"A house divided against itself cannot stand"

"Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention.

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it...

'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' ...

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other...."

-Abraham Lincoln
Springfield, Illinois
June 16, 1858

Do we progressives, in Lincoln's words, truly understand both where we are and where we are tending? I see deep divisions within our party, and I regulalrly see good Democrats proclaim that they cannot or will not support our nominee if it is not their favored candidate, or if it is a particular candidate they dislike.

Can we say, in truth, that we are no worse off today than we were on Januray 20th, 2001? Consider all that has happened since that day, and answer yourself honestly. Does your conscience permit you any answer besides 'we are much worse off---dangerously so'? If it does not, then you must look deeper still.

We face the most important Presidential election since 1860, IMO, one which shall determine the course this great Republic shall follow for at least a generation, if not longer. How, then, are we to know what to do in order to effect a change in that direction, if we believe the current direction to be wrong? Do we become self-destructive and simply indulge our venal desires, and simply cast our vote for someone other than the Democratic Party's nominee, or do we exercise our franchise strategically, and remove from office those who imperil our Nation?

Which is the wiser course to change the direction of an automobile that is headed in the wrong direction--- shooting out a tire or blowing up the highway, or taking the wheel from the current driver? This is the choice we face in 2004, and harbor no illusions about that fact. Quite simply stated, a vote for any other candidate for President who is NOT the Democratic nominee is, effectively, a vote for continuing the direction the * maladministration is steering this Republic.

Believe this, if you believe nothing else--- for all their various faults, NO candidate for the nomination of our party would act with the malice and cold, calculating greed that the nominee of the Republican party and his minions have. Can you truly look at our candidates and proclaim 'no difference'?

For the love of God and this Republic, open your eyes and your hearts, for the differences are there and they are positive. Thank you.

Let the flame wars begin...

Edit: R.I.P. Paul Simon



1928-2003

:dem:

Dean/Gore vs Clinton = Centrist vs Centrist.

I'm talking about the 'my way, or the highway' supporters of given candidates.

Unless they decide to support the Green candidate - That might be the hidden issue.

And that is what worries me, just like the Democrats in 1860--- division. We all know what happened then...

to guarantee Democratic votes for the Green candidate is to have the party power brokers engineer the derailing of the candidate with the most grassroots enthusiasm and involvement.

I'm a Democrat." --Will Rogers

Sometimes this place becomes an echo chamber and blows small noises all out of proportion. And there are some who would sow discontent and disention...Have faith a bit longer that we'll get our act together and see what happens by summer.
(and if anyone thinks I disagree with your premise, they can read my sig line!)

What else do you want from us non-Deanies? If he's the nominee, I'll vote for him.
Is that enough or do you want unbridled enthusiasm, too?
John
I am a Democrat. I will vote for the Dem nominee, even if it's Dean.

we will deserve whatever we get in Dubya's second term.

"Second term". :scared:

:dem:

:toast: Thank you !!



:hippie:

John Edwards.......1/2 hour ago

huh?