by playing around with this issue which is deep with 500 years of history on our soil.

I don't know if they can recover. They will make nice...they always do. But how manny people --- of all races --- who were offended by this nonsense will simply not show up at the polls in November is something the Clintons and their supporters should consider. Judging by the responses here, that is not going to happen until it is too late.

[dsc]

51. No what pisses us off

if pretending that Obama took some mythical high road. The high road doesn't run through McClurkin. It doesn't run through the sexist claptrap some of his supporters have engaged in.

[H2O Man]

57. Yes, good points.

In 2004, the top candidates were less diverse than today, and so the point you raise is very important. There are different factors in play today -- and the two most obvious hold both the potential to bring us to a higher common ground, or to divide us.

We have a brown-skinned man: we could either elect the first non-white president, or we could let racism cause deep divisions within the party.

We have a woman: we could either elect the first female president, or we can have sexism fracture our party.

There are other differences, which perhaps not as frequently discussed in the corporate media, can cause divisions and weaken our party. We have progressive, liberal, moserate and conservative democrats. We see these differences even on a place like DU, and the results increasingly divisive.

There is also the possibility that we show a level of maturity that allows us to find strength in our differences, and unite to elect one of our three candidates president.

[enough already]

52. And how did he do in the general? n/t

[LandOLincoln]

122. He won, thank you very much.

Unfortunately, he couldn't prove it, so had to concede to the thieves just as Al Gore had done.

And your point would be...?

[ZinZen]

102. Kerry was not as divisive as Hillary

and did not engage in gutter attacks like the Clintons are engaging in. I was initally disappointed when Kerry won big as I backed Dean, but I have much more respect for Kerry and think the Clintons ar just horrid.

[NoBorders]

46. If she's the nom

I'll vote for her, but I won't be campaigning and donating like I have for Obama. She gets the nom, our chances dwindle significantly in the general.

[oviedodem]

56. It is ridiculous,

What has gone in the Democratic party over the last few years, this primary is taking the cake for me. I know politics is a dirty business but the back and forth, sniping, and double talk is literally wearing me out. I can't trust none of them because their campaign speak is different from their records on some issues.

I think that after all this independent is not a bad idea.

[stravu9]

73. people will stay away in droves

.

[Hobarticus]

106. Then they'll get what they deserve, won't they? eom

[stravu9]

132. News Flash

They Already DO!

[Yael]

58. Well said David. If this election turns into a challenge of character

and these tactics of bullying and scorched-earth-win-at-any-cost arise during the General, the flameout of the Clinton nomination/campaign will be beyond spectacular.

All they have to do is position themselves as the party who listened to their base and ran clean campaigns, compare/contrast to the shit flying arouond the net about Camp Clinton from not one but ALL THREE contests so far, and we will be welcoming President McCain a year from tomorrow.

The problem is, I don't think the Clinton Machine knows how to "win" any other way.

[David Zephyr]

63. The shadow of Bloomberg is alarming.

Listen, I will be the first to admit that my candidate, Obama, is probably soon to go the way Edwards is going...out.

The Clintons always have had the advantage: New York, California and Florida. Motherlodes of delegates where they are popular.

Why they had to go down in to the filth with the verocity that they did makes them look just like the self-absorbed, ambition bound bullies that many Americans think they are.

They are not just stomping out the man who authored "The Audacity of Hope", they are also stomping out hope itself.

If McCain is the nominee, we are in really big trouble.

[Yael]

67. Can I up the ante?

McCain/Liberman as their nom would kill a Clinton run faster than you can say "Vince Foster".

[grizmaster]

62. The Dem party has never been more united

the only ones I hear saying otherwise are repub spin agents and faux news

[Pastiche423]

64. Say what?

How long have you been reading this site? If you heard/read nothing else but this site, you'd know that the Democratic Party is more divisive now, than at any other time in recent history.


Damn! I want some rose colored glasses too! Alas, I can find them no where. Where'd you get yours?

[grizmaster]

69. Maybe I should have been clearer

it's more united than its ever been in my life. It has ALWAYS been very devisive, and by comparison this is united.

To steal a quote- I don't belong to an organized party, I'm a Democrat


and I wouldn't have it any other way

[Pastiche423]

72. How old are you?

[grizmaster]

76. Old enough to remember Kennedy and Carter

I think that was the closest the party has come to the type of meltdown everyone seems to be predicting now.

Hey, maybe I'm wrong, but I've been a political junkie since I got the McGovern bug and the Dems always are like this at this stage of the game and as soon as a clear leader is established in the primaries there is some threats of nastiness at the convention that always evaporate in the convention back room. Maybe I've just gotten so used to the Dem chaos that I'm surprised at others thinking it's the end of the party.

[Yael]

68. Or 40,000,000 threads on DU

WAKE UP.

Seriously.

[Armstead]

71. Unfortunately I think you're right

IMO the lack of passion with substance has been the Achilles Heel of the Democratic Party for the last 20 years.

The next election could become a bad movie sequal.

[DemIdeals]

74. This is bull

And the reason is because DU is not representative of the Democratic Party. This site is largely way to the left of most Democrats and most Democrats aren't freaking out like people on this site are. Whoever the Dem nominee is will still get the usual 90%+ of the black vote.

Again, this site is so FAR from being representative of the Democratic Party.

[IndianaGreen]

77. The antiwar movement will oppose Hillary, as candidate and as President

with the same vigor they opposed Bush. You can take that to the bank!

[grizmaster]

81. ...and support who? McCain?

[IndianaGreen]

86. You are a fool to think that antiwar movement support is based on party label

Hillary will continue to screw the Palestinians and enable Israel's occupation. Hillary will continue the war in Iraq, and may bomb Iran if Bush doesn't beat her to the punch.

Hillary has sided with the elites of Latin America and against the progressive tide that is sweeping the continent. Hillary will keep and use PATRIOT against the antiwar movement.

[grizmaster]

89. I don't think it's based on party label

And if Hillary wins I will be one of those trying to push her to stop the war. But I'll still vote for her and campaign for her over ANY of the repub choices.

[David Zephyr]

139. They just can't see it, IG.

I will watch as the Clintons begin to move to the right once they sew it all up and see how their supporters rationalize it as temporary political expediency.

We will know that the last few months was the temporary and the move back to the right is the permanent, the more comfortable home.

[paulk]

87. no - what they'll do is post on anonymous internet discussion

groups about how much they oppose - well, whatever it is they're opposing this week.

up the revolution!

[grizmaster]

90. Up against the wall motherfuckers

up the revolution!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

146. No, not support McCain ...

just not see a big enough difference to bother going to the polls.

That would be enough to sink the Democratic ticket.

"Why bother?" could be a widely-held political position.

[H2O Man]

79. Older DUers may

be reminded of some of the hostilities from 1968, in both primaries. Obviously, not the massive civil unrest and the assassinations. But the primaries in 1968 were strange, indeed.

The republicans were divided in the primaries, between Nixon, Reagan, and Rockefeller (who was the "Hamlet of Fifth Avenue"). Democrats had, after LBJ, factions supporting McCarthy, Wallace, Humphrey, RFK (and after his death, people hoping for Teddy or going with George McGovern).

A lot of democrats thought that Nixon might be the easiest to beat. He was a rather unattractive man, who had lost before. More, it was believed he would unite the democratic tribes.

But Humphrey was hurt by several things: first, he was too closely associated with LBJ's Vietnam policy, and did not attempt to distance himself from it until too late; and second, too often overlooked, he had been stung by some top party people telling him in the 1960 primary that he was "too liberal." From 1964 to '68, HHH distanced himself from many of the democratic party's liberals, and he did not have their support in the fall of '68.

It's not enough to have people say they will vote for the nominee in November. We need to have people working for the ticket. The divides are starting to become bitter, and by the convention, there could be infected wounds much as there were 40 years ago.

[KoKo]

93. there are some unsettling things that are similar

to the 68 Convention brewing... History repeats itself in odd ways...in cycles sometimes...never the same...but when old wounds and differences are left festering they often come back in different disguises. All the protests both individual and collective against the injustices which Selection 2000 and it's aftermath unveiled (election tampering, Supreme Court Judges, meddling) are not getting the attention they deserve except on the liberal internet sites. There's anger building about this. This Primary Season has a "taint" about it that is even worse that '04. If anything our Mainstream Media is even more entrenched and embedded with the "PTB" than in '04. The Primary Cycle is missing Michigan and Florida...front loaded in what seems an unfair fashion to many and winners called before their fair hearing before much of the electorate felt they had a chance to cast their vote. Anyway...my 2 cents.

[amandabeech]

109. Yes, this reminds me of '68, too.

I expect some version of "peace with honor" to erupt from the Rep nominee, whoever that is. We dems are terribly divided--worse than '80, worse than usual.

As an earlier poster wrote, the part is a mish-mash, but I think that the mish in the mash has changed over time. We've had a split between those who see social progressivism as the most important and those who see economic progressivism the same way since at least '68, and neither side has been happy. Now, unfortunately, I think that we are divided by race and, perhaps, by gender, and I see both Obama and Clinton campaigns contributing to that divide. Add to the mix the huge amount of dollars floating around from interests never particularly aligned with either post-'68 faction, and I just don't see a good way out.

Thankfully, the Reps are having their own convulsions, but this is not going to be a good election, and I think that there will be feelings so hard by the end of this that the party will be severely damaged, or there will be some sort of realignment ending with the eclipse of one or both of the major parties over two or three presidential election cycles.

Personally, I'm not sure how much more nose holding I can take.

[Skidmore]

177. If one hold their nose too long, one passes out and

misses the chance to do something constructive. I will vote my beliefs in the primary, and hold my nose no longer in the GE.

[LandOLincoln]

123. Excellent analysis, and how well I remember (and wish I didn't). n/t

[no name no slogan]

83. ...and has been since the 1960s. And STILL hasn't fallen apart.

The Democratic Party has been a party of expediency since the 1940s. It is basically a collection of disparate interests that comes together every four years to run a candidate for president.

Any party that professes to be a "big tent" like the Democratic Party is going to be rife with factionalism. It's the nature of the beast. People have been pronouncing the death of the Democratic Party since 1968, and it's still hanging around.

In many ways, the argumentative nature can be seen as a sign of strength-- if the party was not worth fighting for, then people wouldn't fight over it so much. They wouldn't give a damn.

[grizmaster]

85. just like McCartney, the rumors of the Dems death

is greatly exaggerated

[Perry Logan]

91. The damage of the Obama supporters' false accusations is severe. I pray they quit the party.

It's been one bullshit accusation after another--against Hillary, and against anyone who supports her. It's a classic example of how not to behave in an election.

[MercerForPrez]

95. Fairy tale supporters!

They support a fairy tale! Like Jack and the Beanstalk!

[Cadwallader]

98. I hope they hear you

so far they seem intent on listening to their own narrative

[BootinUp]

99. Clinton gets agitated with a reporter, Obama supporter whining commences

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz.................

[MercerForPrez]

100. Hillary will win a Pyrrhic victory

Her supporters including robbedvoter and Tom Rinaldo will have the blood of this party on their center-right hands.

[Tom Rinaldo]

108. You are making a habit of being personal tonight, aren't you?

I note that you posted your insult about me on this thread before I even showed up here. Some might say that was attacking my integrity behind my back, but Democrats don't act that way, do they?

[Adelante]

163. RIP, poor fellow nt

[Adelante]

162. Why are you calling out DUers?

Is it that you don't know any better? Read the rules.

[wisteria]

101. Great post! n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

104. I'm sorry

But if what you fear in your OP title ever really comes to pass, posts like the one you have written here will have played some role in allowing it to happen.

Bill Clinton is not the only one "yelling". You are also in this post, and we too are the Democratic Party. As someone who is supporting Hillary Clinton for President now I have to say that the impulse I have upon reading what you wrote is to yell back at you myself. You have your view point on reality. It is not the only view point on reality, but it certainly is an accusatory one, and had I not known you for years online it would contribute to driving a potential wedge between us. Is that not the type of consequence that you are so concerned about?

It is almost impossible for me as someone who does not share your perception of virtually one sided blame as the cause for rising tensions among Democrats to not respond by argueing that point with you, but I don't want to. I don't want to spiral off into dueling perceptions of blame with you, but until I decided to instead just tell you how I reacted to your OP I could think of no other way to respond than to do exactly that. I don't think that would be helpful, and I certainly don't think it will help us prevent that which you say you want avoided.

I won't use this post to speak negatively about your candidate or his campaign. I will gladly work for him if he wins the nomination. I respect the passion you feel for the Democratic cause and I look forward to working with you for that cause this coming summer.

[Skwmom]

115. So everyone should ignore what is happening and hope by

not writing about it that it will all go away (and the Democratic Party won't be led off the cliff by the "do anything to win" Clintons). Hmmm.... some how that logic alludes me. Plus have you tuned into the latest Republican speeches? Hucklebee said something along the lines of he'd rather have honorably lost the SC primary rather than have won it dishonorably. The Clinton crew is clueless if they don't think their behavior won't come back to haunt them in the fall.

When conduct such as that demonstrated by the Clintons becomes acceptable the Democratic Party will surely have lost its way. Their behavior should be loudly condemned (and many might consider it a moral obligation to do so).

[Tom Rinaldo]

128. Selective outrage breeds selective outrage in return

That breeds a negative spiral for all of us. Some sincerely feel that Obama was willing to throw the gay and lesbian community under the bus to buff up his creds with church going Blacks. Some feel his supporters (including those involved with his actual campaign) did move into swift boating mode against Hillary by hungrily pouncing on and exploiting an overly harsh read of Clinton's comment about MLK JR not being able to enact civil rights legislation by himself into an implication that Clinton does not sufficiently respect Blacks. Some feel that Obama has pursued a campaign that seeks to create and exploit a generational divide inside the Democratic Party with veiled comments he makes about the Boomer generation. Some feel Obama is undermining the spirit of integrity of the Democratic nominating process by circulating flyers asking Republicans to register as Democrats for a day in order to help him defeat other Democratic candidates in a Democratic caucus.

Some feel that Obama was willing to turn a blind eye toward a pointed racial effort to turn Latinos against Clinton by a Union that is supporting him even after he agreed during a public debate only days earlier that supporter efforts from all sides playing a race card had to be combatted and reigned in. Some feel that Obama cynically backtracked on his prior comments acknowledging that Hillary gained valuable experience during her husband's presidency to belittling her prior experience out of political expediency. Some feel that Obama plays a hypocritical passive aggresive "victim" card repeatedly in attacks against Clinton on multiple levels down to the point of attacking her campaign for registering an internet domain name "votingpresent.com" when his own campaign registered "desperatehillaryattacks.com" before "votingpresent.com" was even registered.

Some feel he cynically exploited popular sentiment against Clinton's Kyle-Lieberman vote when he ducked it himself, and allowed supporters to confuse the amended amendment that passed with the far worse original version that was proposed, after previously co-sponsored Senate legislation himself that also called Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Some feel that Obama distorted his outrage about lobbyist influences to win activist favor during the NH primary race while the co-chair of his New Hampshire campaign was in fact a lobbyist, but one that lobbies elected state officials rather than elected national officials so that was supposed to make it different and OK. Some feel that it is Clinton who accepts the resignation of members of her campaign when they say or do something inappropriate, while Obama allows his staff to refer to Hillary as the Democratic Senator from Punjab without facing any real consequences...

There is more but that is enough I think to make my point. Of course there are counter arguments to everything I listed above. There almost always are no matter who is coming under attack. And there is something to attack every Democrat over. During the 2004 campaign Howard Dean said if Wesley Clark became the Democratic Party nominee that the General election in November would instead become a Republican Primary. It pissed me off royally but I love Howard Dean. When the primary season ended he and Clark worked very effectively together and Wes Clark sprung to Dean's defence when others in the Democratic Party made a push to push Dean out as DNC Chair. Ugly things happen in primaries but things will get far uglier when whoever the Democrats nominate goes up against the Republican nominee in the general election.

[Skwmom]

129. About that outrage.

When people stop feeling outrage at the dirty politics displayed by the Clinton camp that is when I will really fear that America has reached a point of no return.

You seem to want to write it off as "ugly things happen in primaries." Americans are fed up with UGLY POLITICS. It has done nothing but divide this country and enable the special money interests to retain control.

Your wanting to frame the race card played by the Clintons as nothing more than the MLK comments ignores the fact that it was MUCH MORE than the MLK comments. Obama needs to transcend race if he is to win so it would be suicide for the Obama campaign to play the race card. However, playing the race card was nothing more than another acceptable, dirty trick to the Clinton camp (and no amount of spin and trying to point the finger at Obama is going to change that fact). I support Obama because I believe he is the ONLY CANDIDATE who can heal this country and address the massive problems facing this nation.

Why do you think that Kennedy, etc. have pushed for the Clintons to stop their crap. B/C they are smart enough to realize that what the Clintons are engaging in is much more than just your typical dirty politics and will divide the party (a divide the Republicans will be more than happy to move in and exploit). The Clintons will pit blacks against whites, blacks against Hispanics, Union against Union, Unions against their Union Members, men against women, and the older generation against the younger generation. They will do ANYTHING to get elected. The Clinton and Bush brand of politics is DESTROYING this country.

When the Democratic Party reaches the point where it writes this off as just "ugly things happen in primaries," the Democratic Party will truly have lost its soul.

The Clark I supported in 2004 would have stood up and spoken out against such behavior b/c he would have known that it is bad for the Democratic Party and bad for the country. Unfortunately, when someone becomes entrenched with the Clinton Camp they seem to lose the better part of themselves and the "ends justifies the means" seems to rule the day.

[Tom Rinaldo]

130. There is no patented definition for playing the race card

In national politics all participants play hard ball even if they don't always thow spitters. Politicians dance close to the edge because a loss is final. As to your point of logic about Obama's situation, Obama first has to win the nomination before he can run for President. When he ran in virtually all white Iowa and NH, there was no upside for him in calling any attention to his race. South Carolina is a very very different story. It Obama wins South Carolina it will be because he energizes the potentially huge black voter block there. And the popularity of both Bill and Hillary Clinton with the black community in the South is a potential obstacle for Obama achieving the margin of victory among blacks there that he needs to take that primary.

After losing NH, it becomes much more important for Obama to win another victory before Super Tuesday if possible. Losing three in a row before then would be very damaging to his campaign's momentum heading into that show down. To attempt to win Nevada Obama had to cut in to Clinton's support among hispanic voters. I am disappointed by the course he took there in that regard. If you want to read why here is the link to my blog at CCN:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14456

[Skwmom]

167. The Clintons played the race card b/c once it became evident that

Obama was a viable candidate, many blacks switched their support to Obama. Obama didn't need to play the race card to get black support.

[David Zephyr]

136. The wedge was introduced by Bill & Hillary, Tom. It was the worst wedge possible: race.

The MLK/LBJ gratuitous, and most unfortunate comment coming only weeks after the "muslim phone calls" and the multiple references to "drug use" and "drug dealing" was either the most astounding set of idiotic coincidences in political space/time fabric or the very risky picking at the thin scab on 500 years of deep racial hurt. You tell me which is was.

I am not "yelling" in my post. At this late point in my life, jaded by decades of betrayal by politicians within the Democratic Party, I have little "yell" left. I have watched the consolidation of power and wealth that will soon rival the gilded age in our history and where the majority of Americans scoff at the entire electoral process and refuse to even participate in it. Why should they?

Multi-National Corporations now choose who will participate within our Republic's presidential debates cavalierly ignoring candidates like Dennis Kucinich who qualified to be on the ballots in most of the 50 states. Perhaps, Kucinich had dared criticize General Electric perhaps too many times, huh? Our Democratic Party is very comfortable with that arrangement.

When the Majority Leader of the Senate, Tom Daschle facilitated the passage of The Patriot Act, the creation of the Homeland Defense Department, openly championed the Iraqi War Resolution with most of our leading Democrats granting George W. Bush the "authority" to wage war against a nation that had done us no harm, greased the $20 Billion bailout to the Airline Industry who then, in turn, layed off tens of thousands of workers, cut air routes and got the government to pick up the tab for airport security only to grant hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses to their executives and board members, there's not too much to yell about.

Karma has now come back to the United States as our imperialism is now being replaced by trans-national corporate globalism where our dollar is devalued, where our entitlements and social services must continue to be cut and cut, where our standard of living is calibrated downward yearly and where our young people are expected to participate in making war around the globe to protect multi-national corporate interests. Oh there is not an official "military draft", but there is an even more insidious economic draft because when poor and even middle class kids can't get a job at the Wal-Mart, they sign up to "serve' (to eat and to have shelter).

The Clintons have always had all the advantages in this corporate sponsored nomination process. Why they felt that they had to go so low and show all their fangs beats the hell out of me. I'll tell you here, your candidate is going to win the nomination. Are you happier now? The Clintons have already won and defeated the "muslim, black, drug dealing, yet "inspirational speaker'. What did they win at all costs?

That's my question: What did they win...at all costs?

Good luck in defending Hillary's move to the right after her nomination. Don't expect the millions and millions of Americans who are disenfranchised and don't vote anyway to lift a finger to help her. And don't accuse me of making it happen. Don't shoot the messenger even if the message is not a tidy one. It is a truthful one.

[Tom Rinaldo]

140. Here:

"RUSSERT: In terms of accountability, Senator Obama, Senator Clinton on Sunday told me that the Obama campaign had been pushing this storyline. And, true enough, your press secretary in South Carolina — four pages of alleged comments made by the Clinton people about the issue of race.

In hindsight, do you regret pushing this story?

OBAMA: Well, not only in hindsight, but going forward. I think that, as Hillary said, our supporters, our staff get overzealous. They start saying things that I would not say. And it is my responsibility to make sure that we’re setting a clear tone in our campaign, and I take that responsibility very seriously, which is why I spoke yesterday and sent a message in case people were not clear that what we want to do is make sure that we focus on the issues."
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/15/debate-transcript/

And here David; my own blog on a racially divisive Ad and Obama's refusal to distant himself from it:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14456


I have no interest in fighting with you David. To be honest, I have more interest in defending Obama when he unfairly takes a hit, and I have been doing that in other posts today.

Good luck to all of us in creating a better future.

[David Zephyr]

143. Congratulations on your victory, Tom.

I am eagerly awaiting all the false praise to be heaped upon Obama by those that smeared him here with glee. And the calls for "unity" by those who should have considered how important it would be before they went down such a treacherous road.

[Tom Rinaldo]

148. When I praise Obama, and I do, it is never false

And I have personally been clear about our need for unity once the nominating process is over for a long time, and that never changed when Obama won Iowa and seemed on his way to winning NH also.

[Skwmom]

168. You actually think that supports Obama playing the race card?

So you make a list of your opponent playing the race card, to show there is a pattern, and then you are the one accused of playing the race card. With logic like that...... I'm speechless.

[Tom Rinaldo]

172. You seem to be ignoring Obamas words

He agreed that some of his supporters pushed to keep racial aspects of the primary contest in the news in South Carolina and he asked them to stop it. The other side of the coin, just in case it has escaped you, is that some over zealous supporters of Obama went on a witch hunt to dredge up any comment they could find by Hillary or any of her supporters they could possibly spin to seem to show that Hillary Clinton is no true frined of the Black community, so as to peel black support away from her in the important South Carolina primary. It reached a point where Obama felt it important to himself state at the last debate that Hillary Clinton has long been on the correct side of the civil rights struggle in America.

[Skwmom]

169. So you think the Clinton's were being "respectful" to the working class Latino

voters when Clinton's good buddies went to court to keep them from voting. Hmmm... seems pretty disrespectful to me.

[Hobarticus]

105. Actually I think DU is teetering on the verge of a huge hissy fit

For a lot of people if their candidate doesn't win. Looks like it's gearing up already.

[OmahaBlueDog]

107. Focus, David, Focus

1. This is what the primaries are for. We bash each other now and expose the weaknesses now so we get the best candidate later. I don't know where we got the idea that just because we're in the same party we should all join hands and sing Kumbayah during the primaries. That;s the bullshit we need to ixnay.

2. OMG -- you're turned off by Bill's behavior. Boo-hoo! Do you know how George W. Bush won the job? He did so through a series of personal attacks on John McCain, followed by endless ads with Al Gore saying how he invented the internet, followed by some vote rigging, followed by swift-boating John Kerry 4 years later. What Hill is dishing out now are love taps compared to what the GOP's gonna dish on Barack Hussein Obama. I love Obama's optimistic approach, and he's a gifted speaker who looks to have the seeds of being a great leader, but if Obama (and his supporters) can't deal with this, he isn't tough enough for the job of POTUS.

3. Ted is lecturing Bill and Hill on how they should behave? Tell Ted to put his pants back on and let us know how his last Presidential run ended when he sobers up! Ted Kennedy is in no position to lecture the Clintons (or anyone) on anything! He's a bad example,like a GOP candidate quoting Larry Craig, and I wouldn't bring him up if I could avoid it.

4. Nader, Bloomberg, Perot, John Anderson, Gene McCarthy, George Wallace -- there's always a 3rd party guy, an indy who thinks he can beat the system. We've dealt with it before; sometimes it helps us (Perot), sometimes it sticks us with 8 years of war and a rotten Supreme Court (Nader).

5. Obama's made his own share of comments that will come back and bite him in the butt -- especially the Reagan references. IBD just ran a nasty editorial on how "troubling" they found Obama's church. Were Obama supporters under the impression this would be easy and/or civilized?

6. Look on the bright side: I had the displeasure to hear Mark Levin last night. He told his listeners that Mike Huckabee and John McCain are liberals and that Fred Thompson has to be the man South Carolina elects. His listeners agreed, criticizing McCain-Feingold and other evidence that John is waay too chummy with the wrong side. The GOP is about as divided and distraught as I've seen them since '76.

7. Donald Trump told Jim Cramer (Mad Money) that we are "in a recession" and that certain parts of the economy are in "a depression." Even our esteemed President is heading straight down the interventionist path. My point -- the Republicans policies have caused great harm to this country, they are out of answers (if they ever had any), and either Clinton or Obama (or Edwards, for that matter) will be worlds better than the alternative.

This is kind of like pre-season football -- we hit each other, find the flaws in our game, and get ready for the serious play ahead. The point is that we can be as pissed off as we want to be at one another now, but after Denver we get our heads straight and put this behind us.

[LandOLincoln]

124. Thank you for this excellent post. Good to know there are still

some grownups in this party (and no, I certainly don't count myself among them, but I know 'em when I see 'em).

[Jamastiene]

110. What are y'all gonna do now? Succeed from the party?

Take your ball and go home because you don't like playing with the Clintons? Have you forgotten how Big this Tent really is? Like it or not, the Clintons are the most high profile Democrats out there. Just because your man in the race is inexperienced and can't seem to keep his mouth shut, talk about pandering to the right (invoking Reagan worship), you are acting like a two year old over it. Damn, grow up already and learn to be part of the team or take your ball and go join a third party.

[David Zephyr]

141. Bookmarked.

Thanks for your counsel.

[rucky]

171. I don't think you have to worry about anyone succeeding from the party. n/t

[democrat2thecore]

112. I agree about Bill Clinton's anger - it's almost scary. Very strange.

Watching Bill Clinton on the television with his red-faced anger in Nevada was a real turn-off. I don't know if I can overlook a lot of this. I know I am not alone.

No, you're not alone. Bill's sense of entitlement to get back in the White House through the back door is looking more frightening with each passing week. All that anger and venom. The red face and lip biting. It's a little scary if you want to know the truth.

We need to put this decade and a half long Bill & Hillary soap opera to bed and move forward with fresh faces and new ideas.

[Barack_America]

114. Hear hear!...n/t

[Emillereid]

138. I couldn't agree more - we need new faces and ideas. I have been doing my

own private poll among young people and I am amazed at how much they are energized by Obama. I haven't seen that kind of youthful hope since the 60s. I agree more with Kucinich and Edwards, but I think Obama may have something special. The same young people, even the girls, are totally turned off to Hillary. I don't think we can run on change with old, worn candidates.

[Radical Activist]

116. Former Presidents aren't supposed to engage in that kind of partisan bickering.

He's lowering the Presidency...again.

[FrenchieCat]

121. That's what I'm thinking.....

and this coming from the original man from Hope is even more frightning!

Guess that they never figured that they come in 3rd in Iowa....and that got them really, really scared....to the point that the "oogly" came out fiercely.

[goodgd_yall]

120. You need a good night's sleep n/t

[wiley]

125. The other people feel like me shit is beyond tired.

And I've noticed that the "entire" right wing is probably the most unracist group in America.
The Pukes are already starting the Muslim shit on each other.
I suppose the Clintons dropped the first atomic bomb in WWII
Your post is just more hyperbolic bullshit Clinton bashing.
The problem is that you can't get being an Obama supporter out of the way. It's the only reason for regurgitating this chain of Puke memes.
Enough Puke operatives, paid campaign spinners, trolls and bitter people inhabit this board that you'll never have any problem finding the same 50 posters (DU policy prevents me from listing them) jump right on your crap wagon.
You sound as reasonable and wise as the TV and cable pundits who have "chosen Hillary" as the Democratic candidate.
Go ahead, baby. Blame "the man". It's Clinton now, it will be someone else later.

[Iceburg]

126. David ...is this your first campaign? If so, you might better use your

energy to drum up grass roots support for your candidate of choice. Hanging out on these boards will do little to advance your cause. Instead of negative campaigning here on DU for a few votes, do something positive that will help Obama big time and make you feel good at the same time. The primary and the the general election will be won by the candidate that has been abe to bring the greatest number of non-voting types into the voting arena. Close to 50% of eligible voters don't vote --- they are yours to tap into. Ask yourself if you your business executive skills might be better used to help Obama in ways beyond preaching to the entrenched here at DU. Fly to SC or FL -- do some door knocking -- that's what makes a difference, not only to the voter but to the solicitor of the votes. You'll hear first hand what the voters' real concerns are --- and I'll tell you right now it won't be the stability of this party. It'll be jobs, health care, the war ...

And get some rest.

[David Zephyr]

137. It is my first campaign to be completely sickened by this joke of a nominating process.

I've been active in political campaigns since 1968 and have contributed enough money to the Democratic Party to have bought several homes.

[Iceburg]

150. LOL. I hear ya ...

I don't suppose it will bring you any comfort but it might help to keep in mind that most of the inflammatory/derisive posts on this site are coming from Republican agent provocateurs ...new posters in the past year. That is their job and they take it seriously because frankly it works in many cases.

Hope you have a better day.

[citizen snips]

131. Bill Clinton is allowed to voice his concerns.

The real irreparable divisions are Reagan Republicans and other conservative independents.

[JAbuchan08]

135. You Obama supporters are all the same!

Not to mention Edwards and Kucinich supporters.

Causing division by questioning Clinton's record and responding to her attacks and manipulation! I mean, what's more divisive than calling out voter suppression and dirty tricks? Or pointing out that Hillary is STILL a hawk?

We need to come together over what this election is REALLY about... getting over it! Liberals, progressives indeed even conservatives need to "get over it!" Get over the stolen elections, the Iraq War and the Democratic capitulations!

What could be MORE divisive than holding Democratic politicians accountable for the votes they cast and the rhetoric they wield.

I for one will be voting for the right reasons. Originally I was going to vote for Kucinich, but he cruelly pointed out that he was the only Democrat who voted against the war. Naturally this was the most mean to Hillary, so she gets my vote.

[IndianaGreen]

147. LMAO

On a more serious note, there is a reason why so many office holders from red states are supporting Anybody But Clinton. As it is in Indiana, which went surprisingly blue in 2006, a polarizing candidate like Hillary will hurt our Democrats in their local races (excluding that buffoon Evan Bayh who is not up for reelection).

If Hillary becomes the nominee, we will put some distance between her and all of our candidates, and concentrate all of our time and efforts in taking back the governor's mansion.

[bluedawg12]

142. Bring on the far RW battle- cuz it's a coming

“I think that Hillary and Bill and their supporters had best ixnay on all the personal bullshit about Barack Obama.”

OK if you ixnay all of the personal bullshit about Hillary.


“Candidate Hillary would start out as our nominee with all the right-wing Clinton-haters lined up and licking the chops and radio talk shows with their established repertoire. We start with that right wing shit from day one.”

Count on starting with all of the right wing shit from day one no matter who the Dem candidate is.

Can you say: Swift Boat?

Let’s not vote for someone because we fear a fight with the far right.

[NashVegas]

149. Teetering? Honey, We're Already Past That

Or Ralph Nader never would've run in 2000.

[mac2]

151. Rahm Emanuel

is the reason we didn't have more representatives in Congress win in 2006. He and Kennedy announced their policy of amnesty just after the important primary in Illinois. They closed out the anti-war candidates and pushed amnesty candidates (not even discussed or liked by the people).

Both should be removed from our party leadership. We would have had control over Congress if they hadn't messed it up.

[wyldwolf]

175. your dubious assertions aside, we DO have control of Congress

[alfredo]

154. DU is not reality.

[mac2]

156. Sorry it is reality

Where are you?

[alfredo]

160. About 18 inches from my monitor, but I do get out in the real world and

the people I know are not so worked up over the minutia of the campaign.

[mac2]

174. Don't you think they have good reason to be fearful and at the

same time silly? They feel helpless.

[alfredo]

180. Oh sure, but DU can be a feedback loop, amplifying fear and anger.

[mac2]

155. Unite?

Both Hillary and Obama are globalists and Neo Cons who support unending wars. Should we be united in this?

[MasonJar]

159. I heartily disagree with your original premise and I hope that I am the one who is right.

Surely after the Bush Supreme Court nominees, no self respecting democrat would fail to vote for whomever the majority selects as the party's nominee. Any such person should immediately disavow his membership in our fine party. America is a flight for its democracy and freedoms. The planet Earth is in a fight for its survival. "No GOPer in '08 or ever again" should be all of our rallying calls. Not just W (although he is the equivalent of a one-celled amoeba), but the entire Congress of the USA who are Pugs committed atrocious acts against our rights and the rights of other peoples and of the other living creatures which occupy our world. They are slime! So a vote for any GOPer or a staying home in protest should result in expulsion from our party; I am sorry to be so blunt, but the stakes are too high this time.

[mac2]

176. As they were in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006

When are Democrats going to try to win by talking about issue we care about? They are ignoring the polls and the voice of the people.

-Get out of Iraq. Stop building new bases "over there" and bring our troops home to our bases and borders.
-Get out of the WTO and NAFTA which has been devistating to our wealth and security for the power of other countries out to destoy us.
-Secure our borders for security and financial reasons.
-Give us back our Constitution.
-Stop this spending on wars and corporate domination of this administration.
-Bring Israel and Palestine to peaceful resolution not encourage aggression or being one sided. Genocide is happening in that part of the world.
-Bring our tax system back to a more equal and fair system. The rich get richer on our backs.
-What happened to that accountability promised in the 2006 election?

[Mythsaje]

161. I've taken heat from both sides on these issues...

I really don't trust Obama, but I've criticized the Clinton campaign for some of the racially-charged rhetoric that's come out--not from her, but from some of her supporters.

Frankly, I think we have a lot bigger problems than that. As I've stated time and time again. This is a doozy--but the fact that neither campaign seems particular interested in courting the more progressive, economic populist vote, and, in Obama's case, seems more interested in the "Reagan Democrats" and pro-corporate types, there will indeed be a schism. Maybe even a three-way schism.

Not good. Not good at all.

[messiah]

179. Divisions?

:rofl: Democrats will always be Democrats even if the party decided to nuke a country or two. :rofl: .
Democrats would vote for Bush Jr if he was the Democratic nominee.
People aren't informed and the informed are fearful. :rofl:
The country is out of your hands and it has been that way since the period of assassinations back in the 60's.

[mac2]

181. Do we see a leader yet?

For President of the world's most successful Democracy we don't want...

-A Hitler who brings genocide and world war for an elite rule.

-A Caesar who wants "unending war" to rape and rule the world leaving many societies far away destroyed and destitute for many hundreds of years.

-A Neapolitan who wants to unite all of Europe against their will.

-A Nero so self involved and selfish he ignores a crisis that destroys his great city while he fiddles.

-A Attila the Hun who murders everyone is sight to create fear thus forcing them to accept his rule.

-A Medici who feels he can have absolute power and wealth saying God appointed him.

-A king like Nicholas Romanov Tsar of Russia who lives lavishly and in arrogance while his citizens starve.

-A Stalin who murdered millions of his own people for power and a political philosophy.

Here's the historical first for the world…

-A Bush who pollutes and destroys forever the earth’s environment and resources for profit and power.

When you think about it, President Bush has done a little of all the above to America and the world. He should be impeached and tried in the Hague.

We must learn from history not repeat or even add a new horror to the world.

[TankLV]

182. oooo! crybaby!

Just let me know how we can serve you...

We'll be the ones voting "present" in the GE if he's the nominee - we know you'll understand the complexities of it all...

[ToeBot]

183. That damned Nader, sucking away support we think we own - but refuse to pay for. nt

[robcon]

185. Irreparable? Not even close.

This campaign is no different from others.