It's going to be quite interesting here on DU in about 340 days.....

[trumad]

That's when the Democratic Party will nominate their candidate.... which means that all the candidate bashing that is so common here on DU, will simply dry up and vanish.

We pick--- we choose, and here on DU, ya better not bash!

[kimmerspixelated]

1. True,

However so much can happen in that time! I believe the playing field will be leveled by just a coupla choices, as the candidates are getting road weary!

[liberal N proud]

2. I think it will all work out!

Some how I think everyone will come together to support who ever the choice is. And if not they will simply leave the forum.

[liberalnurse]

14. Of course they will.

Folks here have a tendency to be "Alpha Democrats".... and fight hard for their candidate,,,,but in the end, we all shake hands and enter a new game as one team.O8)

[ShortnFiery]

3. Yes, if the ruling political class get its way - enjoy the echo chamber.

:shrug:

[trumad]

4. No.... I don't echo...

I support.

[ShortnFiery]

6. IMO, it's gonna be a mighty small clutch of supporters. Enjoy!

:eyes:

[The Magistrate]

10. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Ma'am

Are you genuinely of the belief that only a small portion of the membership here will support the nominee of the Democratic Party for President?

[ShortnFiery]

11. To be honest, if the candidate is HRC, you will have a significant number of people leaving DU.

But on the level, there will also be a significant number staying. Just want them to know, all the guilt trips in the world will not sway those who've been thrown under the bus by the DLC. :shrug:

[The Magistrate]

16. If She Is The Nominee, Ma'am

It will be because the majority of rank and file Democrats voting in primaries wanted her to be.

[ShortnFiery]

18. Then for the first time since 1992, I can't accept that and will write in Dennis Kucinich.

:shrug:

[KoKo]

72. So will I...if Al Gore doesn't come in...I will write in Kucinich and be proud to do it.

He's a Democrat through and through. There's no rule I know of here on DU that would not allow any of us to vote for a Democrat if we have to write their name in.

[KoKo]

74. deleted by poster

[ShortnFiery]

79. Watch out for Mr. trumad, he's gonna make the door hit us in the ass.

:rofl: :P

[KoKo]

85. Ahh...more Night of Long Knives...........but this time for Dem Activists

who have worked within the system...and find it lacking....

Rebuilding Dem Party...not a good thing for some.

[JNelson6563]

122. Do you remember that first one, way, way back?

Boy that term sure took me back! :hi:

Julie

[Pastiche423]

175. Not that far back - October 2003

I remember it well.

[liberalnurse]

94. I'm not going to complain when it does....

:smoke:

[The Wielding Truth]

218. He might surprise us! I think he is the best and would change

the world. It would be like an awakening to have someone in the Whitehouse who has a sense of what it is to be compassionate and wise.

[The Wielding Truth]

219. How many here do you think would be brave enough to

cast away Clinton and Obama for real change?

A change that would strike out in the direction of a socially conscience democracy. Where America would shine a bright light on injustice, while bending down to help anyone in need. Where natural resources would be as respected as economic strength. Where being a Washington insider means working for the life and liberty of the world.

It would be the start of a huge project. I wonder how many beside us are ready.

[kenfrequed]

39. Yeah and I have a bridge to sell you...

In Minneapolis.

Seriously though I honestly think HRC is probably the worst choice we could possibly manage. I do not think that she has run a reasonable campaign and is merely riding an absurd "eventuality" strategy that has been aided by the various outlets of the media. The corporations are well aware that no Republican is going to win the presidency this time out so they are hedging their bets and throwing money at the most corporate friendly democrat of the crowd.

The worst (and most ironic) part about it is that despite the silly polls that have her ahead of any republican running, she is actually the most vulnerable of the democratic candidates we could get forward. No democratic candidate has a greater chance of activating the Republican base and turning off the "democratic wing" of the Democratic party.

Many of the other candidates are withering from lack of media attention or general dismissal by the punditocracy.

That said I will not speak to who I will support after the primary. I think talking about after the primary only supports those that seem to have an edge now.

[Tesha]

66. And they were so right in 2004, weren't they, when they chose Kerry? (NT)

[The Magistrate]

78. What Does Right, Ma'am, Have To Do With It?

Belief that the people should decide by vote by whom they will be governed does not imply or require belief they will get it right every time they try....

[Bjornsdotter]

17. Many of us weren't Kerry supporters

...but we stayed and we voted for him.

Sounds like a temper tantrum to me....if ______ doesn't win and ______ does I'm leaving. Are you going to hold your breath too?

Cheers

[ShortnFiery]

21. If anyone will be suffering from "a temper tantrum" it will be the centrist democrats when they

discover that "the base" may not get in lock step with them. :shrug:

After all, aren't us LIBERALS your favorite punching bag?

[Bjornsdotter]

27. Sorry

....I'm a waaaay on the left....think Swedish liberal. I'm not a Hillary supporter but I'll step up and cast my vote for her if she's the nominee.

I don't have to tear down another candidate to support my own, I'm very comfortable with going in and voting for my choice and seeing how it all shakes out. No matter who wins the nomination I won't be leaving DU because my candidate didn't win.

Cheers

[ShortnFiery]

30. OK, that's your choice.

I'll make mine. :hi:

[Bjornsdotter]

34. Works for me

:toast:

[The Magistrate]

45. What Do You Imagine 'The Base' To Be, Ma'am?

The base of a party consists in those people it can rely on to vote for its candidates. It is well typified by the people who turn out in primary elections, as this is something of an 'extra' in the electoral system, and requires a bit more engagement with the process, and identification with a party, than the usual run of even party-identified voters display.

If the primary results make Sen. Clinton the nominee, this will, in fact, be because the majority of the actual base of the Democratic Party prefers her to be its standard-bearer.

[ShortnFiery]

81. The true base will split their votes between Obama and Edwards, leaving a gap for HRC to squeak to

victory. :)

[The Magistrate]

88. The 'True Base', Ma'am?

Whenever 'true' is placed in front of a perfectly adequate noun, there is some subterfuge of meaning afoot, similar to that which occurs when 'food' is added after 'cheese' to a comestible's title....

[ShortnFiery]

93. Understood. But the primaries will provide a strong case for "run off" voting. Obama and Edwards

will split voters. Those of us who know about Kucinich will vote for him and HRC will pass all three. :(

[The Magistrate]

109. In Short, Ma'am, You Expect She Will Get More Votes Than Anyone Else

That is democracy.

There is no particular reason to believe persons who, say, voted for Sen. Obama over Sen. Edwards would not vote for Sen. Clinton over him, if put to that choice by a run-off mechanism. A preference for one candidate in primary seldom indicates a die-hard opposition to another candidate, such that anyone but that candidate would be preferred.

It is not accurate to suppose any great proportion of Democratic voters harbor deep dislike of Sen. Clinton: her favorable ratings among Democrats run consistently around eighty percent nowadays, regardless of whether the respondents self-identify as liberal or moderate.

[ShortnFiery]

127. Well then, with respect Magistrate, I don't understand HRC's popularity ...

Perhaps you're right - I'm way too liberal for the Democratic Party. That's why, unlike all the other times I have voted since 1992, I will write in Dennis Kucinich instead of vote for the Democratic Nominee.

If that makes me a traitor to "the party" it's only on the national level. I can't vote for the DLC's nominee, I just can't and look myself in the mirror.

I apologize by mentioning PNAC, because I don't know HRC's affiliated - that was wrong of me. However, I can NOT vote for her because I believe she will endorse perpetual war.

I will be writing in Kucinich on the G.E. regardless of whom else is nominated formally by the party.

I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. :shrug:

[The Magistrate]

131. The Popularity Of Many Things, Ma'am, Eludes Me Completely

And many things that fascinate me deeply do not draw the interest of more than a handful of like-minded lunatics: life is a funny old thing....

[ShortnFiery]

139. "life is a funny old thing...."

So true. And life's too short to be haggling with those who basically hold your same values. It's time for a break and to clear my head. Best wishes. :hi:

[The Magistrate]

142. And To You, Ma'am

It is worth restating the differences among us here are generally much less than meets the eye.

[H2O Man]

102. I think that

the democratic base, which I believe that you correctly identify, needs other sources of support in order to win elections and pass important legislation. The party certainly must consider appealing to both those who are more conservative by nature, and those who are more liberal and progressive.

The friction is a result of those on the liberal/progressive side of the party becoming convinced that the base is more concerned with appealing to conservative democrats who are mirror images of liberal republicans.

One of the problems with DU -- in my humble opinion -- is that people who are from that base too often do not appreciate that the party can benefit from listening to the hopes and fears of the liberal-progressive wing of the party. Indeed, it is only the progressive wing that can reach out and attract the support of those further to the left, be they greens, socialists, or other leftists.

Likewise, those on the left should be willing to listen to the hopes and fears of the base.

I am not saying that either trumad or you are not attempting to keep an open discussion going. But there is that tone on DU, far too often.

[The Magistrate]

115. Exactly, Sir

For better of worse, the Democratic Party is a very broad coalition, and its policies, programs, and candidates therefore must necessarily embody an element of compromise. It is in the definition of compromise that it must fall short in some ways of what each element really wants. It is incumbent on all factions, from the most 'moderate' to the most 'radical', to accept that, and pull together for the good of the whole.

[H2O Man]

118. 2008

I do not believe that we have the luxury of continuing down the divisive paths that we see too many folks heading down.

[The Magistrate]

124. No, Sir, We Do Not

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we will all hang seperately."

[KoKo]

136. Mr. Magistrate...WHO is it that DECIDES what the "Good of the Whole" really Is?

:shrug:

[TwilightZone]

105. 'True Democrat' is a similar concoction

Where 'True' often means 'agrees with me on every issue, in the same order of importance.'

In other words, there's only one True Democrat. :)

[The Magistrate]

117. You Have Nailed It, Sir

[KoKo]

140. So...Who decides who is the "One True Democrat?" Is there a Committee? n/t

[AlCzervik]

25. i was for Dean but i did vote for Kerry in the general.

[Bjornsdotter]

29. Yep me too

....and I see you also stuck around DU.

:toast:

[AlCzervik]

49. indeed and i was heart broken about Dean, he was the first candidate ever

that i felt attached to. i still love him and i still have some really nice campaign posters one of my Canadian friends bought for me. Really quality stuff.

[Bjornsdotter]

80. Same here

...I was heartbroken when he didn't get it. I still voted for him in the primary even though Kerry had it all sewn up. I remember being surprised at how many votes Dean received in my very red section of Illinois.

I first read about Dean in 2002, early summer. I was on a plane going to Danmark and I read about this very exciting new guy (for me) and I told my Dad that I thought he could be the next president. I followed him intensely all the way to the primaries, but it was not to be.

The posters sound really nice, a wonderful collectors item.

:toast:

[KoKo]

86. I walked around with a Kerry Red T-Shirt begging folks to vote for him...

while really hoping for Dean or Kucinich. I towed the LINE. Listened to Kerry's Video at our Precinct Training Sessions...got my packet and credentials to go door to door. Was Precinct Co-Chair...tried to do everything I could even if my heart wasn't with Kerry...I felt he could be Elected. He WAS...and what happened after that? Just like with Gore...what happened with that. I even poll monitored during Kerry...and saw stuff which I reported and so many DU'ers documented that stolen election and we had HELP documenting that the fraud was in the machines and transfer of the machines to Central Tallying and that many of the DRE's in rural areas lost the votes (and few were held accountable for that) and that ELECTION WAS STOLEN FOR KERRY ...LIKE IT WAS FOR GORE...and we were PROMISED by our DEMS in the US HOUSE that THEY WOULD FIX IT!!! That ASS/Squatter in the WH is STILL THERE...and it's going on 7 years and VOTING HAS NOT BEEN FIXED! Jesse Jackson's son swore he'd put in an Amendment giving Americans the LEGAL RIGHT TO VOTE (it's not in the Constitution) and SO FAR...JESSE, jr.'s BILL has NOT make it to the HOUSE FLOOR!

So...tell me about Grass Roots Organizing ...and tell me about hard work...and ANGRY ACTIVIST BASE....

[Bjornsdotter]

113. Not sure

...how your post goes with mine? I was commenting on some nice sounding campaign posters.

Cheers :toast:

[JNelson6563]

134. Ok, I have just one thing to point out

Gore fought all the way to the SCOTUS, for weeks it went on. Kerry bowed out before they were even done with the first count of votes. I think we shouldn't compare the two. Gore didn't go down without a fight and Kerry did. That is a noteworthy difference.

Just my .0125 on that.

Otherwise I am in agreement with your post. I too busted ass full time for a candidate I didn't have much faith in. Never again.

Don't get me wrong. I won't bash the candidate and my local party will make a boatload of cash off the sale of swag, who ever the ticket may be. We'll then funnel that money to local candidates. A turning of the tables as it were. We will benefit from them for a change.

:toast:

Julie--working the system to local benefit--fuck the beltway

[trumad]

59. Really---

and you know this how?

[connecticut yankee]

5. Agreed --

and I'm sure we'll all support the Democratic Party's choice.

[Faygo Kid]

7. I'm not worried about that. I'm worried about what Bush can do in 340 days.

We may be fortunate to be nominating anybody in 2008; the madman and his enablers are going to pull some scary stuff between now and then. If we make it to nomination, I will happily support whoever emerges for the Dems, and be grateful for it happening.

[ShortnFiery]

8. The bigger problem than BushCo is "The Unitary Executive" nt

[marlakay]

9. If a certain someone is the person I won't be on the site

it would be too much for me, I would help moveon with phone calls again for the congress and senate races and thats it. Its hard enough to watch now all the stuff that is happening because of Bush, but if we end up with someone still in bed with corporations and lobbists, I am outta blogs for awhile. You know there is only so much negative stuff one can handle in their life.

[tularetom]

12. Looking at all the prospective Dem candidates

I can honestly say there is not one that I would not support enthusiastically. I have preferences, sure, but any of these Dems would be so far above anything the repubs might put up that the choice is a slam dunk.

[BlooInBloo]

13. I predict that DUers will actively campaign for the republican nominee if Clinton is ours.

[ShortnFiery]

15. No, I just received a call from my local democrats to work the polls for our democratic

nominee for State Senate. I am very active with my local democratic party. However, forgive me if I am DISGUSTED with the lack of progress and resolve in regard to our National Congressional representatives. No way would I ever give up on my LOCAL democratic party but the National Candidates have become "out of touch" with their constituents. Plain and simple.

[cali]

20. We'll see. If they're so out of touch

They won't be re-elected, but I'm afraid you're in for a big disappointment. I think you vastly over rate the number of people who feel as you do.

[ShortnFiery]

22. OK, I hope that I'm wrong, but if I'm not, blame yourselves NOT "the base" for the defeat.

:hi:

[cali]

26. I'm part of the base

so I won't be blaming myself no matter what. And if some people are foolish enough to actually believe there's no difference between HRC and the repukes, well, that's a shame.

[Mythsaje]

33. Oh, there's a difference...

The Repukes will continue on the same path in a downward spiral into stupidity beyond stupidity, while Hillary will, at least, halt the downward slide...for the most part. Of course, anything beyond that, any sort of REAL necessary change...Nah. She's status quo all the way.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[cali]

43. Evidence please that HRC

has anything to do with PNAC. Not that you're too good at backing up your claims.

[Mythsaje]

52. This is the sound of a heavy sigh...

She's not tied to them ideologically. If she is one of them, she's there for expedience's sake alone. She isn't going to appoint a batshit crazy Supreme Court Justice or fill the cabinets with incompetent RW lunatics.

She's just not going to address any of the things that really need addressing while in office.

[ShortnFiery]

55. self delete

[Mythsaje]

61. WTF are you talking about?

I'm just stating what I think is wrong with Hillary.

How is that thuggish?

[ShortnFiery]

69. Sorry.

I responded to the wrong post/person. :blush:

[cali]

41. Agreed.

I'm particularly concerned about her military and foreign policy stance. Still, the SC ain't chicken feed.

[ShortnFiery]

35. Forgive me, but based on all your various posts, I just don't see you as part of the base.

Good people can disagee. :shrug:

[BlooInBloo]

37. Oh yah - I forgot - you get to decide who is and is not part of the base. drat!

[ShortnFiery]

40. No, I don't. But this time, I feel ZERO guilt because the "centrist" party has left me for moderate

republicans. :(

[cali]

57. Good people should

avoid pronouncements like that one. Period. And one more time: I work for Progressives at the local level. That's large P progressive, because unlike Virginia, Vermont actually has a functional Progressive party with members in the State House. I support Bernie and Pat and Peter who are among the most liberal members of Congress. I've marched in DC against the war, and was against the war when it was only a glimmer in george's eye. I'm pro-choice and my opinions about the media and corporate control are lined up squarely with Bernie's.

Want to tell me that's not progressive? Then tell my why it's not.

I realize that I'm actually probably farther to the left than most of the national base.

You really don't have a clue, although you appear to think you know it all.

But yes, good people can disagree.

[ShortnFiery]

64. "should" is that an order? Do we have to comply to be considered progressive.

I've marched against the war too. That's why I can't believe that you'd vote for HRC, a warmonger. :(

A Clue? I can turn it back on you.

Yeah, good people disagree. :hi:

[cali]

70. Easy. Very easy

I care about the federal judiciary, especially the SCOTUS.

[ShortnFiery]

73. What is there to save - IF the world's in a grave? - SCOTUS can't save us from Oil Wars. nt

[cali]

82. Well, Sarah Heartburn

There's quite a few things: Choice for women, the treatment of detainees, environmental issues, just to name a few.

[ShortnFiery]

83. It won't come to fruition with HRC, it's all a pipe dream. :(

[cali]

90. Then you don't know very much

about her. There's NO doubt that she'll appoint pro-choice judges. She's fiercely pro-choice, and always has been. She also has an excellent environmental record, and her position on Guantanamo and detainees is widely known.

Why not educate yoursel?

[ShortnFiery]

97. Well you're not a seer either. She will do what the corporatists in the Military Industrial Complex

and Rupert Murdock tells her to. Period. You can cast away all the other stuff because we'll be ass deep in bloody perpetual warS. :(

[cali]

101. Sorry. You are so absurdly off base

it's laughable. You have no evidence that she'll appoint judges anti-thetical to her history. NONE.

It's not even that you make stuff up, you just parrot the most moth eaaten cliches around.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

203. She Will Appoint Left Leaning Judges As Did Her Husband And Her History Suggests

Justices Breyer and Ginsburg have been adamant in their votes checking uncorralled executive power.

But, hey , don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

[Bjornsdotter]

19. The adults in DU

...will suck it up and do what needs to be done, as some of us did in 2004.

Cheers

[ShortnFiery]

23. Yeah, since 1992, I've sucked it up. No more. But thanks for the courteous exchange.

:eyes:

[trumad]

65. I'm not going to miss you...

[ShortnFiery]

67. That's a shame trumad because I'm really gonna miss you.

:eyes:

[trumad]

71. Listen

your telling me that if the candidate is HRC, then you're gone?

Well God damn it, don't let the door hit you in the ass.

[ShortnFiery]

75. Well ...

God damn it! IMO, you enjoy losing both The Presidency and The Congress. ;)

[trumad]

144. How's that going to happen?

[Le Taz Hot]

208. And those with more than 2 brain cells to rub together

and remember what the Democratic party is SUPPOSED to stand for, will actually engage in independent thought and vote for the person we think is the best person for the job.

Btw, to some of you upthread. The BASE are the activists, not The Party rah-rahs who are mainly interested in getting elected to committeeships, being delegates and posting campaign signs on their front lawns. Activists are the ones who make phone calls, who register voters, who knock on doors, who help in mailings, who field questions and who get on local (and national, if possible) media, among other things. It's almost impossible to get elected without them. Now, having said that, you guys lucked out this time around as the Republicans have complete shit from which to choose. Most likely they've lost the election before they even get out of the gate. Tragically, all of this will just entrench the predator class even deeper.

[Mythsaje]

self delete

wrong place

[Mythsaje]

24. self delete--dupe

in the wrong place.

[Mythsaje]

28. I seriously doubt it...

There are some people who can't stand Hillary here (count me as one of them) but I doubt that any would pick a Republican nominee over even her. I would expect some third-party choice instead.

[BlooInBloo]

36. That counts. (Though I didn't have it in mind when I posted originally.)

[Mythsaje]

42. Unfortunately, it does count...

I LOATHE this either/or system we've got... I'm hoping (unlikely, but you never know) that Ron Paul will run on the Libertarian ticket and suck votes away from the Repuke nominee (since we KNOW it's not going to be Ron Paul).

He's pretty damn popular with some of the more traditionally-minded "conservatives" and could end up being a serious contender outside the normal party establishment. But, chances are, he won't take that route.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Really? I've never seen a single post advocating for a Republican.

And, I've been here quite a while.

[BlooInBloo]

32. That's why it's called a PREdiction.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. So, what is your PREdiction based on?

[BlooInBloo]

53. Clinton hate on DU. DUers actually think the crap in #38 is LITERALLY true...

... And if someone thinks that, it's perfectly reasonable for them to campaign for not-Clinton - which, in our system, means the republican.

[ShortnFiery]

62. OK, when has HRC said that she's going to pull the troops? how is she with AIPAC?

No, she hasn't signed a PNAC letter, but she's in bed with The Military Industrial Complex, and you know it. Don't you? SC nominations are not going to save us from perpetual war. :(

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. I loathe Clinton.

And, in our system it doesn't "mean the Republican". There are more choices than two on most ballots and usually a write-in line.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." - Thomas Jefferson

[kenfrequed]

50. And what an absurd prediction it is

So you are saying progressives that find Hillary too conservative (And that is the complaint most of those who do not like her cite) are going to turn around and support someone more warlike, more conservative, more corporate, and more environmentally toxic?

Thanks for slapping all the progs at DU in the face.

[TwilightZone]

120. There have been quite a few posts about Ron Paul and Chuck Hagel.

Some were even suggesting Hagel for VP, if memory serves.

[kenfrequed]

44. Wow!!

Only if you use republican tactics like that statement.

I mean that was only a few lines shy of "If your not for Hillary you are for the Republicans." The irony is absolutely delicious.

[BlooInBloo]

47. Um, at general election time, that's true. Assuming she's the Dem nominee, of course.

[Mythsaje]

56. Absent abstention, of course...

I'm sure some people will say "I won't vote against her, but I won't vote FOR her either).

[BlooInBloo]

60. Not voting when your vote *would* have been a Dem vote is helping the republicans.

[Mythsaje]

77. I don't agree...

Are you saying that it's wrong to vote (or not vote) your conscience?

I'll vote for Hillary in the GE, without a doubt, though I'd MUCH rather not. Assuming she's the nominee.

But I'm not going to condemn someone else for refusing to vote for someone *I* think is the wrong person for the job.

[BlooInBloo]

106. You go into the election with the candidates you have, not the candidates you WISH you had....

... And it's the citizen's *responsibility* (not mere right) to vote for the best candidate.

[Mythsaje]

199. A person is ultimately responsible to his or her own conscience...

No matter how others would like to believe otherwise. If someone truly believes that HRC is unworthy of their vote--a stance I can understand, if not necessarily agree with--far be it from me to second-guess that person's conscience in such a matter.

[Tesha]

132. Proposing a Republican as the Democratic candidate helps the Republicans more. (NT)

[BlooInBloo]

133. Wow. A republican with a 92+% progressive voting record. Amazing.

[Tesha]

189. A Republican. Registered as such in her youth...

A Republican. Registered as such in her youth
and still voting for things like the war and
amendments to our Constitution to ban flag
burning.

As our standard-bearer, Clinton sucks and
eventually, it will be apparent to everyone.
Too late for the Democrats in 2008, of course.

Tesha

[Mythsaje]

200. I don't see what she registered as in her youth

has any bearing on what she is now.

That said, I think she's the least likely candidate to make any significant changes in the way things are done--changes we desperately need to prevent the Republicans from slinking away to try this crap again.

[The Magistrate]

212. Reagan Registered as A Democrat Into Adulthood, Ma'am: What Is Your Point?

[H2O Man]

213. Without commenting directly

upon Senator Clinton, I would point out that several of the most interesting political minds today belong to people who have undergone transformations in their adult lives. Bill Moyers was not an open-minded person in his early LBJ years. John Dean wasn't very nice when he was in the Nixon White House.

There are plenty of other examples. I am not saying that Senator Clinton has experienced the same process that another democratic senator who held that same seat and who ran for office some 40 years ago did. But I am not certain that her political leanings from 40 years ago are meaningful unless put into the context of what she is today. People can have serious questions about her as a candidate and potential president. I certainly do. But they are not based on her opinions from decades ago.

[Tesha]

214. Which is why, of course, I pointed out that her current voting record...

Which is why, of course, I pointed out that her
current voting record is pretty much what you'd
expect of an old-time New York "Nelson Rockefeller"
type Republican: pro-war, pro-USA-PATRIOT-Act, pro-
a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, etc.

Tesha

[H2O Man]

215. I think that

you raise a number of important points. It is, for example, worth our considering what groups of people are going to be motivated to vote against her. I think that when you listed some of the groups that will vote against her, you were raising valid points that we should be considering. We should have the same type of discussion about each and every announced candidate.

[Tesha]

216. You won't get an argument from me regarding that suggestion -- sounds good! (NT)

[H2O Man]

217. I always appreciate

your posts on DU. You add a lot to the discussions on this forum. Thank you for fighting the good fight.

[Cleita]

54. What a load of crap.

We will do what we always do, hold our nose, and vote for the Democratic candidate. Kerry would not have won in 2004 if all those people who hadn't backed Kerry in the primaries didn't. Yes, in case you didn't know, Kerry did win when all the votes were investigated in the end.

[BlooInBloo]

58. Have fun replaying the Kerry videotape in your mind.

[Larkspur]

204. I'd never support a Repuke, but I would vote Socialist or Green Party

My mother, an FDR Democrat, voted Socialist in 1972 because she didn't like McGovern. She wanted Muskie.

[Cleita]

48. I'm getting tired of this.

A lot of good DUers were banned in the past because the bait throwers made them say something in the heat of the moment or maybe they didn't word it just right and the offended party alerted on them because they interpreted it differently than the intent. I just had that happen to me.

I think there is a difference between trying to point out something troublesome about the candidates and discussing it, and out and out bashing a candidate. That shouldn't happen. Yet, pointing out the troublesome will often be interpreted as bashing and the offended party's alert finger gets trigger happy.

It's too bad because discussion places like this are very helpful in dispersing information and can be a good venue for a respectful, but truthful debate. It's too bad that certain posturers, who feel they are the only people to hold the right opinion on everthing, can come in and ruin it all by hurling accusations of bad and ugly and "just like McCarthy" because they don't like what you said and refuse to even ponder for a minute that there could be merit in what was said.

[BlooInBloo]

51. Totally. I do my part by simply not using the alert button. It's for wusses.

[trumad]

68. That's not saying that you can't disagree with the canidate...

it's just saying that active bashing---persistent bashing will be a no no---as it should be.

[KoKo]

76. I understand what you say...and the post above about "writing in Kucinich"

would seem to be considered "Flame Bait" these days on DU. But, Kucinich is a Democrat and if folks get banned over voting for "lesser Dems" then what the hell is going on with our party. A REBELLION, maybe?

A Rebellion of hearty dems who've worked in the Party and know the ropes and are on the "donor list?"

Does our Dem Party really want to get rid of all who aren't high rolling Corporatists? If that's so ...then we know where the line is drawn.

[H2O Man]

84. You raise some valid points.

I'm going to invest time and money in the democratic party in 2008. But I understand why many people who are concerned with the party having a candidate who is, in many significant ways, far closer to the republicans in Washington DC than to the average DUer.

I believe that this country needs to undergrow that radical change in values that Martin spoke of in his 1967 address, "A Time to Break Silence" (aka "Beyond Vietnam.") And in a very real sense, none of the present candidates is in the top ten choices I would make for president, were it up to me.

Yet I think we have the best slate of candidates today that I can remember in recent times. And it is up to me to make my voice heard.

I believe that we should be listening to the concerns of those people who are so turned off by a potential nominee that they seriously question if they would vote for him/her in the general election. I'm not sure of any benefit gained by insulting them, or saying that they will be responsible for any potential democratic loss if they were to vote for a third party, or not at all.

It seems far better for all of us if we were to set aside the insults and finger-pointing and attempt to engage in a meaningful series of discussions. Yesterday, a DUer who I like -- even still -- accused me of being a McCartyite and of advocating the rebirth of the HUAC. Come on. Is that the level of discourse that we want to engage in?

We need to focus on the things that unite many of us, and to identify the ways that we can invest our energies to best advance those interests. It would be wonderful if I could pick the next president -- we might actually have some of that revolutionary change in values. But it won't happen that way. We can elect someone who will begin to make some changes: a few medium ones, a few small ones. And we can continue to move in that direction.

Or we can move on a self-destructive path, with insults and finger-pointing on DU, and splintering of interests across the country. The choice is ours.

[cali]

87. You voted in a poll I put up

and the question was clearly posed- the question was phrased thusly:

" Should the Congress form a Committee to determine whether PNAC
AIPAC and other groups are engaging in anti-American activites? "

You voted yes, along with 40 or so other people. Only 16 people who took the poll, evidently realized that that is EXACTLY what HUAC was. Identical.

I was so horrified by the results- and I still am- that I rashly started a thread entitled "DU votes for Huac and McCarthyism". Ill phrased as that was, I damn well did NOT accuse you or anyone else of being a McCarthyite. That's just disingenuous.

And sorry, you did vote the way you voted.

[H2O Man]

89. I'm not sorry

that I voted the way I did. I am sorry that you are taking the stance that you are. But that happens in life.

[cali]

96. I'm sorry that

those of you who voted that way couldn't see what it was they were voting for. As some other folks noted on the thread, it's pretty shocking. If you can't see what a dangerous road that is, well, I guess you can't.

[H2O Man]

111. Actually

I'm not so blind as to think there are only two options involving congressional probes. I would think that most DUers are mature and wise enough to recognize that the 1963 Fulbright hearings, for but one example, were distinct from the HUAC and McCarthy. If I were to shake a finger at you and say, "Oh dear, you hate the Irish!" because you expressed distain for McCarthy, I'm sure you would view that as a cheap shot on my part -- as it would be. And though I sometimes disagree with you, I would not resort to such a tactic .... because even when we do disagree, I respect your right to express an opinion, without feeling the need to twist it. I had hoped that degree of respect was mutual, and though you may not believe this, felt bad that it wasn't. But life is full of surprises.

[KoKo]

99. If I'd seen it , I would have voted Yes, too...Can you understand why or ask why?

Until you can...you can rail on and be horrified. It's harder to ask folks WHY and listen to their answer than it is to go after them if they don't agree with you...isn't it. :shrug:

[Mythsaje]

202. Well, on one hand you had someone who was hunting those

(allegedly) espousing a economic ideology that isn't, in itself, at odds with the Constitution and SOME American ideals, and, on the other, you have groups who are specifically attempting to subvert the Constitition in order to further what is quite arguably an anti-Democratic and anti-American ideology.

I didn't vote in this poll of yours, but I can see the nuances here far more clearly than you seem to. Those who are deliberately and consciously trying to undermine our system of government DO need to be investigated.

[Cleita]

92. I was called those same thing.

I think I'm going to take a break from DU for now. Discussion seems to be futile. You will be assimilated.

[cali]

98. Baloney.

You're the one who threw "Seig Heil" at me. And I'm the one who didn't throw it back.

[KoKo]

112. Some are very good at throwing out a flame...but I wish some could once in awhile

really put forth your point of view and why it is some dismiss other points of view always with an attack.

It might just be some aren't comfortable enough with their postion, or some have the distractions many of us have like "family life, kids, dogs, cats and jobs" that make some of our posts sometimes be very short and more biting because of the lack of time than you would like. Some seem to always want more discussion ...yet cut it off with an attack that insults the person you disagree with ...yet doesn't lead to further dialog. :shrug:

[Cleita]

121. Nobody attacked this person.

This person, however, did attack others on the same thread with words like bad, ugly and other words because she didn't like their POV. I wasn't the only one who got it.

[cali]

146. Right. And the reason your post got deleted

and mine didn't, is because.........

[Cleita]

154. Because I used the words Seig Heil? The rest of my posts

remained up. I haven't asked the mods. But somebody I think was offended because they thought I called them a Nazi. You have stated so, you can't deny it. Yet you called me bad and ugly. Go figure. Oh, I didn't hit the alert button on those posts, did I so they didn't get deleted? I thought one could have a reasonable discussion with you although you have displayed to me time and time again that one can't. I gave you the benefit of the doubt even though other DUers have warned me about you. Now I know why.

[BlooInBloo]

137. Totally. I remember I agreed with you once, and you singed my nose hairs off! lol!

[tom_paine]

198. That's what the Ignore function is for, KoKo

I had enough of these kinds of (rhymes with glass moles) and it is almost as much a waste of time to attempt intellectual discussion and debate with a Freeper.

They are also (and I have no idea which particular (rhymes with class stole) is doing their usual smear, sneer, and bullshit, but don't we have better things to do with our time than break our heads against the Wall of Ignorance time and again?

Your ignore list is your own, but I would just give you some friendly advice...talking counterproductively with a (rhymes with bass roll) is almost the greatest waste of time a person can engage in.

[Cleita]

119. Yes, and anyone who doesn't have cotton batting

between their ears knows that I wasn't calling them a Nazi. What I was saying is if we don't take care of those fascist, nazi oil people we will all be saying Seig Heil to each other or whatever the American version of that is. I'm sorry that I didn't realize that I had to spell that out to you in big block letters so that you understand better.

I believe you aren't into legitimate discussion anyway. You just want to win the argument no matter where it takes you.

[cali]

149. It was deleted

so I can't demonstrate that what you're saying now is simply not true. And I guess the mods also have cotton batting between their ears, eh, Ms. Cleita Civility?

And believe what you want to believe. I do.

[Cleita]

153. Yes, it was deleted but you can't change what I said because no one can read it now..

Really, I can't believe you are stooping this low. I really think it was clear what I said, but you interpreted it differently and hit the alert button. In subsequent posts to you I expanded on what I said to make it clearer to you but that wasn't enough for you. No, the mods do their job and have to make decisions. I don't mind that they deleted the post and to infer that I think they have cotton batting between their ears is plain disruptive of you. You are the only person that I think that of in all of DU.

[cali]

164. I'm stooping this low?

Please. You're right in the muck doing this stupid sniping with me, and tossing insults at me, so don't flatter yourself. Naturally, I think you're deeper in the muck than I am, and you think the reverse is true.

And sorry, I didn't hit alert. Look, I'm done, and I'll close with how I closed in my response to your deleted post with but one word changed:



And hard as it was to get here re someone who insinuates that I'm stupid:

I wish you peace.

[ShortnFiery]

104. I need a vacation also Cleita.

Think I'll take it now for a few weeks. Best to you. SnF

[KoKo]

107. If you give up....who will counter? n/t

[Cleita]

126. I'm tired of this. You and I have been here at DU from the

beginning almost and quite honestly I'm suffering from battle fatigue.

[KoKo]

129. Been here long, too........take the break...

It might mean much for sanity. This stuff could drive the most sane over the edge.

:hug:

[Cleita]

157. Thanks old friend.

:hug:

[H2O Man]

114. Well, I hope that you

stay as a member of DU. (I take breaks now and then, myself.)

[NuttyFluffers]

178. *hugs*

you are so right. the self-righteous level will go through the roof soon. and it'll all amount to a hill of beans as well. some people are insane and play by the same failing playbook everytime and blame the universe when things don't work out. but woe is you to try and stop the insanity...
:hug:

i already see these futures, as do many others, and the game's getting old. but the tin pot rulers must have something to rule... 'acting like McCarthy' is right, but it'll be same as it ever was. see you on the dark side of the moon!
:hi:

[zbdent]

91. Let's hope that we hold our nose and pray that the lesser of two evils

(Dem being the lesser) will prove us right, as opposed to a "change" ... hey, for diversity, let's have a BALD old rich white guy as President - aren't Republicans for change?

[reality based]

95. That's something to keep in mind Trumad, even as we vigorously discuss

our favorites now. Although I didn't support him during the early primaries, I supported the nominee John Kerry as much as (or perhaps more than) he did. I expect to do the same for the nominee this time. There's too much at stake. If you're upset with someone, fight them in the primary. Then line up behind the winner. Don't be a Lieberman and don't forget Nader. We are depending on each other in this battle against the incredible evil that Gingrich, Cheney, Delay, *, and their ilk have brought into American politics. We need each other-- all of you-- to stay and fight. Don't let us down!

[Lorien]

100. To be honest, the media will pick who we get to choose from

we'll never see Kucinich vs. Paul, for example.

[KoKo]

123. Sadly...it's the STARK TRUTH of it....all of the rest of it is "Sound & Fury" these days...

We had our chance in 2000,2002,2004,2006....you can't go this many years with a "Shock & Awe Dictator" and not have such dire consequences that there's little left in ways to get one's message across.

It comes QUICKLY and on "cats paws" (bastardizing T.S. Eliot) but when it COMES...it KNOCKS YOU DOWN ...and you don't really get it for quite awhile before coming to your senses.

[underpants]

103. Set tasers to taser

[KoKo]

128. Cops LOVE that TASER THING! It's what they've LONGED FOR....

for decades... The "bad, authoritarian cops, that is...because not all cops are "Storm Troopers" but the leaders tend to lead...and the good guys have to fall in behind.

Taser allows cops not to Shoot to Kill...and so it cuts down the lawsuits of angry citizens families who had innocents killed. This way you get multiple shocks and if you die...it goes to the Medical Lawyers to decide what amount of "shock" is lethal...while we all know a couple of bullets has already been analyzed to decide what caused the death. Tasers are just all about what the victim can withstand for the lawsuit to get through the courts. Bush Crime Family can pick the standards of what is enough to cause death like they do with "waterboarding" and other new CIA/FBI/Homeland Security Tactics agains Americans and Detainee's all over the WORLD!

[Phrogman]

108. If they try to shove the "corporate" candidate down our throats

I predict DU will become a much more lonely place.

[TwilightZone]

116. Which one?

According to various posts I've seen, we have more than one.

[Phrogman]

158. Touche'

[lateo]

110. Sorry but...

I remember very well this same message being thrown out during primaries 2004. Those of us who didn't like Kerry swallowed our pride and got behind him and he failed us miserably. I know I don't speak for everyone but this time I will not sit and be quiet.

[Neshanic]

125. I think the "we told you so" will be handed out to the shocked and mad

when Hillary Clinton gets beaten by Rudy or Mitsy.

That's REALLY going to be the interesting part with the thrashing, wailing, and general disgust knowing that we have another 8 years of republican rule.

She's not electable. No matter how hard we try, it just is not going to happen.

The other interesting part is going to be after our convention/pony show and watching the republicans do to Clinton make what they did to Gore and Kerry look like a fan club get together.

[TwilightZone]

130. Based on what?

I keep reading that Hillary is unelectable, yet no one ever bothers to provide any reasonable explanation of why. She's ahead in head-to-head polls against the leading Republicans, and the Republican candidates are a very weak bunch to a man.

Rudy's popularity has been consistently dropping since he entered the race, and there's little reason to believe that the country is going to elect Mittens president. Fred is a joke. McCain is nuts.

[H2O Man]

135. I suspect it is

because she has high "negatives" in many national polls. It seems to me that interesting and well-thought out positions can be made for her being able to win, and for her being able to be defeated. In any case -- including if she is or is not the nominee -- the democratic party faces a difficult contest in 2008. The degree of that difficulty makes it worth our while to have serious discussions about the topic.

[trumad]

143. Excellent post...

They keep repeating the right-wing talking point until they believe it....

[Tesha]

165. Oh bullshit!

> I keep reading that Hillary is unelectable, yet no one
> ever bothers to provide any reasonable explanation of why.

Oh bullshit!

This has been explained literally thousands of
times here. But here, for the insufferably obtuse,
is a précis:

o The Right will never vote for her. They despise
her on her own rights as well as because of her
husband. Depending on what polls you read, this
means that somewhere between 42% and 54% of America
will *NEVER* vote for her for Rightist reasons.

o A significant portion of America won't vote for
her because she's a woman. No one knows how big this
cohort really is because people don't answer this
sort of polling question honestly, but the percentage
isn't zero and it doesn't entirely overlap the Rightists.

o A significant portion of the Left won't vote for her
because she's proven herself to be a DLC lover on
economic issues, constitutional rights issues, and
the war. (I'm in this category, BTW.) Even though we
supported her election to the Senate, she immediately
started casting votes that said democratic values could
be damned.

She is probably the worst candidate in the current
Democratic field; why else do you suppose she's the
darling of the Republican-controlled media?

Tesha

[Neshanic]

168. Thank you...nice post.

[TwilightZone]

172. Really? You agree that we shouldn't nominate her because she's a woman?

Pretty progressive attitude, that.

[TwilightZone]

171. Ah, so we shouldn't nominate her because she's a woman. How progressive of you.

I'll ignore that advice, thank you.

Also, if she's the worst candidate we have, explain her 7% lead over Rudy and her double-digit lead over most of the other Republican candidates.

[Neshanic]

177. Where in Tesha's post does she/he say that she/he will not vote for a woman?

Re-read the post.

[TwilightZone]

180. I didn't say she did. I suggest you take your own advice.

"A significant portion of America won't vote for her because she's a woman."

Hence, we shouldn't bother nominating her.

[Neshanic]

183. Replace woman with Gay. Are you a homophobe? Of course you are not.

So stop trying to make people something they are not by accusing them of being "unprogressive" because that's sadly what America is at this time.

[TwilightZone]

187. Excuse me, but I'm not the one that said we shouldn't nominate her because she's a woman.

I believe no such thing. That, in fact, was my point. Hiding behind sexism is certainly not progressive.

[Tesha]

205. That's right. Nobody said we shouldn't nominate her because she's a woman.

> Excuse me, but I'm not the one that said we shouldn't
> nominate her because she's a woman.

That's right. Nobody said we shouldn't nominate her
because she's a woman. (Argumentation by straw man
is unbecoming, by the way.)

But I did point out that that fact will cost her
the votes of a portion of the electorate and Tom
Paine, below, points out a specific reason why
Hillary in particular will lose the votes of
certain women.

Go ahead and nominate a woman, but pick one that
more non-misogynists can happily support so our
success or failure doesn't hang by a thread.

Tesha

[Tesha]

190. People being polled lie. Have you not figured that out yet?

Polls are also deliberately manipulated to achieve
the desired result (i.e., a weak Democratic candidate).

Tesha

[TwilightZone]

191. Ah, yes, the "polls are manipulated" argument.

Used by unhappy people everywhere whose candidate isn't leading the polls.

Edit: Hillary isn't even my first choice, but I'm not about to summarily dismiss the polls as manipulated because I can't face reality.

[Tesha]

193. Believe what you wish.

But don't act surprised come next November and
*DON'T* say "Why didn't someone warn us????"

Because I just did.

Tesha

[tom_paine]

197. And you forget many women, even Democrats, despise her because she looked the other way

when Bill cheated on her, which says "weak character" to a lot of women.

No, I am not endorsing that sentiment, but I was astonsihed to learn of it and it's prevalence.

[Bjornsdotter]

138. Who decides who is electable

Don't we decide when we vote?

...JFK was not considered electable as a Catholic and a Senator.

...Harold Washington was not considered electable because he was African-American

....Carol Moseley Braun was not considered electable because she was an African-American woman.

Somehow, these people all got elected.

Cheers

[KoKo]

141. One of our Mods says "it will be decided for the good of the whole."

...it is written... :shrug:

[Bjornsdotter]

145. Good thing

...I don't place them on too high of a pedestal.

:toast:

[Neshanic]

147. We will see, and the "told you so's" will be handed out.

One of the latest polls has her only a statistical margin of error winner if Rudy runs against her.

As far as your examples, Hillary is none of them in their place in time, and none has the trainload of baggage that Hillary has that the republicans will gladly unload with glee when it come into the station.

[TwilightZone]

148. So, a statistical lead = "unelectable"?

Wow, that's a new one.

[trumad]

151. lol

SHE'S WINNING BUT SHE'S NOT WINNING.....

[Neshanic]

152. The margin of error excluded...it's a tie. Laugh away anyway...

It's not like this is a big surprise. You think that she's wildly poular?

You must bring that snarkyness to the coronation of the next republican president. You should be heard quite well yelling your displeasure from the Gaithersburg selected demonstration area.

[TwilightZone]

155. I'm "snarky" because I pointed out that your assertion has no basis in reality?

Interesting.

As far as her being "wildly poular(sic)", she's apparently more popular at the moment than your candidate, whomever that may be. Hence, your silly assertions that a candidate leading the opposition's candidates in most national polls is "not electable."

Apparently, you think Hillary is the only candidate of ours that will attract undue Republican attention. Apparently, you missed the past several elections.

[Neshanic]

166. Yes you will find it interesting, or maybe rather droll for you

As the polls that have been done on various combinations of matchups are confirmed further as we get closer to the conventions. My candidate is not running. Of course I will vote for the one that is "selected" at our convention. It is highly unlikely at this juncture that any of the "others" has a snowball's chance in getting the nomination.

It's a wrap. It's already been decided for me and you. Have an interesting time musing about interesting things living under another republican era. Maybe they will let you do that. Maybe it will be permitted.

You see us gays have to vote for whatever is served up. Those are the rules. But we are allowed to live in reality.

"You monsters must have such interesting lives!"
Bugs Bunny

[TwilightZone]

176. "It's already been decided"

Don't tell that to the primary and caucus voters.

Or Howard Dean, for that matter. Similar comments about the inevitability of his nomination were numerous on DU in the '04 race. We all known how accurate those prognostications were.

[Neshanic]

182. Again, The underestimation of the pornography of the republicans.

[TwilightZone]

184. What does that have to do with Howard Dean?

:shrug:

[Neshanic]

185. Ya know..she's just not that poular. Deal with it or don't. I am still voting for her like a good

gay democrat.

Dean? He's borg now.

[TwilightZone]

186. Yeah, she's not popular. That's why she's ahead.

She's ahead of the Republican candidates.

She's nearly 20% ahead in most primary polls.

Wishful thinking on your part. Nothing more.

[BlooInBloo]

163. It's because they WANT her to lose to the republican JUST SO they can say "I told you so".

EDIT: DUers hate Clinton so much that they would happily trade ANOTHER republican administration just for the chance to say "I told you so". Aren't DUers wonderful progressives?

[TwilightZone]

169. Agreed.

I have to admit that I get that same impression. I guess they're just practicing.

[Neshanic]

173. If you actually believe that, it is quite a slap in the face of people

like gays that HAVE to vote for Democrats because we are told with glee that we have no other choice, or almost daring us to vote for some other thing like a republican.

Because Hillary Clinton will be the nominee for president, and I will vote for her if I dicovered she had Rudy's love child, and breast feeding it in the Hailburton cafeteria while dicussing the next four years of war, well I must be some kind of Neocon that is untapped by Cheney and the gang.

It's not our fault that she has such high disike numbers. I was not at that meeting.

[Bjornsdotter]

156. Hillary is a known

....she has been dragged through the mud a number of times and she bounces back.

JFK overcame a huge obstacle being Catholic, if you aren't old enough to have caught it first hand watch some of the questions thrown at him.

As far as the others, they were said to be unelectable by people who didn't support them; I'm finding the same here and now. Some who don't care for Hillary are throwing the "unelectable" mud around.

Let's let the voters decide who is electable.

Cheers

[cali]

159. Oh she can win alright. I don't much want her to be the candidate

but it's hopeful thinking on the part of people who loathe her, to make these 'ironclad' pronouncements about how she can't win. Whoever the repuke candidate is, she'll be running against someone as weak as bob dole, who her husband thumped. She's running a smart and responsive campaign in an environment that's very unfavorable to repukes, and Rudi's falling apart, Mitt has little enthusiastic support, and Fred is blundering about and he's got cancer.

[Neshanic]

179. How many times have we underestimated the republicans? It's the Democratic pastime.

[cali]

181. I've never underestimated them

and you hardly refuted my argument.

[Neshanic]

150. Don't get me wrong. I will vote for her. She just will not be elected.

Not after what the republicans have in store for all us democrats, and our leaders up to, and especially after the convention.

Nasty and repulsive and beyond all reason will be too kind to decribe what the republicans have in mind.

This election is more important for them then us. If they loose, it is the end of the conservative period in America. It's that important. They know it.

[H2O Man]

160. It is interesting

to think in terms of how each of our candidates might do, not based on national polls, but rather on a 50-state "break down." There are some differences between different democratic candidates, in how well they might do in some states. Considering how divided the country is, a small state that is generally taken for granted by either party could make the difference in determining who goes to the White House, and who goes to the dog house.

[BlooInBloo]

162. And the campaigning begins.

[H2O Man]

161. Nomination #1

Interesting thread.

[Hippo_Tron]

167. Actually the rule pretty much goes into effect when the presumptive nominee is determined

[Forkboy]

170. You better watch out, you better not bash..

Cuz the Democrats will still need your cash.

C'mon everyone...sing it with me!

[Neshanic]

174. Who's bashing? I already said I was voting for her. Or any of ours, though unlikely to be nominated.

It just will not be enough to pull it off.

She's been pre-ordained. We are just along for the show. Now you know how us gay people feel. Not that fun is it?

[KoKo]

188. ohhhh....you are baaaaaad....

:D...but it's good to have a laugh at gallows humor! Thanks! :-)'s

[Forkboy]

192. Gallows humor is all we got left.

x(

[KoKo]

194. Looking more like it with each week and Bill that passes....

:eyes:

[Larkspur]

206. Hillary will NEVER get any of my cash

[NoPasaran]

195. You'd better not bash

You'd better not bash
You'd better not pout
If you do
You're getting thrown out
The tombstones are coming
To DU

You'd better not not flame
We're on to that game
We're all agreed
That you're quite lame
The tombstones are coming
To DU

Skinner sees you when you log on
He keeps track of your IP
And he knows how to deal with
Friends of O'Reilly

You'd better not bash
You'd better not pout
If you do
You're getting thrown out
The tombstones are coming
To DU

[Le Taz Hot]

209. How sad that you would celebrate

good people getting thrown out of DU. If what you want is an echo chamber, shouldn't you be at FR?

[Jed Dilligan]

196. With the level of discourse lately,

I bet as many candidate-supporters will get TS'd for their mean-spirited gloating, as bashers for their bashing.

[TheUniverse]

201. IF HRC is the nominee I will vote for her.

But by no means would I "support" her. I can't support anyone who supported this war.

[Le Taz Hot]

207. Reallllyyyy?????

So, when Hilly declares that Iran has "proven" to be too dangerous and we need to fight the Iranians over there before we have to fight them here, we'll all just :applause: . Uh-huhhhhhh.

I'm surprised at you, Trumad. I never had you pegged for a Party Faithful.

[trumad]

210. Has she dodne that yet?

and how do you know she will? oh---you don't so you're simply making this assumption up.

[Le Taz Hot]

211. Well, its articles like this one,

and many others, that move me toward that conclusion.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-ushill194593036jan19,0,5773049.story