Are you going to support and vote for the Democratic nominee in 2008?

Simple question.

Or at least that's what some Edwardian told me.

Democrats supporting their party's candidate is a triumph of democracy and unity.

Awesome how that distinction needed to be spelled out to you.

There should be no shame whatsoever in a candidate reaffirming support for the Party no matter who the eventual nominee is.

...and I doubt that many democrats will either. What we are talking about is the democratic party, not some shadow look alike with DINOs and strings to big money financial interests and undercover war mongers.

Oh, wait.

But, this country is in deep trouble and we don't have that luxury.

If you vote for a third party or not at all...IT'S A VOTE FOR THE REPUBLICAN!

...The U.S. Constitution? The Bill of Rights? Or right to have free and open elections? Our rights to be fully represented and heard in government at all levels? Which of these and other ideals and principles do we as Democrats have to set aside to keep the United States of America a free and open society? Or is that now an idea which belongs only in memory?

There really is no other option.

If our candidate is Biden or Kucinich, I will vote happily for either of them. In fact, I will be ecstatic! As for the others, I will vote for them because of SCOTUS. I am approaching the end of my reproductive years, but I want all women to continue to have freedom of choice & I just do not think any of our candidates will nominate a anti-choice SCOTUS judge.

:thumbsup:

if he doesn't I'll vote for the Democrat nominee

But I fear you're right.

I would think the strategey would be NOT to put someone in there that has the greatest chance to lose the south, lose Florida, lose Ohio and divide the left and center.

You say "there's too much at stake"? PROVE it. You'd be playing Russian Roulette with four bullets if she was your nominee.

Are you nuts? Eight years of this shit is eight years too many. I would rather leave this sorry country to its well deserved fate if the GOP retains power in 2008.

There are millions of Americans that have already given up on the political system, and they view all politicians as corrupt and pathological liars, and they are seething with anger.

The ones that voted, voted overwhelmingly against the incumbents, regardless of their party.

I have to admit that I am getting more and more excited about the prospect! I really wanted Gore to jump in, but I'd be super-psyched with President Obama!!!

and not somebody who has spent the last 8 years enthusiastically collaborating with Bush at every oppertunity up to the present day.

Lately I've noticed a lot of posts that seem to discourage and/or be afraid of initiating or encouraging debate (Like if you disagree with Hillary, Obama, Edwards, or whoever, at any given time, you are somehow 'Dem Bashing'. Basically, stuff that infers that if DUers disagree with one another or engage in debate about a politician, idea, etc., somehow, we are traitors.

I find this extremely disturbing for several reasons:

1) We are not, and have never been, followers for political positioning - and, sure, while this may have cost us elections, the underlying values were honest and principled - aka I could sleep well at night;
2) If the party is so weak as to not withstand honest debate, it is not a party I care to support;
3) Progressives have consistently pounded upon the GOP for blindly following the herd - isn't expecting all DUers to 'fall in line' pretty much the same thing?

Fact is, if the nominee is not someone I feel confident about and believe in, I may just stay home or write in someone else. But, that IS my prerogative. And, unless the Democrats can find their collective backbones and put up a candidate with a backbone, I probably will.

BTW - I've been a district captain for many, many, years - so, it's not like I wouldn't LOVE to feel confident about a nominee. But, I've gone 'against my gut' and worked my butt off during two presidential campaigns since 1972 and I won't do it again.

Either you are a Democrat, or you are not. If you will not vote for the Democrat, you are a Republican enabler and nothing else. It is your prerogative to be so.

I am very glad that you can sleep well. The citizens of Iraq are not afforded that luxury, in part due to the 90,000 Floridians who decided to vote for Nader out of "principle."

You may debate about the relative merits of our candidates all you like. Feel free to go ahead and do so. You may even choose not to vote for them. Nobody here can stop you.

Nader was not a factor. Fact is, until Democrats have the will/guts to act like Democrats - fearless, noble, and honest - whatever the political cost - they will never win. Continuing to act like modified Republicans will just further humiliate the once noble party.

I agree the Democrats need to run more to the left. Refusing to vote for them does not make them do that. Rather, it makes them decide the left is unreliable, and to run to the center instead.

All this in no way takes away from the responsibility Nader-voters must have for their war. You cannot decide what kind of campaign the Democrat runs. You can only decide if you'd rather see the Democrat or the Republican win. By voting for Nader, 90,000 Floridians decided that making a statement was more important than preventing the Republican from winning. They made their statement. The Republican won. Good for them. Hope they enjoy the war.

we handed them the majority. And, what did they do with it? Reverted to their comfort zone - modified Republicans.

has opposed Bush in 84% of votes (the other 16% were broken by a small faction of defecting Democrats, not by a broad consensus). That is the highest recorded level of opposition in 50 years. They have increased funding for scholarships, passed strict ethics reforms, the 9/11 commission reforms, and increased veterans' funding, and have increased the minimum wage. They have been repeatedly defeated on other fronts--most notably Iraq--by a President with a veto stamp and a Senate with a Republican filibuster once per week. That does not mean they are Republicans. That means they are being stalled by Republicans. That means there needs to be more Democrats.

the rules that would have allowed them to fight more fervently to promote their objectives. In multiple cases, they have chosen to fold rather than challenge.

Is that grounds to call them "Republicans?" Only if you have all the perspective of an earthworm. The level of opposition they've showed is practically unprecedented, and their losses have come when the party was unable to act and vote as a cohesive bloc. Perhaps there is a lesson there for you.

The unions have it right: United we bargain. Divided we beg.

Watch the replay of the Cheney Impeachment embarrassment on C-SPAN and you might understand what I mean. Repeatedly, polls have shown that the public is SCREAMING out for accountability, investigations and MOST support impeachment hearings on Cheney. But, what did the Dem so-called 'leadership' do? They opted for the politically expedient path of least resistance.

This type of cowardice only emboldens the Republicans (and, some Independents) who view them as weak, flip floppers who will do anything to hold onto whatever 'power' they think they have.

No one forced them to do that.

The RNC would really like to see the purists throw another tantrum over a perfectly good candidate, like they did in 2000.

That has little to do with what is going on now.

Nader is an egocentric bastard;
Americans were gullible;
Dems (national campaign staff) were lazy and arrogant and/or so afraid of making a misstep, they took NO steps at all.

They are light years better than any of the Republicans.

They don't understand that it sometimes takes a long, long, time for things to change, but, that the underlying science is sound and supported by evidence. Those who would rather trade their principles for political expediency would have you believe you should modify your beliefs and compromise your positions because some are too slow and/or impatient to let them stand up against the 'test of time'.

Many here do not understand that political change in America is a slow, deliberative process, and that refusal to support the more-liberal mainstream party handicaps that process of change.

You can't modify principle, honor, or fact to 'fit' political expediency or election year politics -- you need to PROVE through a courageous and unwavering stance that your party and its ideas, principles, and beliefs will provide the best future for America and the World. That is why the Dems will continue to lose -- sadly, it's as if they don't even believe in themselves.

I simply think you miss a greater one. Hardliners and purists who reject compromise do not win elections. They are relegated to the fringe.

HAND the country over to the fringe. Dukakis and Kerry proved that for all the world to see. The 2000 debacle was an anomaly - the convergence of Nadar and a less than judicial, judiciary. If you and other Dems want to keep losing, keep nominating 'marginally' progressive, principled, candidates.

SCOTUS

or her. ;)

:hi:

I'll support the Democratic nominee in spite of odious loyalists such as yourself.

Perhaps it has occurred to you that there is more than one person in the world who believes that we should vote for the Democrat no matter what.

...these people need a wake up call. I believe the "beltway mentality" has been pulled in way too tight around their throats...their throats...their throats...their throats...their throats...!

That decision will be made after the convention.

:hi:

with the message that I believe there are no alternatives.

because the prospect of not voting for the Democrat in 2008--especially given the Supreme Court--is so irresponsible that I cannot consider it.

...That is a rather high minded perception of one who associates with Democrats who believe in the Constitution of the United States and equality of and for all citizens

and that was the short form of the national motto (expanded, meaning King of Kings, Ruling over Kings.). Although the Byzantines did have an emperor (called the Basileus, or more properly Basileus Rohomaion, meaning King of Romans), at the same time they remained the center of art, law, theology, and philosophy in Europe for the thousand years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, until they:

1. Had a series of bad rulers.
2. Were stabbed in the back by the religious-zealot Crusaders.
3. Were conquered by the high-tech weapons of the Turks.

They were the greatest nation in European history, with the longest (as there is an unbroken chain of rulers to the founding of Rome) and most poetic history. And most schoolchildren only give them a passing mention, despite being the bulwark against ignorance and fanaticism that protected and preserved the cultural history of Europe through the medieval ages.

This is ridiculous that this question even has to be asked.

Do we HAVE to do this ever couple of days?

Apparently so.

I must have missed the other polls. I thought I was being original.

:thumbsup:

I apologize, and I'm a bit embarrassed.

without hesitation