To the "I'll NEVER vote for Hillary" Progressives

[Krashkopf]

Those of you who saw my ". . . and THIS Edwards supporter is ANGRY . . ." post from yesterday (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4120616) know how I feel about the DLC, and their "mamby, pamby, centerist b.s." but I am concerned about the many replyers who said, in essense - "Fuck it, I will NEVER vote for Hillary, or ANY damned DLC candidate."

As much as I can relate to that ANGER, I am sick and tired of having my progressive voice ignored too, I caution you PLEASE, but DO NOT, repeat DO NOT, make the misake of believing that there is NO difference between the ANY of the Democrats (even the DLC Democrats) and ANY of the Republicans on VERY, VERY IMPORTANT social issues, and, on nominations to the Supreme Court.

With the nominations of Roberts and Alito, Bush and the GOP have pushed the Supreme Court, and AMERICA, to the "tipping point" of fascism. There could be as many as 3 Supreme Court Justices appointed by the next President. ANY of the Democrats (even the DLC Democrats) will nominate "moderate to progressive" Justices who will pull the Court back from the brink. EVERY ONE of the Republican candidates has pledged to nominate Justices "like Chief Justice Scalia" and will close down what is left of this once free society - reversing Roe v. Wade; and, upholding all of the truly EVIL policies of the Bush administration, including: the suspension of habeas corpus; the use of "extrodinary renditon;" the use of torture; domestic spying; extreme claims of executive privilege, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

As much as I would like to tell the DLCers to go "f" themselves, in know that, for the sake of AMERICA, in 2008 a "good progressive" holds his/her nose and votes DEMOCRATIC (and, yes, I mean EVEN DLC Demcoratic).

[ixion]

1. if you think a DLC candidate is going to back off the fascism thing, you're sorely mistaken

That's not what I've seen from them since their inception. They're FOR fascism. Not AGAINST it.

[HughMoran]

18. What about the Supreme Court justices?

Could you miss the point any more completely?

[dailykoff]

31. See post #29 below.

Overhyped non-issue IMHO. Republicans don't have daughters?

[HughMoran]

34. So once again, you'd take a Republican over Hillary any day?

I am not sure what your point is here?

[dailykoff]

37. Did I say that? No.

But Hilly has signed onto the Halliburton bombing regimine so I frankly don't see how a republican could be worse.

[HughMoran]

38. So this is a way to get attention?

Say "I won't vote for the Democrat if it's Hillary, you better listen to me!"

This is an old tactic here on DU and it is most annoying.

[dailykoff]

41. This is a way to vet totally unacceptable candidates.

I have no idea what criteria you're using but Clinton fails by every one of mine.

[HughMoran]

43. Nobody is perfect

...but most people position themselves in the middle so they can win the race. It's an old tried and true political technique. But you're so blinded by hatred that you can't see that she may not be as bad as you think (the old hippie chick who didn't come from money)

[dailykoff]

44. She's not an old hippie chick, she's an old Goldwater racist.

Haven't you been paying attention?

[HughMoran]

46. She switched affiliation long before leaving college

Haven't you been paying attention - the way you would tar someone for life based on a youthful misdirection like this makes me sick.

[dailykoff]

49. Oh please. And then she sat on the board of WalMart for six years.

You're easily fooled so enjoy your fantasies.

[HughMoran]

52. You are hateful

Can you read?

College

In 1965, Rodham enrolled in Wellesley College, where she majored in political science.<15> She served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans organization during her freshman year.<16><17> However, due to her evolving views regarding the American Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War, she stepped down from that position;<16> she characterized her own nature as that of "a mind conservative and a heart liberal."<18> In her junior year, Rodham was affected by the death of Martin Luther King, Jr.,<8> and became a supporter of the anti-war presidential nomination campaign of Democrat Eugene McCarthy.<19> Rodham organized a two-day student strike and worked with Wellesley's black students for moderate changes, such as recruiting more black students and faculty.<20> In that same year she was elected president of the Wellesley College Government Association.<21><22> She attended the "Wellesley in Washington" summer program at the urging of Professor Alan Schechter, who assigned Rodham to intern at the House Republican Conference so she could better understand her changing political views.<20> Rodham was invited by Representative Charles Goodell, a moderate New York Republican, to help Governor Nelson Rockefeller’s late-entry campaign for the Republican nomination.<20> Rodham attended the 1968 Republican National Convention in Miami, where she decided to leave the Republican Party for good; she was upset over how Richard Nixon's campaign had portrayed Rockefeller and what Rodham perceived as the "veiled" racist messages of the convention.<20>

Rodham returned to Wellesley, and wrote her senior thesis about the tactics of radical community organizer Saul Alinsky under Professor Schechter (which, years later while she was first lady, was suppressed at the request of the White House and became the subject of speculation as to its contents).<23> In 1969, Rodham graduated with departmental honors in political science. Stemming from the demands of some students,<24> she became the first student in Wellesley College history to deliver their commencement address.<22> According to reports by the Associated Press, her speech received a standing ovation lasting seven minutes.<25><26> She was featured in an article published in Life magazine, due to the response to a part of her speech that criticized Senator Edward Brooke, who had spoken before her at the commencement;<8> she also appeared on Irv Kupcinet's nationally-syndicated television talk show as well as in Illinois and New England newspapers.<27> That summer, she worked her way across Alaska, washing dishes in Mount McKinley National Park and sliming salmon in a fish processing cannery in Valdez (which fired her and shut down overnight when she complained about unhealthy conditions).

[dailykoff]

55. Right, her prof "made" her volunteer to intern for Ford in her JUNIOR year.

I'm sure it was just another big misunderstanding, like her race baiting Obama on MTP which I heard with my own two ears.

[neutron]

124. Obama Operatives are Smearing

Clinton in every blog on the internet.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted sub-thread

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

[ixion]

53. oh, you mean like the ones the DLC help get confirmed?

as I said, it won't make a difference.

[HughMoran]

58. They couldn't block those and you know it

Thanks for playing the "liar by omission" game.

[ixion]

66. just because they couldn't necessarily block them doesn't mean they had to vote for them

that is called spineless capitulation, which I cannot abide.

[HughMoran]

73. So voting in a way that may cost you votes for no reason at all

...is smarter because it's the morally and ethically correct thing to do?

I guess I can agree with that - I hate that people feel like they have to "look good" to the conservatives so that they don't lose their next election. OTOH, Dems have been just recently making a comeback after years of losing, so I can understand some of the fear. I certainly don't count that capitulation against them as much as I care about their stand on issues of which they actually have some control. I can understand but I can't hate someone if I don't know for sure what I would do in a similar situation. Sometimes saving your bullets for a fight you can win is more important IMHO - even if this seems "weak" to some of the "purists".

[ixion]

88. yeah, my ethics get in the way

I know that in this country to be successful you have to be unethical. I'm just not willing to compromise the integrity of my ethics. I suppose I'm old fashioned that way.

[HughMoran]

90. Well, at least the Republican you get will be more ethical

...so there's that, right?

[ixion]

111. lol... uh, no, both sides are unethical, IMO

I'd like to see more ethics all the way around. ;)

[HughMoran]

116. True

At least you're fair to both sides ;)

[ixion]

118. for me it's about We, the People, not any particular party

that's why I'm an independent. I support Kucinich in this race, although I don't think we'll be seeing him chairing the oval office any time soon. :hi:

[HughMoran]

120. I'm also an independent who's supported Kucinich from the beginning

Unfortunately, it appears that the USA is not ready for him yet. I'm an independent because I want the Democrats to have to earn my vote as much as possible. The majority in this country is becoming independent for the same reason (well, they aren't all Democrats - I wish.) I will never tacitly vote for the Republican by voting for a Democrat who has no chance of winning - I just can't allow Republicans a free pass like that, no matter what my idealistic side says.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

83. yet the GOP in senate today can block any and every thing

why is that? Because the GOP has balls, organization and goals.

We have harry reid and nancy pelosi. And hillary.

Ain't hardly fair, is it?

Yes, they could have blocked them, but the senators in office at that time, Hillary included, even especially, were outfoxed and out thought AND out maneuvered by the GOP.

[HughMoran]

89. Don't conflate blocking SC nominees and blocking legislation

Anybody can block legislation and the Dems also blocked enough Judges that the Republicans were threatening to modify the cloture rules in the Senate. Remember the "nuclear option"?...

[ChairmanAgnostic]

122. precisely my point.

the Dems in office did none of that in the minority. We simply stepped aside, and let them run roughshod over us.

Harry Reid has a lot to answer for. But not as much as the backstabber in the house.

[neutron]

123. They aren't progressives

[DaLittle Kitty]

78. CORRECT! DLC'ers ARE FASCISTS!

This IS Undeniable!

[HughMoran]

81. Do you consider Obama and Hillary to be DLC types?

I do

[Hieronymus]

135. Hillary is.. for sure.

[gdaerin]

128. Yep nt

[mod mom]

108. I agreee and won't be any part of it. I'll write in a Dem who works for the people!

[HughMoran]

117. Obama and Hillary are Fascists?

That's what you just agreed to, correct?

[hobbit709]

2. If Clinton gets the nomination

I will hold my nose but I WILL vote for her. It won't be the first time I've held my nose when voting and I doubt very much it will be the last. someone once said that in a democracy, you don't vote for anyone but you vote for the one you are least against.

[Champion Jack]

4. I could vote for Hillary ......I'd

Just rub Vicks vaporub under my nose before I went to the polling place.

[Birthmark]

3. Nope.

I will not vote for someone simply because they are less evil than the other guy. Nor will I vote for someone out of fear that the other guy is worse. Maybe if Roe is overturned, enough people will wake up to turn that into a positive thing in the long run --and not only lead to re-instating Roe, but to ending this wacked out conservative mind-set of both parties.

But I've played the lesser of two evils game for awhile now...and you know what? I keep getting evil.

[MercerForPrez]

5. Agreed, sick of voting for the lesser of two evils

and Shrillary is evil, make no mistake.

[Hepburn]

67. I totally agree ~~ Hillary is EVIL! n/t

[HughMoran]

97. The potential Democratic nominee is "evil"

:rofl:

I like the sarcastic posts - they are hilarious!

[Krashkopf]

6. This is about MUCH MORE than just Roe v. Wade

This is about having an ultra-Conservative/neo fascist Supreme Court for the NEXT 40 years. Don't do that to your kids, and your grand kids!

[Birthmark]

9. Really?

You mean the Senate has no power to stop such judges? Even if they don't...well, sucks to be us. But I firmly believe that we put ourselves in this position by voting for so-called moderate Dems. (In reality, they are conservative.) I also believe that the only solution is to quit voting for them.

Evil may well follow, but it will be worth my coerced approval this time.

No more. If the Democratic Party can't put up a real Democrat for election, then they don't deserve my vote. Others may feel differently.

[HughMoran]

22. Why do you hate America?

I'll assume you don't have any young children :P

[Birthmark]

24. America started it!

No, I don't have any *young* children, but I expect I'll be a grandpa in the next few years.

[HughMoran]

26. My kids are at a critical stage

-pre-teens and it makes me more sensitive about their future - esp. Supreme Court issues. I can't not take the message of this post seriously.

[Birthmark]

27. I take it seriously, too.

I didn't wake up one morning and say, "Aw, screw it! I'm not voting for another corporate shill." It's been a long time coming. I've voted for plenty of these Semi-crats in the past. No more.

And good luck on the next few years with the kids. They'll be interest. :)

[LandOLincoln]

11. So I assume you voted for Nader in 2000? How's that working out

for you?

Oh yeah, and thanks. No, really...

[Birthmark]

13. You assume wrongly.

Thanks for playing.

[totodeinhere]

7. We need to make this a moot point.

Nominate someone other than HRC.

[dkf]

8. Yes this is the only solution. The Clintons need to be gone

I'm not voting for her.

[zulchzulu]

10. The absolute last thing the Repugs will ever do is overturn Roe v. Wade

The issue of Roe v. Wade is their gold standard in fundraising for the Republican Party. Why do you think either of the Bush crime family or the Reagan administration hasn't overturned it?

They will talk about doing it to get votes. They will threaten that they will overturn it when they get in office. That gets votes and lots and lots and lots of money.

If they overturn Roe v. Wade, the 65%+ of Americans who support women to choose their reproductive choices would backlash against the Republicans. All that potential money would be gone. All those votes would be a mere fraction. The Republican party would fade away like the Whigs.

People who won't vote for Hillary have a pretty good idea that her policies on war and decreasing the Middle Class through free trade and other matters certainly have a right to think that point. The Clintonian political notion to move to the right can be seen by many as bad for the Democratic party.

[BootinUp]

12. this is just not true

They would party their asses off for 7 days and nights in the name of the Almighty if R v W was overturned.

[Bok_Tukalo]

15. I agree

It would be a boon to the Republican Party since we would be having fifty fights over abortion in this nation instead of it being "settled law."

[stravu9]

20. No They Won't TOUCH Roe v Wade!

They've used it SUCCESSFULLY as a Political Battering RAM Too long to give it up now!
How else could the Catholic Hierarchy continue to endorse Republican Nominees when they don't care about feeding the poor etc.
No, Roe v Wade is safe as houses.

[robbedvoter]

71. Last time I heard that was from Nader in 2000...

[nancyharris]

14. Do you REALLY think

that using CAPITAL letters and BOLD formatting makes PEOPLE pay more ATTENTION to what you have to SAY?

[HughMoran]

23. Besides being ticked off, do you have an opinion?

:?

[ToeBot]

16. Yet more lecturing. Sorry but this "good progressive" has been pushed past the limit!

And people like you telling me what to do is more vexing than being ignored.

[stravu9]

17. Hate to Break This To You...

But THE COURTS ARE GONE!
Bush has been loading up the Federal Courts before every Holiday Weekend for years now.
How can you doubt the Supreme Court is in their pocket after they appointed Bush President 8 years ago.
Hell NO I won't hold my nose and fall in line!
I've done that EVERYTIME and it HASN"T HELPED!

[HooptieWagon]

19. Sorry

Fear-mongering will no longer work. I will not vote for the lesser of two evils anymore. The Dem candidate will have to earn my vote. Hillary has not done so, and her campaign and supporters are continuing to drive me further away with their scorched-earth "fuck the progressives, we don't need them" campaign. If Hill is the nominee I'm voting third party or write-in, and will hope for a better candidate in '12.

eddit: speeling

[fenriswolf]

21. and thus every year our democratic field

gets less and less progressive to the point that the DLC is more center leaning right then it is left. all we can do is take what they give us and each year the kool aid gets a bit harder to drink.

[Arkana]

25. My vote will be the only thing Hillary gets should she win the nod

and it will only be in a futile attempt to avoid a President Huckabee or President McCain.

[jakefrep]

28. Same here

I would be much more enthusiastic about Obama or Edwards.

[Fiendish Thingy]

29. With the exception of pro-choice court appointees, HRC would be Republican-lite

I do not believe she would repeal any of the "evil policies" of the Bush/Cheney regime, including the Military Commissions act, habeas corpus, torture, extrordinary renditions, Gitmo, executive privilege, domestic spying, "unitary executive", etc. She has done nothing in the Senate, and said nothing on the campaign trail to suggest otherwise. (broadbrushed platitudes about "change" don't cut it).

Don't post the bills she's co-authored, or speeches about change she's given, when it comes to the illegal actions of the current administration, HRC has not been a voice for change; for example, she missed the Mukasey confirmation vote! Her single "no" vote could have stopped the nomination by preventing cloture!

She might appoint justices who are pro-choice, but they will almost certainly also be pro-corporate, and anti-consumer, anti-worker.

I'm through with holding my nose- I'm voting with my head and my heart, with my conscience clear.

[dailykoff]

30. Thanks that's very well put.

Frankly, I don't think the GOP will ever really allow Roe vs Wade to be overturned, either. It's just a wedge issue, which they would lose if it happened, and if it doesn't benefit Halliburton-Exxon-Mobile, it's a non issue.

[HughMoran]

32. So in other words, a Republican administration would be just fine vs. Hillary?

Is that what you are saying here?

[dailykoff]

35. I'm saying they would be indistinguishable

or worse. I'm not saying I won't vote for her, but I'll probably vote for Cynthia McKinney if Hilly "wins" the nom.

[HughMoran]

36. Which, in other words, is a vote for another Republican administration?

If your feeling is popular, then we would have a Republican get back in.

Would this be "just as well" for you?

[dailykoff]

40. If Hilly squeaks in she'll be beholden to every evil snake in the grass.

A republican might be inclined to be but with Hilly we know it's a lock.

[HughMoran]

45. Hillary beholden to anyone?

lol - that's one of the things I actually like about her - this lady ain't beholden to no-one (in the vernacular)

[dailykoff]

48. Oh for pete's sake. Who the hell do you think is propping up

her trainwreck of a campaign? CNN, MSNBC, the NYT, those are just the obvious ones, and where do you think those clowns get their marching orders?

Hint: the guys who sold crack cocaine to inner-city gangs to pay for illegal right wing death squads in Central America and are basically doing the same thing in Iraq.

[HughMoran]

54. Thanks for showing your true hateful self

Yep, supporting Hillary (which I don't, but I will defend her against liars) is the same as supporting right-wing crack-dealers to pay for illegal right wing death squads in Central America?

You're insane. Bye forever :hi:

[dailykoff]

56. Don't shoot the messenger.

:hi:

[HughMoran]

57. Sorry, no more "5 minutes hate" for me

You're toast.

[ixion]

59. oh get real...

she's beholden to the DLC and all the power-brokers therein.

[HughMoran]

63. lol - as President you are beholden to NOBODY!

You just can't comprehend how that will change things and how people say what is needed to get elected.

[dailykoff]

64. Except the guys who know where the ballots are buried.

Call it blackmail or call it winning at all costs. Well, that's a cost.

[HughMoran]

65. maybe in another lifetime

...we can continue this discussion...

[Fiendish Thingy]

143. not "just fine", I'm saying HRC would do little to undo the damage to the Constitution. n/t

[elizm]

42. Same here!

...I too will vote 'with my head and my heart, with my conscience clear'. Well put!

[gdaerin]

129. Well said nt

[iamahaingttta]

33. I tend to...

...ignore posts by posters with 172 posts that are filled with BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS telling me what to think. However, I would like to say THANKS FOR PLAYING!

[riverdale]

110. I am going to start ignoring posters with 1000+ posts

who are convinced the number of times someone has typed a comment into a message board makes a new comment significantly more or less valid.

[Krashkopf]

138. LOLOLOLOLOL! You crack me up, Dude!

iamahaingttta wrote:

I tend to . . . ignore posts by posters with 172 posts that are filled with BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS telling me what to think. However, I would like to say THANKS FOR PLAYING!

You've got a "1000+ posts" but there is NOT A SINGLE ONE in LBN, General Discussion, or General Discussion: Politics, authored BY you!

Not to brag, but I actually WROTE a post yesterday that was viewed over 7387 times, and recommended 164 times. Have you EVER contibuted an ORIGINAL idea in one of your "1000+ posts?" How many people are reading and recommending YOU?

I tend to ignore people with NOTHING TO SAY . . . in this case, I'm willing to make an exception.

So . . . thank YOU for playing!

[riverdale]

145. i am a inagattadavita says you are not worthy yet

Ha ha, maybe you could go into General Discussion and post "Wow, just wow" 800x on random topics and that person will allow your presence on DU.

[Krashkopf]

147. I 'm gonna do that . . .

but first I want to come up with a REALLY witty punch line, like: "THANKS FOR PLAYING!"

[elizm]

39. "I'd rather lose with honor than honor Hillary with my vote"...

..As someone on some other blog said. I will write in Obama. And for the record, I am a woman over 50 who will NOT be voting for Hillary.

[HughMoran]

47. So you'd rather have a Republican then a Democrat if it's Hillary

I just want to get this clear in my head.

[elizm]

68. If Hillary is the nominee we WILL have a Republican. So don't try to blame me...

...when the Republican president in takes office in Jan. 2009. It will be the fault of Democrats who refused to see that Hillary was the wrong choice.

[HughMoran]

75. If a lot of people like you don't support her

Will you take any responsibility for this?

Will you leave DU if she is the nominee?

[elizm]

82. You are darn right I will leave DU if she is the nominee....I won't participate in the suicide. nt

[HughMoran]

84. Your honesty is admirable

I commend your taking a stance and sticking to it! :applause:

Edit: honesty

[Big Blue Marble]

50. I am done.

if the best the political establishment can offer us is another Clinton or McCain, I will not vote the top of ticket.
Too many times I have voted from fear, I will not do it again. Each time I have done this, I have seen the courts
go more and more to the right anyway. I voted for a Clinton twice. Saw us lose Congress and a lot more.

The Democratic leadership understands the fear vote. They understand that people like you who are willing to rationalize
their vote away. That argument moves me no more. I can never vote for Clinton who voted for this war. I can never vote
for Clinton who is willing to use Rovian tactics on the ground to be re-elected and who will govern more or less like
she runs. I will never Clinton who will most likely lose Congress for us again in two years.

In fact, if these two are my choice, I think I will give up on politics as a vehicle for change for the American poeple.
I will know that the politics of today is for the rich for the corporations. Voting is a charade. And I am tired of playing.

[stillcool]

62. I feel the same way.

the inevitable response to that assertion will be why are you here? It's so funny that the social, economic and foreign policies that led to the present, are not critical for determining my vote. The only thing that matters is a (D) be placed after the name.

[alcibiades_mystery]

60. I'll vote for Hillary...but I won't work for her...not anymore

Working for Hillary might mean bumping into the total asshole Hillary backers that I've seen on this board, fanatics and self-righteous dickheads. I'd rather have my eyes torn out than have to be in the same room with the likes of wyldwolf, Proud2bAdouchebag, Ben Dickhead, or the other pack of slobbering jagoffs that spam this board non-stop with gutter filth.

[HughMoran]

61. Great post

You've shown the irrational haters for what they are - irrational haters!

[lwcon]

69. Sad, sad, sad

But true, true, true.

K&R-ed.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[LWolf]

70. You are deluding yourself.

All you need to do is look at the actions of Democrats in Congress in the last 7 years to tell what you can expect from a DLC or Blue dog democrat. If you cannot bring yourself to hold them accountable for their actions when they are the minority party, please review their record since November of '06.

I said quite clearly BEFORE ANY DEMOCRATS ANNOUNCED THEIR CANDIDACY that I would not be supporting any DLC or DLC-like Democrat in the GE. If the Democrats choose to nominate one anyway, then the Democrats have chosen not to get my vote, and is accountable for the outcome of the GE. Accountability is not a one-way street. The Democratic process allows the majority to rule. The majority can then bear responsibility for their choices. If they want leftist/progressive/liberal/independent votes, they can earn them. Or not.

If not, they can bear responsibility for the consequences.

I'll add that I consider Obama a DLC-like candidate, based on his platform, regardless of whether or not he is an official member of the DLC.

[HughMoran]

79. Cool, so you will not vote for the Democratic nominee then?

That's an interesting position to take - oh, please, how can we earn your vote back? :shrug:

[LWolf]

98. Is that a sincere question?

If you want my vote, you will not nominate HRC nor Obama. Pretty simple.

I already compromised. Out of the 8 original nominees, I would have voted for any but those 2. Unfortunately, a couple of states have already rejected most of those I would have compromised on, and the corrupt primary process allows two states to limit the choices of the rest.

Nominate either DK or Edwards, and I'll be voting for the Democratic nominee.

Since you asked.

[HughMoran]

99. Well, none of us here can control the "voice of the people"

We can blame the media - and they are not helpful - but the candidates who did not get the votes had some serious issues getting their message across in a coherent way. Don't blame anybody, blame the country, this is what we are willing to put up with "on average" :shrug:

[LWolf]

103. We don't control the "voice of the people," but we

control our own voice, and our own vote. If we each use our voice, and vote, for what we believe to be the best for the country, rather than for what the media, the polls tell us; if we use our voice and our vote to walk our talk, and to be the change we wish to see, then we ARE the voice of the people.

If too many people allow their voice to be ruled by fear or corruption, then the AUTHENTIC voice of the people is silenced.

[HughMoran]

106. I greatly admire your feelings on this

I wish we as a country would listen to the idealistic voice within us.

But there are lots of people who simply want someone who is a "strong leader" and not someone who simply says what they want to hear. We have had our share of Presidents who were idealistically fantastic, but complete failures at turning their idealism into reality for the country.

I am cynical of both approaches - as I think most people are - so we the people default to a "strong" candidate who may not fix everything, but who will at least accomplish something. Cynicism works both ways - I think electing "moderate" candidates is the ultimate in cynicism.

[LWolf]

115. That's something I agree with. n/t

[Sparkly]

80. "they (the majority) can bear responsibility for the consequences"

Yes, but we all bear responsibility for the consequences of our choices. As I see it, not voting against the Republican by voting Democratic means bearing the responsibility of the consequences of another Republican administration. The Democrats may not be ideal, but there IS -- definitely -- a difference.

[LWolf]

94. It's not a one-way street.

It's not my job as a citizen to vote AGAINST a candidate, but to vote FOR the best candidate.

I'll be doing that, whether or not that candidate happens to be the Democratic nominee.

It is the job of a political party, and of that party's candidates, to EARN the votes of citizens. Votes are not OWED to any political party.

Democrats who want to EARN my vote will not nominate a DLC or DLC-like candidate. If they do, they have officially agreed to lose my vote.

Those whose first loyalty is to party rather than issues ought not to vote for candidates that degrade the party, and lose the party votes in the GE.

[HughMoran]

96. "Those whose first loyalty is to party rather than issues ought not to vote for candidates that de-"

grade the party, and lose the party votes in the GE"

Who's extorting whom now? "...will not nominate a DLC or DLC-like candidate. If they do, they have officially agreed to lose my vote."

Well, this is a site that supports Democrats - will you leave if Obama or Hillary is nominated?

[LWolf]

101. Let's be accurate, shall we?

I'm sure you already know this, so why not be honest about it? From "About Democratic Underground:"

Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards.

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.

Of course, all progressives are not Democrats, and all Democrats do not espouse progressive ideals. I hope you are not suggesting that the only shared goals a Democrat and a progressive can have are those that elect Democrats. The shared goals are inherent in the progressive ideals; the ISSUES. Democratic Underground is not just about elections.

Therefore, if HRC or Obama is nominated, this leftwing DEMOCRAT will not leave DU, but will leave the campaigning to others, and restrict herself to groups and posts discussing issues until the election is over.

[HughMoran]

109. That's cool

I didn't really want to "break out the rulebook" as it were, though I can see that you are aware that there is a stipulation that we support the Democrat who is nominated. Sorry, but I really, really, really would hate to have to have a revolution while my kids are going through their teenage years. I WILL NOT put up with another Republican administration under any circumstances - millions would agree.

[LWolf]

113. If millions agree, you probably won't have to worry about

those of us who don't. My sons are grown, and are in charge of their own citizenship at this point. One will probably hold his nose for any Democrat in november; the other will vote independent or 3rd party, and will eagerly participate in any revolution that looms in the future.

I would be comforted if millions of Democrats would say that they WILL NOT put up with any more DEMOCRATS that enable, appease, or support the centrist/corporate agenda. If enough Democrats would take that stand, I would be able to, in good conscience, vote for any nominee.

[Raster]

72. I am NOT happy with our crop of "official," sanctioned candidates. However,

I will vote for a sack of cowshit over ANY AND ALL rethuglicans. I want to see the rethuglican party become so small and inconsequential that we can drown it in a bathtub, along with grover "lying piece of shit" norquist.

[HughMoran]

85. I like your attitude

I can't believe that people can't see the huge difference between eventual Democratic nominee and any of the Republican psychopaths. They just can't seem to comprehend that you sometimes have to "play the game" to get into power. OTOH, these people may be acting as double secret decoys to make the Republicans think that we won't strongly support our candidate - for this I thank them!

[Raster]

102. This is THE PLAN:

First, we put a Democrat into the White House;
Second, at the same election we widen our margin of control so the pathetic excuses for inaction by the majority of Democrats in Congress will be seen for what they are: pathetic excuses.
Third, we serve notice to EACH AND EVERY legislator that we will no longer tolerate corporate control over the halls of Congress. They will either live up to their oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States or they will be impeached and replaced, and if necessary IMPRISONED. We must put the fear of God/Goddess into our legislators so they never again become collaborators and accomplices to the likes of cheney*/bush EVER again.
Fourth, and speaking of cheney*/bush*, we must do everything we can to make sure these criminals, and their minions are brought to justice for their crimes against humanity.
Fifth, we begin to repair the damage of the last 40 years of dangerous legislation: repealing the Bankruptcy Bill, repealing "immortal personhood" for corporations, instituting a single-payer system of healthcare that BENEFITS ALL AMERICANS;
Sixth, we begin the process of cleaning our Judicial house, beginning with the Supreme Court of the United States. And yes, Supreme Court Justices CAN BE REMOVED.
Seventh, we begin to reverse the damaging effects of rampant deregulation and return control of this nation's critical infrastructure to non-partisan agencies of the government;
Eighth, we begin to repair the damage to our public education system and ensure that EACH AND EVERY CHILD in this country is afforded a quality education;
Ninth, we enact what ever laws are necessary to ensure civil rights for all, AND I DO MEAN ALL;
Tenth, we begin to heal our national psyche, feeding the hungry, raising all from poverty; and finally, and most importantly,
Eleventh, we take whatever steps are necessary to begin healing our dying planet. We must hold the criminal energy cartels around the world responsible for the damage to our planet.

on edit, and while I'm on a roll: TWELVE, we turn this country away from its warmongering ways and become again, a shining beacon of hope and NOT the world's biggest bully.

Wake up America!:kick:

[HughMoran]

112. I like your 12 point plan

It is all dependant on winning back the WH and expanding majorities in Congress - let's get busy people!

I agree

WAKE UP
Come on!
Uggh!

Come on, although ya try to discredit
Ya still never edit
The needle, I'll thread it
Radically poetic
Standin' with the fury that they had in '66
And like E-Double I'm mad
Still knee-deep in the system's shit
Hoover, he was a body remover
I'll give ya a dose
But it'll never come close
To the rage built up inside of me
Fist in the air, in the land of hypocrisy

Movements come and movements go
Leaders speak, movements cease
When their heads are flown
'Cause all these punks
Got bullets in their heads
Departments of police, the judges, the feds
Networks at work, keepin' people calm
You know they went after King
When he spoke out on Vietnam
He turned the power to the have-nots
And then came the shot

Yeah!
Yeah, back in this...
Wit' poetry, my mind I flex
Flip like Wilson, vocals never lackin' dat finesse
Whadda I got to, whadda I got to do to wake ya up
To shake ya up, to break the structure up
'Cause blood still flows in the gutter
I'm like takin' photos
Mad boy kicks open the shutter
Set the groove
Then stick and move like I was Cassius
Rep the stutter step
Then bomb a left upon the fascists
Yea, the several federal men
Who pulled schemes on the dream
And put it to an end
Ya better beware
Of retribution with mind war
20/20 visions and murals with metaphors
Networks at work, keepin' people calm
Ya know they murdered X
And tried to blame it on Islam
He turned the power to the have-nots
And then came the shot

Uggh!
What was the price on his head?
What was the price on his head!


I think I heard a shot
I think I heard a shot
I think I heard a shot
I think I heard a shot
I think I heard a shot
I think I heard, I think I heard a shot

'He may be a real contender for this position should he
abandon his supposed obediance to white liberal doctrine
of non-violence...and embrace black nationalism'
'Through counter-intelligence it should be possible to
pinpoint potential trouble-makers...And neutralize them,
neutralize them, neutralize them'

Wake up! Wake up! Wake up! Wake up!
Wake up! Wake up! Wake up! Wake up!

How long? Not long, cause what you reap is what you sow

[Krashkopf]

144. And, so it is!

Your 12 point plan is excellent. I believe it to be true, already, and am dedicated to making it manifest!

[Tesha]

149. Unfortunately, you can't accomplish Step Three because in Step One...

> Third, we serve notice to EACH AND EVERY legislator that we
> will no longer tolerate corporate control over the halls of
> Congress. They will either live up to their oaths to support
> and defend the Constitution of the United States or they will
> be impeached and replaced, and if necessary IMPRISONED. We must
> put the fear of God/Goddess into our legislators so they never
> again become collaborators and accomplices to the likes of
> cheney*/bush EVER again.

Unfortunately, you can't accomplish Step Three because in
Step One, you conclusively proved that you'd vote for *ANY
DAMNED DEMOCRAT, NO MATTER HOW AWFUL*; that removes
any and all of the leverage that you might use to accomplish
Step Three: no Democrats need fear that you won't vote for
them.

Until you're willing to allow some Democrats to lose their
elections, the party will puke up ever-worse candidates for
you to hold your nose and vote for.

I've finally reached the point where, if the candidate is
HRC, I'm willing to let the Democrats lose an election.
And if I keep listening to Obama God-monger, I may yet
add him to that category as well.

Tesha

[Raster]

150. I hear what you are saying. However, I would rather Dems first have control.

We first must have control of the White House and Congress. The majority must be solid. We must first deal with the devil we know. And we know the rethuglicans have no honor, no morals, no sense of ethics. We must first remove the rethuglican threat. Then we coerce our elected representatives to play our way or then we begin to recall them as necessary--a massive, coordinated effort to recall, Senator by Senator, Representative by Representative. Even if that means recalling after only a few months in office. This is going to take a massive effort by progressive patriots to take our government back from the corporate overlords. And at the same time, we must seize control of the Democratic Party at the grassroots level. At least this way we have a chance. To allow continued rethuglican rule is asinine. We already know they will do NOTHING to re-chart our country's dangerous course of action.

Wake up America!:kick:

[pamela]

74. The people voting for her now, don't care about the Supreme Court.

The "But-what-about-the-Supreeeeme-Court?" crowd just kills me. If they gave a damn about the Supreme court they wouldn't nominate the candidate most likely to be beaten in the General Election.

[HughMoran]

86. Fear mongering is not admirable either

We vacillate between "she's a DLC Dem, no better than a Republican" to "she can't win in the GE"

Both are fear tactics that remind me of Bushco. It really turns me off and makes me dislike those who would attack and make me support Hillary more than I normally would want to.

[pamela]

91. The "What about the Supreme Court?" meme is fear-mongering.

There are a lot of people, both Democrats and Independents, who feel they can not, in good conscience, vote for Hillary. So people throw out the old "But what about the Supreme Court?" meme. Well, that works both ways. Don't nominate the most divisive person in American politics today and then ask us to fall in line.

[HughMoran]

95. So having a Republican win would not be bad for the Supreme Court

What planet are you from anyway - how can you make such an irrational statement and state that it is similar to the fear mongering that I was describing? You just used manipulative extortion "Don't nominate the most divisive person in American politics today and then ask us to fall in line." politics in your response. How can I take you seriously?

[pamela]

100. Try reading slowly, Moran.

Incredibly appropriate name, btw.

You are supporting the candidate most likely to lose to a Republican in November. You are very likely throwing away the Supreme Court for years to come and you don't seem to be too concerned about that. And yet, you all use the Supreme Court as a fear-mongering tool so we will fall in line at the General Election. You can't have it both ways.

[HughMoran]

104. According to you

I actually think woman will make Hillary win by a landslide if she is nominated. I have much more fear concerning Obama's chances. Nobody else even has a chance at the nomination so I won't go beyond those two.

Please don't resort to personal insults when you make your arguments. I was aghast at your position, but I don't think I attacked you personally.

[pamela]

105. I apologize.

I guess I felt like "What planet are you from?" was a personal attack but that is no excuse for my response. I think it's time for me to step away from the computer for awhile. Nastiness is generally not my style, so again, I apologize.

[HughMoran]

107. No need to, but thanks!

I don't mind an occasional insult so long as we can work through it by continuing the argument rationally. I was a bit aghast at your position, but now I realize that I may have overstated my reaction.

[bread_and_roses]

76. Didn"t you get the memo? Progressives are a negligible factor to the Democratic Party...

...so why should anyone care who we do/do not work and vote for? It continually amazes me, how negligible we are yet somehow responsible for the '00 election and to be responsible if there is another R in '08. We're negligible, unimportant, and unnecessary, so what's with all the pleas to vote the top of the ticket? If we don't count, we don't count.

[HughMoran]

87. Dismissive sarcasm is of no use

Do you have an opinion or are you just here to complain?

[RBInMaine]

77. You are correct ! Thanks !!

When we settle on a nominee, WE MUST UNITE AROUND THAT NOMINEE. In November, it will either be a Democrat or a Republican. Forget Bloomburg. Forget anyone else. It will be a D or an R, and ANY D is better than ANY R !!

[Yuugal]

92. "As much as I can relate to that ANGER"

You then go on to tell us we must vote for the same old tired DLC dog and pony show that has ruined this party for the working class.

Count me in with the many other disgusted progressives who just wont play this game any more. I've always voted straight dem and I'm 42. The result has been a party moving always to the right and supporting war and corporate greed every time over our interests. If we are going to hell, lets just get there already so that we can then have enough people upset to finally swing the country left. Voting for the AL From disciples is just going to get us more of the same free-trade bullshit we've been dealing with for 30 yrs.

I've never been god's biggest fan, but if there is one, how the fuck am I supposed to explain my votes for these evil corporate scumbags we are running this year? I've had enough. If the party doesn't want us progressives around, then maybe we need to take the hint and leave already.

You people talking smack about how great this party is are ignoring recent history as well. Did all our work in 2006 pay off? Of course not, we just have assholes with D's in front of their name instead of an R and its all the same old shit, just a different party.

This is supposed to be a board for progressives and its very frustrating to have so many DLC enablers and free traders here.

[Krashkopf]

139. I asked, I didn't tell

Yuugal wrote:

You then go on to tell us we must vote for the same old tired DLC dog and pony show that has ruined this party for the working class.

Count me in with the many other disgusted progressives who just wont play this game any more.

I didn't TELL you to do anything, but I am ASKING you to reconsider your position.

There is simply TOO MUCH at stake to allow the Republicans to stay in the White House. The Constitution is, literally, and figuratively, in tatters, and I think that the ONLY chance we have of stopping the ongoing destruction is to elect a Democrat as President, as opposed to a Republican.

We, PROGRESSIVES, may have to fight the DLC to force it to restore the Constitution, and to implement TRULY progressive policies, but that is an fight that we can fight, and it is a fight that we can win. Honestly, on the other hand, I do not think that America, as we know it, can SURVIVE another 4 years of Republican mismanagement and mis-rule.

[Yuugal]

141. I'm in NY

So I'll have the luxury of voting my conscience. If people in swing states vote corporatist I understand.

"I do not think that America, as we know it, can SURVIVE another 4 years of Republican mismanagement and mis-rule."

People will only wake up and go left when enough of them are hurting enough to really want meaningful change. My family is already struggling and yet the only people the 2 major dems talk about helping with their "stimulus" packages are the middle class and rich. The working poor are left to rot as usual. So to me "surviving" 4 more years of the corp dem or the corp rep is the same thing.

[Yael]

93. How do you suggest we stop the DLC and take our party back

if we keep electing their candidates?

[2hip]

114. Don't ask me to drink your kool-aid

I'll write-in Edwards if Clinton or Obama is nominated. I refuse to "settle" for inferiority or become an Enabler of the Corporatists.




              Edwards '08 tees!

[wintersoulja]

119. LOL It wasnt the nominations of Roberts, Alito and Thomas the problem

It was the appointment.

[question everything]

121. And... wouldn't it be ironic if progressives will cement Bush's "legacy"

of a Supreme Court full of Scalias and Thomases?

It will be a repeat of 1968, when many anti-war liberals stayed at home, ushering the era of Nixon.

[mtnsnake]

125. Truthfully, I don't see any difference between Obama & Hillary when it comes to DLC type campaigns

so I don't know why you're singling out Hillary as being the only DLC type.

I think Edwards and Kucinich are the only ones running with a true progressive platform, even though I don't support Edwards nearly as much as I do my number one favorite, Kucinich. And right now, give me Hillary any day of the week over Obama because at least she isn't reaching out to Republicans for their votes.

[gdaerin]

126. Thank you for not making this post

really hateful, cause I was really expecting that. And, since you didn't try to bully me I actually read most of what you said.

You make a strong argument.

The truth is, this system is broken, and yes, I know how cliched that sounds!

But I think America's problems go a lot deeper than electing a "liberal" politician or a "conservative" politician.

We need to wake up, Hillary is not a liberal and she's not a conservative, she's a politician, made by this broken system, trained in this broken system, and she's done quite well exploiting this system.

And, we're expected to believe that she's going to stand up to the same broken system that she owes Everything to?

I see all these arguments on this board about what we should call her, liberal or conservative, and I don't understand. Values and Beliefs don't dictate her stands on issues, Money does, and she'd be the first one to tell you that.

And, I'm sure she really does believe that she's the best thing for the country, I'm sure they all do. But look where her money comes from, she's not going to change the system, and I honestly believe anybody who votes for her doesn't really want the system to change.

I'd rather have a conservative president who actually Does make some changes. And, if the changes are really extreme, maybe Then the American people will wake up and realize how much better we can be and we'll decide to take the government back.

Until then, we're not living in a democracy, this is corporatism.

"In popular usage
Contemporary popular (as opposed to social science) usage of the term is more pejorative, especially when used in the shorter form corporatism, emphasizing the role of business corporations in government decision-making at the expense of the public. The power of business to affect government legislation through lobbying and other avenues of influence in order to promote their interests is usually seen as detrimental to those of the public. In this respect, corporatism may be characterized as an extreme form of regulatory capture, and is also termed corporatocracy, a form of plutocracy. If there is substantial military-corporate collaboration it is often called militarism or the military-industrial complex."

[eridani]

127. Part of the problem is that the Dem left was not putting candidates into the pipeline in the 70s

For everyone not named Oprah Winfrey, you have to have actual governance street cred before moving to state and national office. Only a few like Sanders, Kucinich and Wellstone started out at the local level in time to be part of the crop of nationally known politicians of this decade.

I agree with you, and think that more people are starting to realize that just a Dem president is not nearly enough, though it will help.

[applegrove]

130. So true.

[BulletproofLandshark]

131. Sorry

Nose holding is what got us our current crop of frontrunners to begin with.

[Kucinich4America]

132. I'm so fucking sick of the Hillbots and their propaganda tactics

No, not the OP. I know you aren't one of them. But this is one of the many reasons I can't vote for Hillary.

Christ, I can't even turn on the Sam Seder show (or any other radio show) anymore without hearing an obviously scripted phone call from a Hillbot. Like the one that was just on now. :puke:

[loveangelc]

133. McCain would not hire a judge that would overturn Roe v Wade.

I'm almost certain of it, no matter how "pro life" he says he is.

[Perry Logan]

134. Do you notice how often anti-Clinton types talk about vomiting and feeling sick to their stomachs?

Not to mention the cute little barfing emoticon. This suggests they're somewhat dyspeptic people.

[bpeale]

136. not now, not ever. no HRC no matter what the consequences of it are

[Avalux]

137. I have the opportunity to take a job out of the country and I will probably do it.

I refuse to hold my nose and vote for her, conceding she's the lesser of two evils. Do I think for a minute she will repeal the patriot act, bring our troops home (maybe some, but you bet your ass we'll have permanent bases in Iraq), and do anything substantial about our failing healthcare system when she's in bed with Big Pharma? I doubt she will actually get elected, but honestly, I really don't see much of a difference between her and McCain. As the media has been telling us for almost a year, it'll be Hillary and McCain in the GE and more than likely she will lose because Independents will not vote for her.

I am sick of being told what to do not only by Republicans but also by Democrats. I am sick of the division, of the puppeteers sitting up in DC watching us common people fight amongst ourselves and laughing at us because we continue to focus on our differences instead of a common goal - fixing this government and making it work for us - the people - ALL of the people.

I refuse to believe that I have to vote for Hillary Clinton for the sake of America, as if she's some sort of savior. It will really make no difference.

[HughMoran]

140. Live here under a Republican, leave when a Democrat may be elected?

...you are cynical!

[Nedsdag]

142. Will you cut it out with the Supreme Court?

Yes, people who care about those things will vote for that.

But the average voter doesn't give a hoot about the Supreme Court. They only care about who they can have a beer with.

If they DID care about the Supreme Court, there would've been riots in the streets over Roberts and Alito. But NO ONE CARED!

[redqueen]

146. Same here. I'll vote for the nominee. That's what we do.

No matter how hard it is.

Thank you.

*sigh*

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

148. It's important to have a big turnout in November

Above all, even if you detest the particular candidate running for President, DO NOT STAY HOME. We need to vote on the two houses of Congress. That will also insure that we get good appointees confirmed to the Supreme Court. Retaking Congress with a strong majority to me is every bit as important if not more so than getting a Democratic candidate in the White House.