When McCain steals the election in November, I hope Obama is as persistent as Hillary is now

[bananas]

(Note to mods: this is about the November election, not the primaries)
One thing everybody has complained about is how Gore and Kerry gave up too soon in 2000 and 2004.
Well I hope that Obama learns from this, in November he better not give up,
he should even create a "government in exile" next January when the Supreme Court makes the final selection.

[pnwmom]

1. I agree. He needs to be absolutely determined. n/t

[seabeyond]

2. i lost even mroe respect for clintons tonight. didnt know i had any left to lose

but sure enough, after tonight, i think even less of her

[aquart]

14. Vicious in victory strikes again.

Color me ever so surprised. Yeah, Obama wants unity. Obama's a uniter not a divider.

And his supporters are just like him.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Actually Obama called for unity... there are assholes in every camp

what can I say?

:-)

By the way, so did Clinton

[seabeyond]

18. did you listen to his speech. and you cannot even acknowledge what he accomplished

in that speech.

you missed out of something grand because you let hillarys attitude intrude on something special tonight.

that is why i am so very disappointed in the woman.

[magellan]

3. Who's this Everybody?

I don't think Gore gave up too soon. The FL recounts were stopped by the SCOTUS. There was nothing he could do about that.

As far as this year goes, after 8 years of Buuuuush** the Dems SHOULD be in a position to sew this GE up from top to bottom, denying the Repubs any room to steal any part of it again. I don't think they are in that position though, for many reasons of their own making. Which is just very sad and frustrating.

[Fly by night]

5. Who's this "they" and "their" you refer to?

Don't you mean "we", kimo sabe?

[magellan]

6. No, because I'm an indy

n/t

[Fly by night]

9. Well, if you caucus with us (here), we don't mind including you in our "we".

Unless that offends you somehow.

Do you also hang out on Republican sites? What pronouns do you use there?

Just curious.

[magellan]

11. Thanks

I just feel funny about doing that because I don't want to mislead. It's bad enough when I kick at something the Dems have done, and when I admit I'm not a Dem I'm told to go elsewhere if that's how I feel. But I'm not going anywhere. The Dems are realistically the only hope this country's got. I just wish they'd act more like they understood the gravity of the situation.

I'm a progressive indy and not into pain so I avoid beating my head against the walls of Repub sites. I used to toy with the beasties in the Hannity forum but that was around the same time I came here (when the Kerry forum folded in '04) and after that experience it's no effort to avoid FR and the like!

[orleans]

31. please. how long have you been here? did you check that poster's profile?

(at least she has one to be checked!)

obviously you haven't been around too long

[Fly by night]

33. Got here 11/04 too. Since your profile says you're interested in HCPB, you should know that.

I seem to remember your commenting on some of my OPs over the past four years. (?)

I'm not sure why my profile doesn't show. May have something to do with the "guerrilla farming" comments I submitted.

Regardless, I should have the profile reinstated so folks like yourself (a fellow 11/04 cohort member) won't confuse me with a newbie.

[papapi]

8. Good call out.

[magellan]

12. If you think I'm a troll

...search my posts. I've been here since '04; that's plenty of material to look at so you can make an INFORMED decision.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Ignore the call outs will you

most folks don't realize it, but the current trend, started in cali, is for the Indie Party of America

Both parties have shed members like a bad dream in California.

Now that should send them a message, and I hope it does someday

[magellan]

20. Believe it or not, this is my first

And I admit, it fired me up. Even though it came from someone who apparently only joined DU last month. (I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe it's a resurrection.)

I hadn't heard of the IPA. If it gives the Dems a kick in the arse one day -- provided they still deserve it -- then I'm all for it. I've never voted 3rd party in a presidential election but I fully support the idea of getting more progressives in at the state level to keep the Dems honest.

[Fly by night]

21. I didn't say that.

I did ask whether you also visited Republican sites and what pronouns you used there.

I'm just not accustomed to many folks here at DU (particularly old-timers) using the pronoun "they" to refer to Democrats. It seems very odd to me.

Are you here because you "caucus" with us (i.e., you generally support, promote and/or defend Democratic principles and policy positions)? I don't care how you register yourself at your local election office. I am curious if you are here because you support the goals of this web-site. If so, then try including yourself with the majority of DUers who are Democrats. It won't hurt and we won't tell anyone.

If you're here for some other reason, what might that be? I am not inferring your answer -- I am asking a serious question. Rather than telling me to search for your previous posts, why not just answer the question?

Feel free to search my posts also. We (or should I say "You and I") have been here about the same amount of time -- we just haven't communicated much in the past.

To be clear: "we" are counting on the support of Independents, honorable and sensible Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, Rastafarians, Lilliputians and any other class of voters to help "us" (i.e, all of the above, including Democrats) rid the country and the world of the forces of evil embodied in the Bush/Satan cabal that has highjacked this country.

My guess is that, if our established democratic principles for free, fair and verifiable elections fail us in '08, we may end up in the trenches. At that time, I doubt that there will be many "Independents" in the fox-holes. My guess is that the Independents at that moment will caucus in the cross-hairs of both sides. Where would you be then?

Seriously.

[magellan]

23. Fly by Night, it's cool

That response was to Papapi. I replied to your queries above, where you asked. :)

[uppityperson]

19. I agree, not Gore, but Kerry did. I hope Obama fights for us.

[magellan]

22. Any idea if he's aware

...of the true severity of the BBV problem? I hope he isn't another one who's going to have his eyes opened by it, only to find the party won't stand behind him.

[uppityperson]

24. I have no idea. I wonder how much the party is aware, not just us "nuts"

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. HEEEEEYYYYYYY I resent that "nuts" comment, and plead guilty at the same time!

The party, I suspect, cannot afford to admit it

And I suspect it is a mutual agreement....

Yes, give me that :tinfoil:

It is nice and cozy

:-)

[magellan]

26. I don't see how they can't be

Remember, Conyers did a tremendous amount of work disseminating the OH fraud and putting the results of the hearings into a lengthy report. Of course that was before Brazile did her hit job and whitewashed the whole thing for the DNC.

I'll never understand why Dean let it go at that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Gore didn't give up.. fer crying shame! I guess people like to forget he went

all the way to the USSC... after that he had nowhere else to go but open revolution

[villager]

7. and given what the last eight years have been, the latter option...

...shouldn't have been dismissed out of hand so readily...

[Fly by night]

10. ... nor should it be discarded as an option in the near future, IMHO.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. I have to ask... been ever under fire? NO, this is not a joke

but it is EASY to think about an open civil war, when folks have no clue what that means.... and most folks in the US have no clue

[Fly by night]

27. To answer your question, Yes.

I seriously wish the necessity for this option was simply a "joke". My comments were not meant to make light of the impending battles (or bloody skirmishes) if our means for fairly, accurately and honestly determining the "consent of the governed" continues to be subverted (which I believe has happened in the last two Presidential elections, and mirrored many-fold at the state and local levels in recent years).

Gore was right -- there are few (he could have said "no") options between a Supreme Court decision and open revolution. He wasn't joking. Neither am I.

(BTW, I don't count taking our country back, by force if necessary, as revolution -- I do count it as perhaps a necessary response to the continued treasonous manipulation of our election process, when all other (nonviolent) measures fail.) Fortunately, my few friends still in the military agree with me on that score. (I live near a large army base that has lost as many soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan as any other, I do believe.)

There is nothing funny about violence -- I have a lifetime of experience to prove that to me.

But then, saving our democracy ain't bean-bag.

We have met the enemy, and they ain't us.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Good, then we are on the same page

Just that we have so many keyboard commandos speaking gloriously of civil war and who are extremely clueless of what that means, truly.

On a very serious note though

Yes, the moment we have open armed revolt, it is revolution by classic definition, and we must be ready for the fact that once the bullets start flying, (and we have been in the midst of a COLD civil war that started at least in 1996), we cannot predict the final result

And if need I am willing to go there, but I realize the results will be highly impredictable and may even involve the breakup of the country

So I understand why Gore didn't go there... nor can I blame him for not being able to see what BushCo would do

He is the worst since oh Adams. That is a tad long...

[Fly by night]

29. I agree. I have often thought that the apparent passivity of Congressional Dems ...

... has at its root a real fear for what the Rethugs might do (again).

In my opinion, there are some Rethugs who are no better than rabid dogs. There's no cure for that sickness. That's why (in my previous incarnation as a public health epidemiologist) we spend so much time inoculating the uninfected.

Fortunately, judging from the comments of most of my honorable Republican friends (all of whom I wish would just go ahead and declare themselves as Independents, though I also respect their efforts to purge the sickness in their midst), I think the reality of being identified with rabid dogs and the successes we have achieved at finding common patriotic ground (like supporting verifiable elections) is thinning the ranks of the "enemy" in numbers that frighten our adversaries.

Just as I continue to believe that any decision by Cheney to attack Iran will result in massive defections from our armed forces, starting with (but not ending with) our generals. I think the likelihood of that response (or at least the uncertainty surrounding that possibility) has helped stay Cheney's natural instincts for endless war.

But then, I've always been a romantic. You know there's only one thing worse than a hopeless romantic, and that's a hopeful one.

Thanks for the exchange. For the second night in a row, I'm up way past my bedtime. I'll no longer be able to call myself a farmer if this keeps up.
Take care and have a good evening (or early morning).

[villager]

32. As Gandhi taught us, Nadine, there are other kinds of revolutions...

n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. 20\20 is always great, that said

I am not that brave when it comes to a hot civil war.

Mostly seen one close to the flesh.

[karynnj]

30. There are differences

1) HRC LOST according to the rules - it was NOT stolen. From the beginning many party leaders said they thought it unlikely that the superdelegates would not overturn the pledged delegate counts. The popular vote was always fiction - it makes no logical sense when there is a mixture of caucuses and primaries. It also was not the predefined metric.

My little sister - at about 4 would change the goal of board games I (at 16) played with her. In her case, she was cute and winning the game had no real value. Here, the Clintons are not cute and this is our future. They basically lost it in February when Obama kept pace with them on SuperTuesday, which was designed for the Clintons and in all predictions written in 2007 was likely to favor only Clinton as the one who had the name recognition and support from the 1990s. For the others, there was not sufficient time to win by campaigning and it was expected no one would have enough money to use primarily ads.

2) Gore took it to the Supreme Court. As he said in Rolling Stone, his option was to accept it or lead a revolution. You can't appeal the Supreme Court. (The media also tries to eat away at the truth even now - just last week, I heard a TV person state that he felt better after analysis showed Bush would have won under a few ways of recounting it. (This ignores the voter supression by the felon list and the lost of a huge number of votes to a badly defined ballot.

3) Kerry had less concrete reason to not concede than Gore. The same people who told Gore not to concede, told Kerry he had no case. They did continue looking after the concession and they could have taken it back, but the types of methods used left no tracks - you can't count votes not cast.

Both Gore and Kerry gave remarkable speeches - through which the love of their country over their personal gain was evident. Had Kerry refused for longer to concede, I doubt the party would have stood behind him. "Big dog" was complimenting Karl Rove a week or so later and he was clearly happy. Had the party stood behind him for a challenge that had no real proof behind it, he would have lost and taken the party's 2006 and maybe 2008 chances with him.