What do we have the RIGHT to expect from our nominee?

I'd say these things:

1)A guarantee that the views of grass-roots activists will matter just as much as the views of big-check writers

2)An effort BY the candidate to reach out to and be conciliatory towards the supporters of other candidates.

3)An agreement not to tack away from the party's core values in the fall, since it's been proven that "moving to the center"(I.E., the Right)doesn't actually gain us votes anymore

4)A full debate on the platform with the nominee's delegates allowed to vote their conscience.

5)No rules barring signs or forbidding the expression of delegate opinion during the convention.

6)A pledge by the candidate NOT to encourage police to arrest demonstrators outside the convention.

7)A willingness to DISAGREE with the GOP more than the candidate agrees with them.

8)Explicit commitments to get out of Iraq and push for the strongest healthcare proposal possible(with single-payer being given as much consideration as any corporate-drafted option).

That's my list.

What's yours

I have a problem trusting our country and our children's future in the hands of the people that looked at the same evidence that Dennis Kucinich looked at and still voted yes. I don't understand how only Dennis Kucinich looked at it and said that the war was about oil and voted no every time. What was the agenda for the ones who voted for it? Now they all support Kucinichs views but he gets no credit for trying stand up by himself and state the truth before all the lives were lost and all the destruction was caused. Getting that vote wrong makes you unelectable in my eyes. Everyone is blaming Bush for the war but congress has to give him the ok and they did that so they should bear responsibility instead of making excuses and still pointing at Bush. They should have protected us and the Iraqis from Bush and they didnt. What was their agenda on this very important vote?

These statements scare me with him.

"There was sufficient evidence to go into Iraq."2003
"I voted to give the president the authority to use force in Iraq. I still believe my vote was just."2004

a candidate? :shrug:

We can elect the candidate if the candidate respects us and works with us. No Dem can win if he or she leaves us out in the cold.

And Dennis promised me one.

6)A pledge by the candidate NOT to encourage police to arrest demonstrators outside the convention.

7)A willingness to DISAGREE with the GOP more than the candidate agrees with them.


The GOP doesn't get to have a "Sound Of Music" convention while we get "Wild In The Streets"...The sense of anarchy and chaos that surrounded the 68 Democratic Convention in Chicago contributed to the belief that the country was out of control ... That benefited Nixon and the GOP...

There was anarchy because dissent was being CRUSHED.

If LBJ has just let the convention vote for the peace plank, the protesters woulda gone home on the next bus.
And even if Daley had just let them march without bashing in their heads, most would have come around to Humphrey in the end.
"It's the repression, stupid", As I'd like to have heard Carville say it back when he still had hair.


The party's been taking the wrong lesson from this for years. The way to win is to ENGAGE the dissenters and show that we're the party that represents ALL the American peoples(and I did mean "peoples" since there are more than one.)

The answer is not that OUR conventions have to be just as "Sound of Music" as the GOP's. 2004 proves that approach will never work for us again.

We need to the party of truth, free speech and inclusion. Not the party of nightsticks, helmets and curfews.

(I do agree the GOP should be pressed to allow free speech in the streets at their conventions btw. Also, in Miami in '72, the protests were JUST as wild outside the GOP convention as they had been in Chicago in '68, and it didn't work against them, so your arguement doesn't entirely hold up on that score.)

get behind hiLLary or get out!!1!

And let the record show, Freddie, that on at least one occasion you and I actually agreed on something.

not to necessarily support our issues. If their campaign platforms didn't promise to get us out of Iraq, you can't hold them accountable for that. If they never took a clear position, but remained ambiguous enough to play all sides, you can't expect them to suddenly take a side.

In other words, you get what you vote for, and if you don't like what you are hearing, you shouldn't vote for it.

Here's one right we have: We have the right to expect them to support and defend the constitution of the United States.

Hillary is not the crowned queen of democrats. Far too many people hate this woman and don't trust her.
I read comments from people all over the country on the mainstream news blogs (as the left ones are not a good indication of how the average person feels). I would say that consistently people are commenting against her and say things that make my comments look like support.
and they are from Democrats. So many say they refuse to vote for her and won't support her. They are getting slammed from all over.
There is so much dislike for this woman that I think the only way she can win is to cheat - which I would not put pass the clintons.
But, one thing democrats don't do is lay down and accept things when they can change it and if they have choices.
You always have choices and you can choose whether to give up or fight.

It is more general.

:wtf:

I'll have you know that cyberspace is the ONE place I NEVER droop, my good Progressive.

you were a fiscal conservative, would you say that Bush subsequently violated your rights by spending too much? If so, it implies that one could have created a right for herself by voting for Bush.

"Rights" are a precious concept. They can be secured against a government, not against a party or individual.

Frivolous invocation of rights diminishs the concept. (Like the customer bill of rights at Long John Silvers or something.)

The question is "What can we rationally expect from our nominee?"

"What can we hold them to."

And I supposed the term "rights"(which to me meant moral rights as opposed to anything in the legal sphere)in order to combat the cynical party insider rejoinder of "you ain't got nowhere else to go".

And the notion of trying to pin down what we can fairly ask of the people we give our votes to, the people who owe their victory at least in significant measure to OUR support, is hardly frivolous.