Astounding. 41% of DUers DO NOT CARE about their rights.

...or only care about them under certain circumstances.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3324011#3324111

I really hope Hillary does not get the nomination. I really, really, REALLY hope she doesn't. But if it comes down to it, I'd vote for her in a hreartbeat over whomever the GOP puts up.

The next President will almost certainly be either a Democrat or a Republican. I hope to God it doesn't come down to Hillary vs. GOP, but if it does, I'll vote for her over the the alternative.

Eight years of eroding civil liberties is enough, don't you think?

Plain and simple. My country before my party.

They haven't stopped any bad shit from happening yet. I'm not sure they're up to the challenge.

Which puts it considerably behind your party.

It really is getting to the point, where it doesn't matter what We The People want. The Owners will do as they please.

He was who the voters of Connecticut wanted. My point isn't to promote Lieberman, but to point out that if you really want to change things, you have to change peoples' minds. Then primaries and general elections fall into place. Without that, no amount of voting for anything will work. A third-party vote is a token gesture at best, and a destructive one at worst.

Joe just switched parties. Obviously the primary winner wasn't who the voters wanted in the end. :shrug: I don't like Lieberman, but what he did (to me at least) is the ultimate sign of democracy. The people of Connecticut got who they wanted.

I can't stand the guy, but he wouldn't have won if a lot of Democrats didn't vote for him.

Good. We agree.

3 parties help the other two parties evolve. It there's a strong 3rd party candidate running, why shouldn't he/she have a chance? Forget the whole democratic/republican title, isn't it about what's best for the country (or in Lieberman's case the state). I refuse to just blindly vote for someone because they have a D behind their name. If McCain suddenly switched to a D, he'd still be McCain. And I still wouldn't vote for him. :shrug: The voters should have the chance to vote for whomever, and in general, I think this country places too many restrictions on people to get on the ballot. :shrug:

If anyone really wants to change things, they have to do it in a way that gets them what they want, rather than the opposite of what they want.

As in Connecticut.

Republican - Schlesinger
Democratic - Lamont
3rd Party Independent - Lieberman

general elections.

If we had a REAL, TRUE option to vote in either one, there may be some hope. But the majority of the so-called "Dems" in congress don't seem to give a shit whether our votes count or not.

:kick::kick::kick:

Some are always dissatisfied....

Fact is, this is by far the best field of candidates the Democratic Party has offered in decades...and polling shows Democrats are quite satisfied with their choice this year...other than Gravel and Kucinich(who I would nevertheless vote for), there is not one among this field I would not enthusiastically support in 2008...

The only "evils" this year are in the other party!!!

And if you belong to a party, you support the nominee because that's how it works.

He's my favorite so far.

Kuchinich and Gravel are the only 2 Dem candidates who speak the truth!
If Clinton Obama, Biden, get the nomination I will have to write in Kuchinich!..............
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH HIM????????????
Abe Lincoln grew up poor in a log cabin and was as ugly as a mud fence.he's been revered ever since ...................
Kuchinich grew up poor, living in a car.,......and he's not the best looker on the block...but he is genuinely KIND & GOOD, and has a very well organized plan for running the country!
He spoke at our Maine Dem. convention, in 2004, and the man is a real FORCE!
Unless American's GET OVER this need for the superficial package.................we're screwed!
SPeaking of which , the sexiest lover I ever had was also the holiest man I have ever seen! "It didn't hurt the runin' none"
There is such a thing as compensation and it is very powerful!
:( :banghead: :banghead: :patriot:

That should read HOMELY EST MAN! He WAS NOT holy!
Spell check missed that one!

So, I have never voted for the lesser of two evils. I've been pleased that my candidates shared most of my positions on the important issues.

I am leaving the party.

Sorry you don't see that.

Yes it fucking will. Sorry you can't see that.

Again - we're back to the silly Naderite crap about no difference. If anyone sane can say that after the last 6+ years I'm a frigging Dutchman. Would Gore have done what Shrub has? Would he? Then there's your fucking difference. Would H. Clinton have done the same? Absolute bullshit to say so. You can explode molehills like troop presence in Iraq (quick - is it so horrible to have troop presence in korea, Germany, Japan, the Balkans?) into mountains like continued fullscale occupation all you want, and the Naderite echo chamber may believe you, but nobody rational does.

Even if by any wild fricking chance she would do EXACTLY what Bush has and will in Iraq (which again takes a certifiable loon to believe) the domestic policy differences alone are enough to prefer a Dem administration.

You only have the choice of whoever is running on the Dem ticket and more of the same. Not just more of the same in Iraq or even more of the same in globalization and "corporatism" too, but more of the same in gay-bashing, women-hating, rights-taking, theocracy-building, anti environment too.

Why be so hell fired miserable about "OK" when your only choices atre "Horrible" and "OK"?

Do you honestly believe Hillary would nominate the same flavor of judges as a Repug would???

I don't care who the Democratic nominee is. All I have to do is think about who will pick the next SCOTUS justice and voting for that person becomes a whole lot easier.

Mz Pip
:dem:

Not one iota.

If she is, our party will seal its fate.

I'll be one. Let's hope Dems are smart enough to do the right thing, and keep Hillary as NY's junior senator.

...we live in the real world. If she's nominated ( knock on wood)it's a no brainer. The next president will shape the Supreme Court for years... perhaps decades.

That alone is reason enough. All life and all politics is a matter of choosing between the "lesser of two evils." Let's get real.

That said: please... let's nominate someone *else*!

we all care about "our rights".

we do not, apparently, agree on the best way to protect them. some of us see a need to restore democracy and seize power back from the corporate state. i would guess you don't see the power elite in the Democratic Party as supportive of the corporate state. Some of us disagree.

When exactly is it that the great battle for power will begin if we keep electing those who are financed and coerced by corporate America? I say we start now. Will there be tremendous costs and risks? Of course there will be. We're all worried about stacked courts and habeas corpus and more war. But we realize the real enemy is not just the republican party but corporatism as well. When do we fight that battle? How can we continue to enable those who will not stand with us?

Enough is enough. There are really no options left. We may lack the power we need to succeed. The big money forces are well financed and well organized. But we have to try.

The time for "just going along" is long passed. Democratic Party unity would be great. I hope our "leaders" decide to join us.

Those who claim that a Dem president will be better than a Rep one have yet to prove it.

The first thing Pelosi did was announce that impeachment was "off the table."

Reid has allowed the lousy immigration bill to return to the Senate because Bush wants it.

The Senate caved and gave Bush the funding for his war without getting anything in return. They should have submitted a bill with timetables for withdrawl to begin. When he vetoed it, they should have sent it back, again and again, until it became obvious to all that it was Bush who was refusing to fund the troops he supposedly cares so much about (so much that he cut combat pay and veteran's benefits.)

Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are supposedly the "contenders." I contend that not one of them would do what needs to be done to undo eight years of Bush/Cheney. Not one will return our rights to what they were before. They'll defend the PATRIOT Act, NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and the WTO. They've got theirs and screw everybody else. GOP-Lite.

1993-2001 - DLCer "corporatist" Dem president who supported NAFTA, welfare reform, and several other boogeymen of the extreme left.

Result: Frictional unemployment, reduction in poverty, federal surpluses brought about by modest tax raises on the very wealthy, lowest interest rates in decades, rising respect for the US internationally.


2001-2007+ - Not enough support for Dem candidate who was at best a middling compromise between various factions of teh party.

Result: Rising unemployment and poverty, huge federal deficits, interest rates going up, US fast becoming a pariah. Oh yeah add in an increaingly reactionary theocratic SCOTUS who acted early to attack Roe, loss of Constitutional rights with a history of nigh on 8 centuries, tens of thousands of dead and wounded Americans and hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded Iraqis. Mobbilization of countless new anti-US jihadists, massive expansion of execuitve powers until the difference between a king and a president is tough to see.

Call it some infantile term like GOP-Lite if you like, but as seen above - and Bill Clinton remember supported all the above that existed in his term - you still can't say there sin't a huge difference, and a very valuable and beneficial difference, between GOP and GOP Lite then can you?

Ask youself - which administration did you prefer. Given the choice between moving closer to the former or remaining in the latter - and believe me those will be your ONLY choices - why do you even have to think about it?

The worst thing about old age is not the wrinkles, or the midriff spread....but the inability to convey one's Earned, gained wisdom to those younger.

I find it so frustrating...with all the nifty "bells & whistles" communication technology....................( you can pull out our cell phone from a mountain top at midnight and call a rescue team; but are you able to hear what your Mother is saying to you?) NOBODY SEEMS TO BE LISTENING ANY MORE!
I am a survivor of the FIRST real estate bubble! I got stuck with a house with a sub prime mortgage of 11 12 % , ( it went up 2 points while I was trying to get it to settlement) I lost that house through an ILLEGAL rush to for closure by a "Savings Bank" a year after Neil Bush''s S&L caper! I had to sell it and move.......in 1990.....and through Clinton's entire presidency I worked for no MORE than $7.00 per hour, a good bit of the time, having to pay rent as well as maintain the house I owned, because there were NO JOBS NEAR MY TOWN!
THIS IS AFTER BEING WORTH $25 PER HOUR, from 1973....1990, and doing very well durng the Carter era!
ALSO I WENT BACK TO COLLAGE (57 YEARS OLD) WITH THE GEN-EXERS, TO GAIN THE COMPUTER SKILLS I NEEDED TO MAKE MY ART CAREER COMPETITIVE! Interestingly after a life time of being able to communicate & CONNECT, with young and old rich & poor, Suddenly I was mis-ass-umed by these kids, very frustrating; I was talking but they weren't listening!......They really resented me because I was their parents age! WHAT DID you BOOMERS DO to these kids?
I lost the last decade of earning more to contribute to my comfortable retirement, as did many of my peers.............The conservatives started their take over in the 70's. Part of their campaign was to make you comfy, financially, driving a wedge between the generations!
Understand that YOUR comfortable lives during the Clinton era, was a part of the DISPLACEMENT of my generation!

In 1994, it was Clinton's executive order that over turned the EPA ban on naval experiments allowing the navy to do those depth sounding experiments underwater, thus rendering the oceans as noisy as New Jersey. ANd the marine mammals have been "mysteriously beaching themselves ever since!" Meanwhile Bush ahas moved on to missile shields over middle Europe....but the navy is still conducting under water experiments; just in case the Islamic Jiadists acquire a submarine somehow!
"Why did you say the oceans are the saddest places on Earth?
Because they are the home of the whales and the dolphins, the most intelligent and most spiritual souls on the planet, yet their homes have been defiled by intention and carelessness, and their inhumane treatment is an indelible mar on the nature of Earth's human civilization. The cetaceans' energy is as sacred as human energy insofar as individual souls and their oversoul entirety, but their homes have been gravely polluted and their lives brutally ended."
Look at the whole picture please people!

without even knowing how old I am?

Well let's keep going back then. Carter over Reagan? Check. Kennedy or even Johnson over Nixon? Yep same again. Truman over Eisenhower? Yep it continues. Republicans admittedly are starting to get a bit less inhumanly insane and scary by now, but Dems - even "establishment" Dems are still better. Every time.

How much further back should we go to prove the same damn point - that we're better with any kind of Dem admin over any kind of Rep admin - especially when we actually drag our tired old asses into today and look at the realistic options, which do not include any Republicans even vaguely as sane as the likes of Eisenhower?

Clinton, Edwards, and Obama could be "leading" our movement IF those who are following them would demand more before offering their support.

Until our brothers and sisters see what we see, we will not have the power to bring about the changes we need. It is our job to convince them and we're not doing very well so far. And if they continue on their current path, our liberties will continue to erode, the country will fail, global warming will worsen and the rich and powerful will strengthen their grip on power.

Unity is the right idea; unity behind the right values and vision are a better idea.

The premise of that question is false. We could end up with a former Democrat/former Republican Independent as President.

Who ever thought Ross Perot would make the splash he did? And Bloomberg is smarter and richer than Perot.

A corporatist Hillary Clinton is not my first choice, by far.

But after six years of a botched invasion of the middle east, vanishing respect for the US around the world, a slumping currency, dramatically increasing inequality, secret prisons, legally accepted torture, and destruction of civil liberties, I think a corporatist Democrat looks just fine.

Hell, after six years of Bush, Richard Nixon would look good.

They can have mine...I'm not using them!

she sure hasn't as senator..

the First Clinton Presidency still plagues my life, my message to the Clintons is "Move On".

VOTE DEMOCRAT NO MATTER WHO THE NOMINEE IS!!!

their own best interest. Y'all choose the Democratic nominee and I will back your choice 100%. NO MORE Republics in the WH...no...no...never. And that means period.

vote for Hillary or you don't love your freedoms....

all Clinton's campaigners here need to do is add "and the terrorists will win" and they will have out done b*sh

Maybe we should be honest and start calling it what it's turning into - the Republican Underground.

R.I.P. Democratic Underground.

That's 41% of those who voted in the poll.

I'm sure there are plenty of DUers, including myself, who didn't vote at all in the poll.

On edit: If Hillary is the nominee, I have no problem voting for her. But because of people voting third party or not at all, we'll end up with another republican president.

I haven't been posting as much on DU as I used to because I get sick of some of the crap I see posted here every day regarding other candidates.

I know the polls aren't really reflective of the entire DU membership - many DU'ers - perhaps even a majority - don't post often or vote in any polls. They just look and read. Then there are those of us who can't keep our opinions to ourselves, myself definitely included, that create the posts.

...if her supporters and her campaign team weren't so damn arrogant about their candidate's alleged "superiority"?

I have not yet chosen "my" candidate for the primaries, so I read much with a hopeful open-mind. But, not many here give me a reason to be hopeful - they just want to tell me why I shouldn't vote for the other candidate (and in very strong, harsh language). No one seems to talk about why I should vote for their candidate.

As for the superior and arrogant attitudes, I'm seeing that all over this board, be it Hillary, Obama or Edwards supporters. No one's willing to discuss, everyone just wants to yell and name-call. It's very disappointing. The vitriol and abuse that's recently become rampant here is disgusting.

#1, there was no sample. The only people who voted were likely those who are heavily involved in the candidate debate.

#2, it was such a deliberate push poll, I decided to vote no just to make people like the OP get into a frenzy. Sure, I'll vote for HRC if she's the nominee. But asking for a loyalty oath 17 months before the election is a bit absurd. DU rules are clear about supporting the nominee. There's no need to ask this type of question at the time.

At least Senator Clinton herself seems to realize she has to actually WORK for it.

general discussion, rather than on the specifics of a possible Clinton nomination, I would suggest that there are many democrats who believe that some of our "leaders" have more in common with republicans than they have in common with grass roots progressives.

The erosion of civil liberties did not start with Bush becoming president. One might look at "the great writ," habeas corpus. Its history goes back to the Magna Carta, and is so significant in its relationship to all civil rights that in 1868, the US Supreme Court noted it was the "best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom."

The president who did the most significant damage to habeas corpus in the 20th century was Bill Clinton. This is not to say that Clinton was not a better president than Bush, but it is important to recognize that issues such as eroding civil liberties are not so black and white that they can be defined in simplistic "democrats vs republican" terms.

That Hillary has done that the other Dem candidates haven't done.
There is nothing that the other Dem candidates have said, that Hillary hasn't said.
There is nothing that the other Dem candidates have stood for that Hillary hasn't too.

Its called politics my friends, and Hillary is just ahead of the curve on this.

Obama against the war from the beginning? A newbie to the arena, a carefully thought out
position, an affordable one.

If you will look closely, the older hat dems voted for the war, they had to. The country's
intelligence agency's said is had to happen. The americun corps said it had to happen.

To stay alive for this coming election Hillary had to walk that talk, now pay attention.

Things change after the policos get elected. Agendas change, talk changes - it did with
the handjob from texas and it will for Hillary.

Why is she the most investigated, scrutinized presidential candidate in history?

Because the right is scared spitless of her. Retribution will be at hand when Mrs. Clinton
gets in and they know it and they are as the sinner approaching the gates of hell. No greater
fear exists for them.

The owners of the freepers funny farm have their minions over at this site with careful instructions
on how to proceed with their posts, how to word their statements- but they don't fool me.

I can pickem out one at a time, by the lack of panache, and they shine like the sun when the REAL
DUers get after them, their irrational thought processes, the lack of practical, realistic
concerns, like the never ending response to anything wrong with bush, "oh yea, well bill clinton
lied about getting a blow job!" It stands out like an odor coming from a feedlot.

Why Hillary? Because she is savvy, Because she will castrate the rightwingnut agendas, true doesn't
sound like it now, heheh. The rights real fear, she's married to Mr. Bill Clinton, and this ole boy
well, with a democratic controlled senate and congress, he's salivating right now.

There are no candidates that aren't owned by the corps. Hillary just happens to be the one that
can tame them and still get this country back on track.