The backbone of the Democratic Party

[Corey_Baker08]

Kerry,Clinton,Bayh,Edwards,and Obama in my opinion are the backbone of the Democratic Party right now alongside Chairman Dean. Kerry and Clinton I BELIEVE- are gonna have an interesting duel for the nomination this time around and somewhere down the road I believe Bayh and Edwards and Obama will be at it for the nomination. I also believe Gen. Clark will make history somewhere along the way, and that Gov. Dean will take the Democratic Party to unprecedented heights.

I truly believe if we wanted to be completely safe Hillary should get the nomination because theres not a question in my mind she would win. Everyone wants to see a female President in their lifetime and are so eager to make history. Yet then again we have Sen. Kerry whom most-and I say most- of the Democratic Party fell in love with-with a compiled e-mail list of 3 million voters and $51 million in a war chest for his next run for office.

While I too would like to see a woman President someday before I die, I dont believe the time is now-my personal pick for 2008 in which I will be a first time voter is:

Kerry/Clinton
2008

I also believe the Republican base is scrambling right now to find a viable candidate for 2008. I saw in another post a fellow DUer saying the Republican base is so much bigger than ours-but its not. Right now the have only a handful of electable candidates that aren't even that popular, John McCain who let us not forget ran an unsuccessful attempt in 2000-he didn't even get the nomination, lets here him trash Kerry on dual runs- and also Rudy Guliana the hero of 9/11 and the leader of the new generation. As great as he is I don't think hes electable, his credits include the following-Mayor- and let us not forget Guliana has been called Liberal by his own base, he has no southern appeal and very little experience in foreign policy-Lets here him call Kerry a liberal now.

[OneBlueSky]

1. wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong . . .

the backbone of the Democratic party are registered Democrats across the country . . . WE are the ones who have to take control and set the direction of the party . . . any of those you mention may be left of BushCo, but they're all still WAY too far right to make a meaningful dent in where this country is headed, i.e. down the toilet . . . and by far right I mean attached at the hip and beholden to corporations, among other things . . .

what we need is an strong anti-war environmentalist willing to take on the corporatocracy (e.g. by refusing all corporate donations) as our next candidate . . . I don't see any on your list who qualify . . .

[Corey_Baker08]

2. The real Backbone

Your right the backbone of the Democratic Party is without doubt the voters all across America. But the people of the Democratic Party vote for a candidate whom best represents their values, their basic beliefs, and their ideals of thinking. Those candidates are in turn the backbone of the party because they represent the voice of the people-the real backbone of the Democratic Party, so in turn the candidates are the backbone of the Democratic party because they are the voice of the people.

[electropop]

21. You didn't list the one Senator with _real_ backbone: Boxer.

The others all voted against the Constitution and the American People on Jan 6th (or were no-shows). They have also been supporting the Rethug positions on various other votes. Phooey.

Boxer/Conyers, that's the ticket.

[Turn CO Blue]

23. Corey, you'll be just old enough to vote by the 2008 election, right?

Trust me, you'll go through many, MANY love/hate relationships with many, many Dems in the coming 3 years...and you'll wind up supporting whoever gets the nomination, because at crunchtime you'll support, cheer, volunteer and settle for just about anybody over a Rethug.

I too, wish we could unearth some morphed-together perfect charismatic, noble candidate, or a combination of candidates with yin/yang complementary attributes, but they're all just humans and will let us down nearly every time.

It's the progressive ideals of Liberals that we should hold up as leading us toward the answers to real issues, not the candidates or those in office.

[firefox]

4. Agreed n/t

[marcologico]

7. "strong anti-war environmentalist willing to take on the corporatocracy"

If you're thinking of Ralph, don't forget that he took donations from the GOP. Sad but true.

Otherwise the only two I can think of are Eliot Spitzer and RFK Jr., maybe Boxer but I'd be surprised if she hasn't taken a donation from some bank, insurance company or defense contractor.

Not that it's a crime.

[OneBlueSky]

8. nope . . . certainly not thinking Ralph . . .

I don't have a specific person in mind . . . I just think that's the kind of person we need . . . but I have no illusions about the Democrats running someone like that . . .

[russwallac]

13. We need Howard Dean to Run Again

None of the current crop of hopefuls have articulated a message or vision that moves me. More of the same-old same-old, and we'll probably get the same old results.

[Ken Burch]

20. You're forgetting Feingold

No flies on him as far as questionable donations or weakness on principles OR character.

[Clark Bayh 2008]

25. No credentials to be commander in chief or to get more than 220 EVs either

[Timothy]

10. Kerry a GREAT American patriot our backbone

We need him ...Dean will be a great chairman also..

[electropop]

11. If Kerry is our back bone

we are seriously hunchbacked. We need some calcium. Try Barbara Boxer for a strong spine.

[Clark Bayh 2008]

24. Sure... let's nominate Boxer... 200 Electoral Votes, tops

Are you people watching the same elections the rest of us are?

Isn't it more fun to win an election with someone less than perfect, than to lose again with your idea of the perfect progressive candidate?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. As a president,

A strong anti-war environmentalist willing to take on the corporatocracy would be great, but as a canditate they would be a disaster.

The sad fact is that the single most important reason America now has a far right wing government is not that the Republicans ran a better campaign, or that the media were on their side, or that the vote count was rigged, or because the DLC sold the party out (although at least the first two of those certainly contributed) - it's that you have an awful lot of right-wing voters, and comparatively few far-left ones.

If you want to get a left-winger into the white house, it's going to have to be one who supported the war, because too many people (in America, *far* too many people) will not vote for one who didn't.

If you could change the attitudes of a significant portion of the electorate in time for the next election, running a strong anti-war environmentalist willing to take on the corporatocracy would be great, but, unfortunately, it can't be done.

The number of people who would vote for someone far left but not for someone centre-left is small.

The number of people who would vote for someone centre-left but not for someone far-left is large.

[lostinacause]

16. That may be who you want in but if they are forthcomming

with their ideals they would never win. The only appeal to one group and that group is not large enough to win an election.

[applegrove]

3. Can you please not repeat post? Please. Then we cannot have a real

discussion with each other? If you only want 4 of us to answer..then this must be some sort of ad?

IMHO

[Corey_Baker08]

5. Sorry....

I always thought most people didnt go into other forums all that often anyways, just wanted to get some good answers.

Sorry again

[applegrove]

6. Oh man the newest posts all pile up one after the other in one place

if you look at "latest". Did not mean to be curt. Welcome. (I am traumatized from so many Terry Schiavo posts in a row - can you tell?).

[dcfirefighter]

9. Here you go

1) Put our money where our mouth is, let us choose by some form of proportional representation. I like Condorcet's methods.

2) My vote's for JFK, Jr. followed by others.

3) Hillary would lose. She really scares people.

[dcfirefighter]

14. Of course I meant RFK Jr.

JFK Jr. would have a tough time winning.

[Laurab]

15. Yeah, sadly you're right about that

Has RFK Jr expressed any interest? That could change the whole playing field I think. His skeletons aren't any worse than most other candidates or elected officials, and from what I can tell he would be a breath of fresh air.

I agree with you about Hillary. It's nothing personal, she's ok, I just see nothing about her that makes her stand out. Besides the repukes are pushing her down our throats which makes me nervous. Much of the right hates her as much as we hate the shrub, although I'll never understand what she's done to deserve that.
I don't think she'd have a chance of winning.

But then again, after the last election, I think I give up on guessing who or what people will vote for.

First things first though - election reform.

[Egalia]

17. she really scares people

3) Hillary would lose. She really scares people.

They said the same thing about the shrub.

[TMA68]

18. Don't forget who controls the vote count.

3) Hillary would lose. She really scares people.

They said the same thing about the shrub.

Yes, but with which party do the corporations who count our votes (Diebold, ESS, etc.) have close affiliations?

http://onlinejournal.com/evoting/110504Chin/110504chin.html

Todd

[Egalia]

19. I won't forget but..,

that's a problem we have regardless of who runs. If, as usual, we are going to get stuck with a 'centrist' Dem who sacrifices principle in order to be the "electable" candidate, well, we may as well go with Hillary Clinton. This is not meant as a criticism of Clinton so much a criticism of the system we are apparently stuck with. She was more qualified for the presidency when Bill Clinton won it, except of course for the gender factor.

As a woman, I am just damn tired of waiting and so are my daughters and sisters, and then there is my mother who was born the same year that women got the vote. She can't wait much longer.

here's a related piece I wrote on the subject:

http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2005/04/someday-woman-will-be-president-but.html

[Turn CO Blue]

22. My thinking is that THIS is why we need stem cell research

so that we can GROW a BACKBONE for the Democratic Party leaders!

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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