With A Democratic President...

We get to:

- Appoint judges. Federal bench and the big enchilada, Supreme Court. This has lasting impact on every area of society, from abortion to the environment to healthcare to immigration to gay rights.

- Have a Democratic cabinet that gets to implement tons of policies that are diametrically opposed to what the Republicans have done for the last 6 years. Impact on health, education, children, privacy rights, energy policy, foreign relations, etc.

- Have the biggest bullypulpit in the world for progressive ideas.

- Control a sprawling federal executive beauracracy, which again impacts every area of society.

- Have a VETO POWER over any potential Republican congress and their reactionary legislation.


So, for all you who say you would vote for Nader or a Green instead of Hillary Clinton (should she be the nominee), you are sacrificing control of an entire branch of government on the altar of political purity. I don't care how hawkish she's been on the war, the government she would put together, the vast federal executive branch, would be so far superior to what we have now, it would make your head spin.

How can you look at your children and then go and vote for Nader?

(and no, I do not support Hillary in the primaries. But you won't find me condemning us to another four years of Republican devolution by voting Green.)

this fact every morning when they rise, and every night when they go into their crypts.

That if Hillary is elected, she will use the political strategy that was successful for Bill. That is, lean to the center (and sometimes right) before the election, and after one year of making the base happy will start her re-election campaign by leaning to the center and the right. Her goal is a TWO term presidency.

Although Bill Frist, Condi or Jeb might be more likely. I would gladly take Hilary Clinton over any of them.

center/right Supreme Court justices.

She is going to be nominating center/left ones.


And if there had been one more center/left one on the court in 2000, Al Gore would be President.

That, in and of itself, is reason enough to want a Dem in the WH. Besides the myriad other reasons.

the reality of republican rule for four years quickly overshadowed it.

Voting for a third party for President hasn't done our country any good. I won't do it again.

The only time it makes sense to vote third party is during a very rare era of national realignment when there is a swell of support for a new candidate and a new national party and he/she has a realistic chance of winning.

Nader and the Greens don't come even remotely close to that scenario. They're just far left Democrats who vengefully want to destroy the Democrat's chances if they don't get their way.

voting for one or the other of the major two.

I saw several cars back in '00 with Bush AND Nader stickers side by side.

I would definitely vote for her over just about any Republican, but I would not donate to or work for her campaign.

I understand your point though. Any Democrat is better than a Republican.

...taking back the tax money from cuts given to the wealthy! The funding of the government's programs requires the tax dollars of those who wished to cheat the poor out of them.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

And when we do finally regain control we will spend time simply undoing the damage.

Good comments.

How about fighting against the propaganda of the Right Wing Fascists, the Right Wing Christian Taliban instead of fighting against progressives at this point in time, eh?

Nader isn't even involved in the Green Party anymore, he ran as Independent in 2004.

And he didn't cost Gore or Kerry the elections - stop with the bogus straw man and fight the fascists instead.

on edit:
We need to impeach, prosecute and Convict Bush Cheney BEFORE 2008 - if we do that and have control of both the Senate and House in 2006 -Nancy Pelosi will be President until the next elections. It'll be a whole different paradigm and we can discuss the Hillary Syndrome then.

i think he might be good in a cabinet post.

in 1996 and 2000, I'm wondering about that "diametrically opposed" stuff. Is it "political purity" for me to expect a Democratic president, at least if given a Democratic congress as well, to rid us of the putrid disaster that is No Child Left Behind? Kerry, as I recall, made some nice noises about "reforming" it...

is one of my top "checks" for anyone I'll consider voting for. Having lived it since 2000, I couldn't possibly look my students in the eye after having cast a vote for an NCLB apologist of any stripe.

You realize, of course, that having *any* criterion on which one bases one's vote makes one a "purist" to many here, but we make our own peace with that kind of thing. If wanting to save public education makes me a purist, then bring on the purity! :D

"idealist" in order to spin idealism as narrow?

I've never equivocated; I'm a proud, defiant idealist. I stand for public education as a keystone of democratic principles.

by 20 percent?

Seriously. Gore lost my state - his home state - by less than 3 percent. Kerry lost by 14 percent and my prediction is that Hillary would lose by at most 20 percent. What would my vote do unless we changed the Electoral College to reflect percentage instead of "winner-take-all."

I might as well vote for someone I'm comfortable with under that sort of setting.

unfortunately, the last Dem president failed miserably at using that power- which is one reason why the Party is where it is today and can't get its message out over the consolodated corporate media.

Let's hope the next one (if there is a next one) understands why regulation is important.

I don't have any hard and fast rules about voting outside the party. I'll wait and see how the campaigns shape up, and decide who I want to throw my support behind when the time comes.

I agree with some of your post; I do question this part, though:

<snip>

- Have the biggest bullypulpit in the world for progressive ideas.

If the candidate nominated by the party is not a progressive, is not now a "pulpit" for progressive ideas, why would I think the presidency would become a bully pulpit for progressive ideas with that person in the WH? A centrist candidate will have a bullypulpit for centrist ideas. A DLC candidate will have a bullypulpit for the DLC agenda. You need a progressive candidate for a progressive bullypulpit, and the "D" next to someone's name doesn't make them progressive; their stance, words, action on issues gives them progressive credentials, or not.

How could I look at my children and then cast a vote for a candidate who is not progressive on issues, regardless of the party designation?

I'm hanging in there with the hope I won't have to make a choice like that; hoping that Democrats will choose to nominate a progressive I can be comfortable voting for.

She is not a progressive on many issues, yet she's seen by the mushy middle as a "wild-eyed librul."

That's why I fear her nomination: she won't be liked by swing voters who want to pretend to vote for a centrist because they'll think she's a liberal and she won't inspire the Democratic base because the base is very progressive and KNOW she's not a liberal on many issues.

Can't we nominate someone with the opposite set of circumstances? A liberal seen as a moderate who would both inspire the base AND pull in mushy middle swing voters who want an alleged 'centrist.'

PS. I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 - and Clinton and Dukakis before; therefore, I can't be accused of not standing with the Party, but I'm growing more disillusioned with the corporate sell-outs in the Dem Party.

I also voted for Gore and for Kerry, and would welcome a true progressive who could inspire me and the mushy middle.

on most of your points. I feel it is more important to have control of Congress which controls the purse strings of the nation..

the Presidency gets to really set the agenda. What are 1980 - 88 remembered as? The Reagan years. Not the "Tip O'Neill years".

Even Clinton, who was often stymied, as you noted, dominated the agenda during his eight years.

The Presidency is vastly more important now than it was 50 or 75 years ago. The power that one individual yields by fiat and the ability to implement an ideology, by executive order and other executive powers, is enormous.