Thoughts from my mom about party and principles,

and the journey of a voting lifetime:

My mom is a great-grandma, and she is an incredible woman. She has led an incredible life, overcoming more obstacles to survival and personal growth than any other single human being I've ever met. I admire and respect her, as well as love her. She's my mom.

For her young adult life, she was a Democratic-leaning liberal independent. She adored JFK, RFK, and MLK. I was too young to remember JFK's assassination, but I remember how hard she took the other 2. Still, she was an independent, often voting for the Democrat, but not trusting party politics to eschew corruption.

During the 80s, as we lived through Reagan and saw Bush I inaugurated, she registered as a Democrat. She was uneasy with the direction she saw the country going, and decided to vote a straight Democratic ticket to defeat Republicans whenever possible. They were the strongest opposition to Republicans that she could find.

When Bill Clinton entered the primaries, she fell in love. She is the hardest-core Clinton fan I've ever met. I never liked him, personally. We just agreed to disagree. I understood why she thought he was so great, even if I couldn't agree. He was obviously better than a republican, after all.

In '04, she didn't feel a strong connection to any of the candidates. I introduced her to DK, whom she, of course, had never heard of. She liked what she heard, but since he obviously wasn't going to win, put her focus elsewhere. She was not enthused at all by Kerry, but voted for him anyway, as I did.

A couple of months ago, she brought up the current primary season and asked me what I thought. So I told her. I knew what I thought would disappoint her. She was prepared to love both Clinton and Obama; Clinton because she's a woman and a Clinton both, Obama because he's black. She'd love to see a woman, or a person of color, in the WH during her lifetime. So I told her. I told her why I wouldn't be supporting either. She was quiet for a few minutes, and then spoke hopefully about Edwards, and asked what DK was up to. So I've sent her updates on a regular basis.

This morning she asked me, flatly, who I was going to vote for in our primary. I said, surprised, "Kucinich, of course. Is there really any competition?" She said, angrily, that she didn't expect him, or many of them, to even be on the ballot when the primary finally limps into Oregon in late May. I said I was pretty sure he'd still be there, referencing his persistence in '04, and that I'd write him in if he wasn't. She agreed with that idea.

Then she asked, "But what about the general election? I've been voting a straight Democratic Party ticket for almost 30 years now. I don't want to vote for ANY of those likely to win the nomination. I became a Democrat, and have been a loyal Democratic voter, for all these years because I expected them to oppose the conservative agenda. Look what they've done since 2000. Look what they've done since last November. My vote's the only thing I've got left, and if they can't do better than Clinton or Obama, or Edwards, for that matter, then I'm done. I'll go back to being an Independent."

Thirty years of party loyalty about to be lost. Does the party care? I'll predict that this thread will be filled with posts from people who are eager to rationalize support for failed principles, are happy to tell my mom "Don't let the door hitya," whether they themselves have given 30 years of loyalty to the party or not, to call her "fringe," to foam at the mouth about Nader, even though she's never voted for him or paid him any attention, and to launch all manner of attacks.

Does the party care? Care enough to do something to prevent the loss of long-term loyal party members? What can be done?

I'm not going to tell her to shut up, get in line, and vote against her heart, soul, and intellect because the party tells her to. Sorry. It's the party that needs to do something to win those lost votes, not the voters who need to set aside who they are and what they stand for.

I think if enough people vote their conscience we're going to be in a firestorm of shit for 4 more years.

to return the Democratic Party to representing our conscience?

I don't think it will ever change if we continue to vote against our conscience. We'll get what we deserve: more of the same.

:patriot: :hi: :patriot:

When it's too late?

Stay home? Vote Republican?

I'm confused. You said that she "spoke hopefully about Edwards" but then essentially said that she'd go back to being an independent should he be the nominee. Did she have some fundamental change of heart in the past couple months?

Curious.

She started paying attention to this crop of primary candidates.

Many Democrats don't jump into primary season 2 years out from their vote. She was busy working on local issues in her town, and wasn't focused on the primaries. Of course, she heard the names, but wasn't ready to sit down and investigate the possibilities. She started thinking about the primaries about a year out from the vote, and spent a few months getting to know the candidates, not taking people's "talking points," but looking at issues and record, before coming to that conclusion.

His record hasn't suddenly changed in the past few months. Somehow, I think her change of heart might have more to do with your opinion of Mr. Edwards than her own.

I haven't even chosen a candidate yet (it was Clark in '04, but he's obviously not running this time), but any of the Democratic front-runners would be light-years better than the idiot we have in office.

Besides, the party isn't just the person at the top of the ticket. My view of the Democratic party isn't based on whether or not the nominee is my favorite.

Many here applaud the change. But, there is NO denying there was a change. In late February 2004, he was bashing Kerry's health and environmental plans as too expensive. He ran as a conservative Democrat. It is lucky for him that the superficial press dealt mainly with his personality, his wonderful family and his sunny smile.

It is very possible that his mother read something that went into his background in more depth than any reporting in 2004 did. In 2004, he never came close to being the front runner and never got all that much scrutiny.

They weren't. They were about the direction of the Democratic Party, and whether or not she will go the same direction. If you want to discuss why my mom isn't thrilled with John Edwards, that's a different conversation.

in a couple months. He hasn't changed. And, sorry, but I don't quite buy your "she just started paying attention" claim, because that seems dismissive of your mother and, frankly, contradictory. Along the lines of, "Oh, my mom likes John Edwards, but she's just not paying enough attention."

As I said in another response, regardless of the nominee, the top of the ticket is simply not reason enough to abandon the party. After the last six years, the stakes are simply too high to stay home or vote for Rudy or Mitt.

In the OP, I said, "She was not enthused at all by Kerry, but voted for him anyway, as I did."

Edwards was part of that package, and she wasn't enthusiastic about him then.

I also said, "She was quiet for a few minutes, and then spoke hopefully about Edwards, and asked what DK was up to."

Hopefully, because, going by the traditional Democratic voter response to poor choices, at least he's not the other two, and Kucinich probably 'can't win.'" Very typical primary thoughts, in my experience.

Of course, Edwards HAS changed. See post # 14 for more on that. His message this time around is DRASTICALLY different than in '04, and during his short time as a Senator. Frankly, his message has changed for the better, which is a good thing. If you trust that change.

That's her point; while she hopes the change is genuine, she doesn't trust that it is, and doesn't trust that he will not change yet again if elected. Apparently, she decided that Edwards was not a good place to invest that hope and trust. People can AND DO do that, you know.

Again, this post is not about Edwards, although you've had trouble seeing beyond him. It's not about me, which you've also had a little trouble getting past. It's about the party as a whole, and the many loyal Democratic voters, my mom included, whose support is at risk.

Deciding that you don't agree with those voters, and telling them that they are wrong, that you are right, and that they just need to see things the same way you do is not going to win their confidence. It just further proves their point.

My point is that it's an interesting fundamental shift to go from positive about Edwards to not supporting Democrats in general anymore because the front-runners, including the aforementioned Mr. Edwards, are inadequate. Inadequate compared to what? Bush? Rudy? Romney?

Democrats sure get held to some ridiculously high standards. Our candidates aren't adequate because they might change their minds at some point. Edwards might not be completely sincere in his change. Might, might, might.

Shouldn't all of the candidates be held to the same lofty standards? Dennis Kucinich changed his mind on abortion. Based on similar logic to your comments about Edwards, how can we trust Dennis' change? How can we trust that he won't change his mind again and appoint a pro-lifer to the Supreme Court? He *might* do that.

A ridiculous example, of course, but an extension of your logic. I love DK, and I believe that he has had a fundamental change in his position on abortion. I'm using it simply as an example of how that logic can be applied to ANYONE who has ever changed his or her mind on ANY issue.

Has Edwards changed? Who knows? Would he make a better president than Rudy or Mitt? I think any of our candidates would.

Obviously, we have a fundamental difference of opinion. I think that any of our candidates would be a monumental improvement on the idiot-in-chief, and I think fundamental change can only take place if we win in '08 and solidify Democratic hold on Congress. I'm not sure how abandoning the party is going to help.

The point of this thread was not really to argue about that difference; I've long accepted that most of the world disagrees with me, lol.

The point is this: My mom, and others like her, who are not nearly as stubbornly independent and idealistic as I, who've been loyal dem voters for the long term, are not votes that can be taken for granted this time out.

The party is losing them, and their votes. Disagreeing with them isn't going to solve that dilemma.

Is this a concern? If not, then read no further.

If so, then what can be done to keep those votes? I'm telling you that you can disagree all you want, and that won't change anything. How much of a concern is the loss of those votes? Enough of a concern to do something to earn back that support, or not?

If yes, what, exactly, would convince those people to vote Democratic in '08? I can tell you that fear tactics and campaign propaganda won't do it. Do Democrats have anything else left to work with?

In six years, Bush and the Republicans have done irrevocable damage to this country. That alone should be enough for most people to realize that Hillary or Obama or Edwards or Richardson or whomever would be a huge improvement over the status quo.

How could they not be? There is plenty of disagreement from many on the left, but I don't buy the Hillary or Obama or Edwards = Bush garbage, and I'm as liberal as Gandhi. I'm not sure how anyone believes that, but there are plenty of people who apparently do. I highly doubt that any of our candidates would have passed the ludicrous tax cuts for the rich or gutted social programs the way Bush has. They certainly aren't on the same page with him on the future of Iraq, contrary to the claims otherwise.

You asked what would convince people to vote Democratic in '08. A look at the last six years is all many voters will need. The results in the '06 races demonstrated that pretty effectively.

What's the alternative? Stay home? Vote for Rudy? No, thanks. As flawed as they may be, I'll vote for whomever wins the Democratic nomination.

You think it's simple, and you've decided on a point of view that feels right to you. Other's don't agree.

We are all aware of the last 7 years. We've all lived through them. Frankly, it's the lack of adequate opposition from the Democratic Party during that time period that has helped to shift people away. The performance since '06 has simply reinforced that anger; given the majority, the Democrats have misused it. Again, you can disagree with the opinion, but simply pointing out your opinion repeatedly doesn't change anything.

Fear tactics are not going to work. "You don't have any other choice, because if you don't suck it up and go along, you'll end up with a Republican" is not going to work, either. That's a threat. It's a fear tactic. It's backfiring. The "what other choice is there" talking point is not getting capitulation, it's pissing people off.

My point, and my question, stand:

Many long-time, loyal democratic voters aren't going to be led by the standard lines used to keep them in line. You can believe them, but that won't retain those votes being lost.

The standard responses aren't going to save the votes. The standard responses are non-action designed, not for the party to do anything to earn those votes, but to convince voters to compromise their principles. Many voters are not going to do that this time. If the party is going to keep those votes, it's going to take them actually DOING something differently. The talking points are out.

What is the Democratic Party, and those Democratic voters standing with the party, willing to do to keep these votes?

Voters in '06 had a choice - more of the same Bush nonsense, or vote for Democrats.

They responded by handing the Democrats wins at every level of government.

They're apparently not as disillusioned as you are. There's no indication people are leaving the party - quite the opposite, actually.

It's about the many people like my mom, whose votes are at risk.

Again, whether you want to call it "common sense," or a "fear tactic," it's an opinion, and offering opinions is not helping.

The indication I have that people are leaving the party IS THAT THEY ARE TELLING ME SO. It may not have been significant enough when it was just those of us on "the fringe," but I'm hearing it from people who have been loyal to the Democratic Party for years. Decades. That is a whole different segment of voters, and that's what I'm referring to here.

Apparently I'm not the only one noticing this happening, if I read all the responses on this thread.

It's kind of like global warming; should you take note of the smaller indications that predict future problems if current conditions continue, and act when it will do some good, or do you wait for it to become a global crisis that no one can ignore?

I'm leaning towards paying attention to all of the small signs; hence this post. It isn't really because I need to share my mom with a bunch of political strategists.

No one is threatening you with anything. If you can't see the difference between the current administration and what life would have been like with President Gore or President Kerry, I can't help you. Similarly, if you can't see the difference between President Rudy and President Hillary, I doubt we'll ever agree on much.

Re: paying attention to the small signs - try starting with the big ones. We won big in '06. Signs are that we'll win big in '08, as well. The number of people identifying themselves as Democrats has grown substantially in the past three or four years. No fear; just facts.

The death of the Democratic Party has been greatly exaggerated, your anecdotal evidence notwithstanding.

Or you shouldn't be. If that's the way you want to approach the people the thread IS about, by calling their point of view "garbage," then you're right. You can't help them.

So perhaps what you're trying to say is that anyone, including those long term hard-core party faithful that are having second thoughts about sticking with the party, that can't join your point of view is a lost cause, and no loss to the Democratic party.

At least, that's what I seem to be hearing. Is that how you really feel? If they won't join you, and agree with your judgment, their votes can't be saved for the party?

You can couch all of this in a nice story about your mom being disillusioned with the Democrats, but make no mistake - this is all about your disillusionment, not your mother's.

As far as voters go, if they don't understand that the party is deeper than the person at the top of the ticket, then they don't understand politics. If your mom (or anyone) is willing to kiss away 30 years of voting straight-ticket Democrat because of whom we nominate in this one particular election, then I highly doubt the veracity of that claim to begin with.

what my conversation is about. It's NOT about me; I've never been under any illusion about political parties, or about politics.

If you can't address the actual topic, trying to spin and shift the conversation to me is just not going to work. While I've been a registered Democrat for some years, and have supported many Democrats during my life, my loss is no loss to the party, because I don't represent a significant voting block. I've always known that. It's not about me. As you've already noted, "you can't help me," and "we'll probably never agree on much."

That's ok. I don't really want your help deciding how to make my own political choices, and I don't mind if we disagree. The point of the conversation is that there IS a significant voting segment within the party that is at risk, that they've heard all of the standard talking points you've been repeating to me on this thread over and over, that those talking points don't present anything new or different, and that those talking points aren't going to be effective for 2008.

You've been unable, or unwilling, to step outside the safety of those traditional talking points to address the real problem. I have ideas about what would work, but I don't think my ideas are realistic at this point in time. I was hoping for other ideas. Not new talking points to convince people to vote your way, but an actual direction the party could take to win those voters who are hovering on the edge back into the fold.

I think that's a worthy and appropriate goal for the Democratic Party.

I highly doubt that there are many people that have voted straight-ticket for 30 years and are suddenly going to bail on the party simply because of Hillary or John Edwards or Obama.

Re: "address the real problem" - considering that you haven't bothered to even define what you think the problem is, other than some vague dislike of Clinton, Edwards, and Obama, I'm not sure how you expect it to be addressed.

Democrats won just about every open race available in '06. That being the case, would you care to explain why we need some huge fundamental change in the first place?

Oh, right. Those are just talking points, so they can be ignored.

because people were fed up with Bush and wanted to see his messes cleaned up.

Note the approval ratings drop since then, in response to the non-action on the part of party leaders:

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28456

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/06/war_focus_creates_drag_on_demo.html

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27937

Ignoring people's dissatisfaction is not exactly a winning tactic.

You can doubt all you want; that doesn't make it untrue. What would be the smarter thing to do? To discount the warning signs, or to listen and respond?

The real problem? The Democratic Party is losing the trust of many Democratic voters. Not all of them, of course. There are plenty of people left who think the party is doing just fine. Will it be enough to carry the vote in the general election, if one of the top 3 is nominated? I don't honestly know. Maybe.

Is maybe good enough? If there are Democrats that are turned off enough by some candidates to abstain, should they be the nominee? Is it worth dividing the party and losing general election votes to put one of those candidates on the ballot? Maybe.

I see trouble ahead. My mom is my "canary," and she is not alone. I guess I could just sit back and allow it to play out, and watch the party implode in '08. Instead, I thought I'd bring it up for discussion. I guess that was a bad idea, since the only extended discussion has been with you, and your efforts to "debunk" what other people see, hear, think, and feel. You have yet to offer a solution, and you obviously don't think we ought to be paying attention to those warning signs, so the conversation has been pretty pointless.

I go to a gym where if there are any Republicans, they keep quiet. It's in one of the most liberal neighborhoods in a very blue city (the last mayoral election was Dem vs. Dem vs. Green).

After workouts we sit in the hot tub and solve the problems of the world. EVERYONE is disgusted with the Democrats' inaction.

This is a crowd that busted their butts for Kerry in 2004 and helped keep Minnesota blue. These are no "Reagan Democrats" or "one-term Democrats." These are life-long DFLers, some of them over seventy years of age.

It's not just those like me, who are more independently inclined. It's the party faithful I'm hearing. I can understand it if the party doesn't value my vote. I'm a minority of one.

To let things get so bad that there are life-long straight-Democratic voters disenfranchised to the point that they are no longer a guaranteed vote is either deaf, insane, or a "lihop" with the ultimate goal to reshape the party so that anything left of center is left behind.

It's a real hot button where she lives.

She hates the Republicans, but the dems leave her cold, too.

She'll vote Dem, but not with the enthusiasm she did in 2006.

there is a continuum of disenchantment, from "I'll vote for them but not with enthusiasm," to "I'm done."

My mom did the former in '04, and is hovering between the two for '08.

I think it is an honest, legitimate concern, and I think it is a legitimate topic for discussion.

I asked for ideas about what the Democratic Party could do to bring the disenchanted back into the fold, and so far, all I've gotten are campaign talking points.

I don't think those are going to do it this time. I was hoping for something more constructive. :shrug:

The only Pubbie I've voted for other than on the local level (my hometown is small--Dems are few and their candidates simply aren't very good) was William Milliken, the former Michigan gov who came out against Bush. The dems couldn't get a competent sacrificial lamb to run against him the last time.

I think that the parties as they are set up right now simply aren't representing that many people well. I have heard lots of grumbling among the Pubbies about their candidates.

While liberals, moderates and conservatives don't see eye to eye, I think that there is a general feeling that things have gone completely wrong.

We're in a seemingly never-ending war again. The housing bubble is deflating just like the NASDAQ did a few years ago.

It doesn't feel like there are lots of decent jobs around that allow for health care, education and savings all at the same time.

The climate is haywire.

Immigration is a huge issue for lots of people--its really jobs and a sense that the culture people grew up in is fading away and not being replaced by something anyone wants. The author of "Bowling Alone" finally released his huge study which concludes that multiculturalism isn't a picnic in the short and medium terms is, I think, no surpise to many.

Pelosi and Reid aren't getting any traction on any of this. The administration exists in its own universe.

I like Edwards, but I can't seem to gin up the same enthusiasm that I had for him a year ago, despite Elizabeth's efforts. In part, I don't think that there is enough money to pay for much in the way of social programs even if we tax the rich more because the outstanding federal debt, which went out of control under Ronzo, is totally out of control and out of our control in the hands of the Chinese, the Japanese and who knows who else.

Kucinich still keeps going like the energizer bunny, but I'm not hearing much on the cultural issues and the debt.

I feel very disconnected. I thought that it was because I'm in a very, very transitional stage in my life, but now, I think that more and more people are feeling the disconnect.

I think that some people will just become more disconnected, but I think that there is a lot of rage that simply could come tumbling out in really bad, bad ways.

So many seem to be becoming more disconnected, and others so enraged, while the mainstream keeps marching forward, burning bridges behind them.

I've heard all kinds of suggestions, but not on this thread. There are problems with all of the suggestions, just like there are issues with most of our candidates. I'm not suggesting that we expect everything to be ideal, but that we aren't even close to "reasonable."

What can we do? We can suck it up, AGAIN, with a less than appealing candidate. That's really hard to take, when the time is right NOW, in the wake of the Bush disaster, to be able to move forward with our BEST, our highest ideals.

We can refuse to play, and allow the party to suffer the logical consequences of not listening. Of course, the consequences are harsh. Have we reached the critical mass, where the benefits we get from holding the party to higher standards will outweigh the cost? None of us really agree where that point is. For some, that point will NEVER come. For others, it happened in 2000, or '04, or '06.

We can't accomplish anything, though, if the majority won't meet us at least halfway. I feel that we're becoming more divided every day.

Personally, I'd like to see Democrats stop enabling the mainstream media and the status quo. I'd like to see them turn their tvs and radios off, get their news from print and online sources, and refuse to vote for candidates favored by big money and the status quo.

There are plenty of other Democrats that could shake up "business as usual" and give us a choice to vote FOR, rather than against; it doesn't have to be my favorite. Not just for president, but for every office.

And disconnected at the same time. That sums up the Dems and the country.

I'm looking for someone, anyone, to just stand up there and tell the truth without triangulating or thinking about what the campaign donors or the media will say. Or for that matter, what anybody will say. If someone would just stand up and tell some truth or even just ask some decent questions.

Take the Senate hearings this week on the war.

There was a lot of speechifying, but not a lot of tough questions and real answers. The only real q & A for me was Warner asking Petraeus whether all this Iraq nonsense was making the country safer. And Petraeus said he didn't know. I wanted more! Warner's not running for office again. Are lame ducks the only ones who will speak out at all? For heaven's sake, what have we come to?

I don't think that U.S. voters are that shallow and stupid, at least not the ones who actually go to the polls and vote. Just level with us. We know that things are bad. Just talk to us.

You mentioned big money. I think that big money campaign contributions have a lot to do with the inability of candidates to address the problems because the big money doesn't like to hear that it's screwed up. Since the Supreme Court has declared spending money on politics to be the equivalent of free speech, then I support a well-thought out Constitutional amendment that would open the doors for campaigns supported only by public funds. I have not heard much ruckus about something to actually fix the problem, just a lot of hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth, as usual. I don't favor lots of amendments to the venerable document, but things have gone completely out of control to the point that the government is unworkable. One of the founders, when asked what form of government is the best, replied something like, "A Republic, if you can keep it." Or so my aging memory says. Well, founder, we're not keeping it right now. Not here and not anywhere.

My mom used to inform, me now I inform her... She'll vote anyway I ask her to as long as I don't ask her to vote for a GOOPER and that I never will...

Just as I don't tell my sons how to vote. It's a matter of respect. I respect their ability to think, to look at all the available information, and evaluate the choices. I support their right to make their own choice.

That doesn't mean I don't tell her my own thoughts; we share, but then we make our own choices.

to show their stuff.

After 8 years of the bush regime, Democrats could field the BEST they've got and win. Why would anyone be pushing for mediocrity at this point? What, exactly, are we keeping our powder dry for?

I don't see a better chance than this to choose someone who will truly lead this country forward.

feels exactly the same way.

If we all vote our consciences or stay home on election day, the resulting shitstorm will keep gathering strength over the next 4-8 years, and this Party will either be made different, unrecognizeable, or non-existant. At this point, I can live with any of those eventualities.

TC

If that's what it takes to achieve the change I wish to see, I'm there.

I can hope that change is achieved in time for my mom to appreciate it.

After the past six years? Are you joking?

You really want 4-8 more years of that?

The only way this country has *any* chance of recovering is if we win the presidency in '08 and solidify Democratic holds on Congress.

If you're hoping for the end of the party, why are you here?

any longer. Especially since the DLC came on the scene and has remarkably turned what once was considered "moderate republicans" into "centrist democrats."

I honestly voted for Clinton twice (92' & 96'), then Gore (2000) and finally for Kerry (2004). None of these candidates stood for the public "common good" values I have. They were all to the right of me, but I sucked-it-up for my beloved Democratic Party. I can't do that anymore. :(

We can't have an intervention until our party stops disrespecting it's base of liberal democrats. I want to cry, but like my history as an addiction counselor, I must wait for my party to "hit bottom" (lose big and kick out the DLC permanently) before we can FIX IT.

No, after using us liberal democrats as whipping posts at every opportunity, you will not GUILT-trip us to vote for the DLC candidate in the General Election.

I'm sorry, but this time I don't feel beholden to "the party." :(

You describe the place I find myself as if you were standing in my very shoes. What is really surprising me is how MANY people are finding themselves in just that place.

I'm used to being the "LoneWolf," but I'm suddenly not so "Lone."

That's my point. It's not just me. It's not just the stubbornly idealistic, independent minded lone wolves; it's many liberal-minded Democrats who've been party loyalists for many years, my mom included.

Contrary to DU opinion, not all Democrats are ultra-liberals. I'm not sure why it's so difficult for people to understand that. Connecticut Democrats and Nebraska Democrats are two completely different animals, for example. What works in CT doesn't work in NE.

I find it hilarious that you think I'm a DLC Democrat. I'm personally about as liberal as Gandhi, both economically and socially.

I am also a realist. I'd love it if we could elect liberal Democrats to national offices and to state offices in red states, but that's not going to happen. Dennis Kucinich is not going to win the presidency, and getting liberal Democrats elected to Congress in places like the upper Midwest and the South simply isn't going to happen in the current political world.

You indicated that you're waiting for Democrats to "lose big" so that some fundamental change will magically occur. We lost big in '80, '84, and the Congressional races in '94. If those losses didn't make the party more liberal, what makes you think that a big loss in '08 would be any different? The outcome could very well be the exact opposite of what you expect.

Hummm. :shrug:

Not all Democrats are alike, but I suspect you know that.

Regional differences are not a myth. Ben Nelson would never get elected in the Northeast, and John Kerry would never get elected in the upper Midwest.

don't be surprised if we continue to vote for Democrats Locally but Independents nationally, i.e. U.S. Congress and The Presidency.

I can NOT vote for a President nor a Congressperson who is not for an immediate withdrawal of our troops. No more WAR-mongers or War-enablers. :thumbsdown:

The only chance we have of getting out of Iraq is if the Democratic nominee wins the presidency in 2008. If the Republicans win, we're not going anywhere. Stay home, vote third party, whatever. The end result is the same if the Republicans win.

All of the Democratic candidates want to get us out of Iraq.

Most of the Republican candidates want to keep us there indefinitely. Make Iraq another Korea.

Not a difficult choice.

So, are the rest of the candidates lying?

From ontheissues.org:

Hillary: We need to begin moving our troops out, and we have to do it carefully and responsibly. Moving troops out cannot happen without careful planning, which is why I've been pushing the Pentagon to make sure they're actually planning because they've been resistant to doing so.

Secondly, we need much stronger pressure on the Iraqi government than this administration has been willing to bring. And I would certainly condition any aid of any kind on their actually making the political decisions that they have been reluctant and unwilling to do so far. There is no military solution. Everybody agrees with that. And the political solutions seem to be out of the grasp of the Iraqis, because they're still jockeying for power.

If you look at how we would have to take our troops out, plus the equipment, which we would not want to leave, plus what we do with the Iraqis who sided with us--thousands of them--plus more than 100,000 American contractors who are there--this is a massive, complicated undertaking
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on "This Week" Aug 19, 2007

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Chris Dodd: Help Iraqi government, but exit Iraq by April 1 2008
Q : Should the US set a firm deadline for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq?

DODD: I believe we should. I didn't come to that decision a long time ago. It's been an evolving situation here. I think most would agree today that we're more isolated today, our moral standing in the world has suffered terribly over the last number of years as a result of our involvement in Iraq. We're feeling less secure, more vulnerable today. My view is there's a greater likelihood that the Iraqis, if they understand that this is not an open-ended process here, there's a beginning time and an end time for our military involvement here, and that we're willing to help train troops and help on counter-terrorism, but that come the first of April next year, our military participation is over with.

Source: Meet the Press: Meet the Candidates 2008 series May 20, 2007

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

John Edwards: GOP candidates are Bush on steroids; Dems would all end war
Q: Can most of the troops be out by December?

A: It would be hard to do by December. I think we can responsibly and in a very orderly way bring our troops out over the next 9 or 10 months. But any Democratic president will end this war. That's what we know. And the differences between all of us are very small compared to the differences between us and the Republican candidates, who the best I can tell are George Bush on steroids. They're going to keep this war going as long as it can possibly go.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on "This Week" Aug 19, 2007

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Barack Obama: Begin withdrawal May 1 2007; finish by March 31 2008
And we've got 54 sponsors so far on the bill. We're gonna keep on pushing that agenda.

The withdrawal has to begin soon. It's time to end this war. It's time to refocus our efforts on the wider struggle against terror, and it's time for us to work much more aggressively diplomatically both inside Iraq and regionally if we're gonna see the kind of stability in Iraq that all of us hope for.
Source: Virtual Town Hall on Iraq, sponsored by MoveOn.org Apr 10, 2007


____________________________________________________________________________________________

There are more, but I think that makes the point.

Edit: fixed typo

The Democrats proposed the bills but NUMEROUS republicans signed-onto the amendments.

Many of us remember, "Hey! Hey! LBJ! How many kids did you kill today! :wow:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_congress_got_us_out_of_vietnam

One of the best examples for current Democratic legislators is that of their Vietnam-era counterparts. Ironically, both the left and the right have criticized the performance of Congress during the war in Vietnam. Liberals accuse the Congress of allowing Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon to push deeper into the jungles of Southeast Asia without opposition. Conservatives place responsibility for "losing" on the Democratic Congress.

The Vietnam-era Congress certainly had many failings. Lawmakers too often deferred to presidential decisions that they knew to be flawed. They hesitated to challenge presidents directly. Democrats and Republicans took action after the fact and agreed to watered-down compromises. Most importantly, Congress never forced an immediate end to the war. To the contrary, in 1964, Congress granted the president broad authority to use force, and in the late 1960s and early 1970s it continued to fund military operations after the war had turned into a quagmire.

snip

Most importantly, Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973 over Nixon's veto. The legislation imposed a series of restrictions on the executive branch to ensure that the president would have to consult with the House and Senate before authorizing the troops for long periods of time.

ALL of our candidates are pushing to get us out of Iraq, with the possible exception of Biden.

So, does that mean that ALL of the other candidates are lying?

shows where their true loyalties lie: with the military-industrial complex.

p.s. IMO, Biden is a arrogant "meatball" ... his own worst enemy when he "talks too much." :shrug:

If someone said to you -- "Would you do ANYTHING to save this country?" How would you answer?

I WOULD do ANYTHING to save this country and that INCLUDES go through more of the same. Remember -- ANYTHING.

I see the "Top Tier" as unable (and some, unwilling) to change much of anything already descimated by the Republicans. I see the DLC as not very substantially different than the Republicans these days. If the Democrats want my vote (and the votes of those like me) they can run candidates that are substantially DIFFERENT than Republicans. They can marginalize the corporate DLC within the Party. They can stop supporting warwarwarwar.

I refuse to vote for HRC, as she represents NO CHANGE at all from the status quo. I don't care who the f*ck endorses her.

TC

So, President Hillary or Edwards or Obama would force through huge tax cuts for the rich?

President Hillary or Edwards or Obama would gut social programs like Bush has?

President Hillary or Edwards or Obama would nominate anti-choice, ultra-conservative justices like John Roberts?

No difference, hmm?

But she's still alert... She says she can't wait to vote for Hillary Clinton...

She's sitting right next to me...I'm killing time at an internet cafe until my car gets out of the shop.. She cast her first vote for FDR in his first re-election campaign...

She adores Bill and Hill...She's not my first choice but I admire her tenacity...

We're guided by the same simple principle... A Democrat is always better than a Republican...

My mom does ok for 89... She tires easily as is expected, has god days and bad days and the cancer has been in remission since 00 when they removed the tumor from her colon...

In fact we are going to see "The Brave One" with Jodie Foster if I get my car back in time...

:grouphug:

and for mine: :hug:

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

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

:eyes:

On Mothers Day two years ago...My grandmom passed away , ironically, on Mothers Day too in 1970 at 88....

Both were lifelong Democrats... My aunt voted a straight Democratic ticket for almost seventy years...

About five years ago, my mom is now eighty nine years old , innocently, told my aunt she got a birthday card from President Bush* as all old folks do... My mom who is also a lifelong Democrat appreciated the gesture but my aunt said "I don't care about that son of a bitch."...

I am so happy most of my family are Democrats... A couple got quite rich and thought that made them Republicans but most remain Democrats...

My aunt lived in NYC her whole life ... She loved the Yankees as much as she hated Rudy...She couldn't mention him without mentioning how ugly he was...

If I get to cast a vote against Rudy in 08 I'll think of her...

includes my mom, myself, and my 2 sons. My mom has been a Democrat for most of her life. My oldest and I are Democrats, but not as firm. Issues before party. My youngest is an anarchist who despises both parties, thinks I'm naive for continuing to vote, and has never cast a vote in his life, although he's always been a registered independent.

Until now; he re-registered as a Democrat so that he could cast a vote for Gravel in our primary. That alone leaves me hoping Gravel will hang in the race until it reaches us in late May.