There is not one Democratic candidate who I would not support for president

All this vitriol over one Democrat candidate or another is revolting. Sure there are some who I really like and others who I might have to hold my nose a bit when I pull the lever. But all these people who say "I would never vote for Hillary because she voted for the war," or "I won't vote for Edwards because he lives in a big house," or "Obama doesn't have enough experience" are just helping to put another Republican into the presidency.

We have a de facto two party system in America. It's not what I like, but it's what we have. There are two choices for president: a Democrat or a Republican. Either/or. There is no third choice. Protest vote? You're helping the Republicans. Anyone who says they cannot support the Democratic candidate is, in essence, helping to extend the policies of Bush. I, for one, would rather see my least favorite Democratic candidate as president than Giuliani, or McCain, or Romney, or whichever fascist the Republicans will put up in '08.

Yes, let's have a good clean debate over who to vote for in the primary. But let's do it based on the qualities of who you like rather than ripping the Democrat that you don't. When the primaries are over and the Democratic candidate is chosen, let's all get behind him or her and work together to take back the White House.

as I, and I told her many on DU were negative about XXX, and she said, "But she/he is a Democrat!" Exactly.

My choice is Edwards, but whoever gets the nomination is going to be a far cry from any Republican, so I'll have no qualms about my vote.

I never jumped into the fray of the 2004 primaries, and wont do it this time either. There is no point in eating our own.

-chef-

those who won't will throw away a vote on a non-viable third party candidate in protest or not vote at all, essentially giving one to the republic party for free.

If we keep electing moderates, how do we ever get back to where we were in the liberal/conservative spectrum? Cause all you apologists seem to favor continuing to take the "bitter pill," but it seems as though the bitter pill became the normal pill, and now we're looking at an even more bitter pill.

Now everyone hates the president, the congress, and etc. Seems to me we have the chance to elect someone who could do as much as FDR with the favor we have, and yet Hillary is going to be the fucking choice. I won't vote, I live in Minnesota, don't worry about me.

'win'.

As I recall, Minnesota elected a Republican senator. Who's to say that a well financed, charismatic Republican can't come in and win your state. You have to look at how the media will portray the candidates and if a media darling like Giuliani gets the nomination (and don't say that it can't happen), it could be four more years of Republican rule.

And just as he should with the tide - he'll get dominated and dethroned by Al Franken next election cycle. You can't get much better than that. Norm Coleman is hardly well spoken, and hardly well financed. He's a laughing joke that had support from both parties due to his incoherant shifting.

The Republicans have no candidate that stands to offer any sort of challenge aside from McCain, and if he doesn't stop courting evangelicals and start thumping moderation he'll get destroyed by anyone who's name ends in (D).

Guilliani is pro-choice, pro-gay rights. I don't know more than that, but I do know that he could put a fucking D next to his name and you guys would all love him. Brand Label recognition is so much more fucking important than who they are.

We all know it's more effective to get a eye catching headline and follow with something relevant. Seems you lack the secondary characteristic of posting.

justifiably so, given Harry Reid's lovely performance with respect to something as pointless as a NON-BINDING resolution.

To blindly say, every democrat is worthy of my support is to be the mirror image of the rabid reicht. Life is not a series of binary choices. I have a serious problem supporting Hillary. If Edwards supports invading Iran, I will never vote for him and will actively seek someone else to support.

It is not that I am abandoning the Democrat party, but that elements have abandoned me. There is no place in politics to become bootlickers of ultra-religious morans, simply because our educational system has permitted 20-30% of the population become willfully ignorant and self-destructive. If a democratic candidate will pursue the same Iraq and Iran policies that exist today, the same environmental, the same educational, the same defense spending, the same science and faith based initiatives, what is the bloody point?

It just may be that some Democratic candidtes cannot be totally "ideologically" pure and get elected.This is still a conservative country whether we agree with those views are not and we must get progressives ELECTED first before we institute change.We don't get people elected by expressing contempt for the other side and their viewpoints. We need GOP votes, and moderate cotes to win.It may have escaped your notice but not everyone in the Democratic Party thinks the same and neither does everyone in this nation.Even if we got every far left vote , we wouldn't win. Nuff said.A third party is a bad idea.

Where do you have this evidence of a growing 3rd party movement? 85% of Nader's supporters bailed out on him in 2004. Most people learned the mistake of buying his Gore=Bush lies.

and I voted Peace & Freedom in 1968. He almost elected Dewey & I did help elect Nixon. We both agreed that 3rd party candidates aren't electable and I think examples from the Know Nothings to Ross Perot have proved that. It's a waste of time and energy.

about foreign affairs. Fuck his house. I don't give a flying flip about that.

Edwards is just as scary to me regarding foreign affairs, diplomacy and national security as Bush. Granted, Edwards isn't as stupid, but he's still naive on these issues.

Whereas any Republican would let the neocon cabal be their advisers. If this was the era when the GOP nominated people like Ike then I might agree with you. But there's no possible way that Edwards could be any worse than a Republican.

I doubt he'll get the nomination, but, if he does, my one vote won't matter. He won't carry my state, leaving me free to pick a third-party or write-in candidate.

:shrug:

I like Edwards, but I would have no problem supporting Hillary, Obama, Richardson or whomever wins the Democratic nomination.

A President Hillary Clinton sounds a lot better than a President McCain IMO.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795

a position that we should all consider.

Or, just about anywhere.

I agree in theory with Jefferson, but that doesn't change the fact that the next president will be either a Democrat or a Republican. I would like it to be a Democrat.

What we really need is an overhaul of the election process. Having some form of IRV would solve many problems

The politicians of both parties are invested in keeping the "two party system" and aren't about to cut their own throats by instituting anything that threatens the status quo. Meekly submitting as votes that can be counted on no matter who the candidate or the platform does nothing but preserve the system.

All that I'm saying is that candidates have to work for my vote not merely rely on the "not as bad as a Republican" mantra that so many use while working against what I believe in.

Things have indeed changed over the last 200 years. Mostly for the worse, because of an iron bound 2 party system in which politicians get elected with only getting reelected as their priority.

There have been several strong showings by 3d party candidates since the 1960s. As the GOP squanders whatever sense of honor, respect, and honesty that it once held, it will continue to turn into a party of two - PNAC neoconman-ism and the ultra-religious christians. All others, moderates, conservatives and even liberal GOPers (They used to exist in abundance before being pushed out the the likes of Helms, DeLay and other creeps.)

But if the democrats, through the DLC and other inside the bloatway brain trust, actively sell their souls and pursue the ultra-religious at the expense of what is right, ethical and good social and foreign policy, and if they triangulate (pronounced strangulate) positions, if they poll to death an issue before even daring to take a position, and even then, make it so nuanced, so pre-programmed and so computer generated, that it loses all meaning by design, (hi Hill, how was new hampshire? Take any stances recently?) and if they shift to the GOP position just to get elected, how is American served?

I submit that there is little difference between the Democrat Party and the Republic Party of today, simply a matter of degree. How many brave and true democrats voted for the most outrageous and destructive, corrosive and invasive Bankruptcy Deform legislation? One that rewards big corpa, and punishes the little guy. Way too many Dems did.

How many turncoats forgot their sworn oaths to protect the constitution and passed, not once, but TWICE, the PatRiot act which is anything but? And now the Justice Department is training exec departments and commissions on how to delay and avoid Congressional oversight and investigations? And now we are surging into IraqNam, without armor, without a plan, without a reason, only to turn 21,000 more boys and girls into moving targets? And the best our senate can do is NOT EVEN VOTE ON A NON-BINDING RESOLUTION?

This country was not always the way it is now. Such an obvious rug to pull out from under an argument.

Saying that there is little difference between the Democratic and Republican parties is preposterous. That's what people were saying back in 2000 - Bush and Gore were too much alike. I'll I agree that they often vote together on bad legislation, you sited some good examples. But there are huge ways that they would be different (Supreme Court nominations comes to mind).

Take a look at the Republican candidates who are running in 08. McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Brownback, etc. Do you like any of them? Would you like to see one of them as your next president? Well, it's going to be one of them or the Democratic candidate.

Until this country gets some form of Instant Runoff Voting, any third party candidate will only splinter off from the party that he/she most resembles. I would love to see a change, but it's not going to happen before 08.

oh, wait. no, he didn't.

quite a number of our founders objected to parties, didn't like them, didn't want them, but weren't able to counter them in any meaningful way, if they even tried. it wasn't long before they all went along.

the only difference was that in those days, the parties weren't so entrenched. today, it's nearly inconceivable to have anything other than the democrats, the republics, and the occassional third-party noise.

As for Jefferson et al not liking parties, I agree with them.

but in practice, it's how the game is played and there's not much to be done about it.

Or the Democratic-Republican Party, as it was known then.

I love you applegrove :hug:

That's what I want to see from these candidates. Leadership. Let's have some of that.

:pals:

There are plenty of Democrats who I will not support for president. I don't need to engage in vitriol (caustic criticism) to say so, though.

I can criticize without being caustic, and I will. Giving reasons for opposition, or for withholding support, is not vitriol.

You say: We have a de facto two party system in America. It's not what I like, but it's what we have.

I say: If you don't like the 2-party system, don't enable it with the worn-out rhetoric you've used to justify participation.

For me, I'm a Democrat, not because I'm going to enable the dysfunctional 2-party system, but because the Democratic Party, unlike the Republican, still has a chance to earn my support. There are still plenty of Democrats I can and will vote for.

I say, though: I will never put party power goals ahead of issues. The only reason to support a candidate, or a party, is to move forward on issues. If the Democratic Party fields a candidate that will not move forward on the issues that bring me to the voting booth to begin with, that candidate will not get my vote. That's not vitriol; it's a simple statement of fact. It's also not support for Republicans, and no amount of false rhetoric will make it so.

I say: I don't owe my vote to anyone. Political parties, and candidates, EARN my support and my vote. If a candidate, or a party, is not interested in earning my vote, that's their choice. The candidates, and the party is accountable for the votes they earn, or don't. If the Democratic Party doesn't value my vote, I'm disappointed, but can accept that. I would like to think the party has enough integrity to, in return, accept the votes lost to other, more pressing agendas without blame.

A good, clean, primary. Tell you what? I will continue to tell people why primary candidates don't have my support, expressing opposition as cleanly as possible. I will also be happy to tell people why some candidates are worthy of my vote. When I no longer read or hear reasons why the best candidates can't ever be nominated, when I see a determined party effort to field candidates based on record and issues rather than money, power, physical attributes, and media hype, I'll agree to pull the lever for any "D" nominated.

Until then, I'll keep it clean, but I'll keep it clear, too. My vote does not belong to any candidate who I don't feel comfortable voting for.

For now, at least, the next president is going to be either a Republican or a Democrat. That's not supporting worn-out rhetoric, it's reality. I tend to agree with the issues more with the Democratic candidates than I do with the Republican ones, and I'm sure you'll agree.

I'm a democrat because I tend to agree with more of them on the issues. The 2008 candidate is going to be a republican or a democrat. I agree with that, too.

I simply have reached the point that, if the Democratic party chooses to nominate someone that I don't think will get the job done on critical issues, I'm not going to vote for them. In that situation, I have no voice whether or not I vote for the Democrat. The only voice I have is my vote, and I won't throw it away. Once in office, a democrat who does not work for the issues I cast my vote to influence will not benefit those issues.

I read. I listen. I don't like what I see or hear. I see a party, and some candidates, that take me, and my support/vote, for granted. I see legislators that don't have a concern about the conditions I work in, or about my profession. They talk big, but when it's time for action, they work against me.

Do I write letters? You bet. Guess what I get back? Condescending form responses explaining how I'm wrong. Patronizing responses. Or responses that ignore the issue I wrote about to give me a goddamned campaign speech.

Do I contribute time and $$? Yes. To those democrats who work for what is impacting my life. Do I vote? Yes. But not for those who aren't working for me.

If every primary candidate can agree on these things, without equivocation, I'll cast a vote for any of them in the general election:

Stop funding Iraq and bring troops home now.

Universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care.

Repeal nafta/cafta and the patriot act.

Do not renew NCLB or support any other form of high-stakes testing for public education.

Universal public preschool - college or trade school.

Some version of a fairness doctrine, or something else to combat the propaganda on the airwaves 24-7.

Restore, strengthen, and extend civil liberties.

There are plenty of other important issues that I'd like to see action on, but if the party would like a blanket "I'll pull the lever for any democrat" commitment from me, all democratic candidates will make the above a high priority, with actions as well as words. These are the vote makers or breakers for me.

What is this, Seinfeld Underground?

:spray: :yourock:

Hey, I didn't like Kerry, but I still supported him all the same. The same will happen if Hillary or Biden get nominated.

so far up the ass of aipac and AEI that if he ran, he'd run into fecal matter so dense that his brains would collapse from the gravitational pull.

If the final Democratic choice doesn't represent my beliefs, I might wind up not voting at all. The good thing is that the only choice I'm not considering right now is Hillary... and she still has time to make me change my mind about her.

I'll do what's necessary to get the Republicans out of the White House

Somebody out there is really going to choose not to vote for Edwards because of the Catholic blogger flap. The house is going to matter to someone else. If Obama doesn't fill in his experience gap, people will become uncomfortable with him. This is how candidates are chosen. People take their measure, discuss, read and learn, discuss some more, and vote. Why is this not supposed to be done on DU????

Dennis Kucinich. If Clark and Gore get in there would be three.

I would love to see a "good clean debate", but I don't hold out much hope. I do have personal preferences, but I hope to keep an open mind, and will ultimately vote dem regardless.

Any dem getting the nomination will be a vast improvement over anything the republiCONs will produce.

No doubt about that whatsoever. We can't always have everything we want. Politics is the art of compromise.

I won't support her. There is no way the DLC should be allowed to take the reigns of power, within the Democratic Party, again.

My first choice is Gore. I'm going to hope he decides to run, and when it is clearly shown he is not going to enter the fray, THEN, I will worry about where my support goes.

As far as Dems go, there's a lot of good choices. I like Edwards, Obama, Clark, Feingold, Kucinich... don't know much about Vilsack, but Rachel Maddow loves him so I would like to learn more about him. Even Hillary is better than any Repug nominee. I'm a registered Independent, but will be supporting Democrats in every race.

back the WH in 08, no matter what. I can't imagine anyone, especially a Democrat, willing to be part of another mess like we have now or worse.


I will vote for whomever gets the Democratic Nomination

To fight cancer with chemotherapy sometimes it is necessary to nearly kill the patient in the process. Chemo is a form of poison which is, often slightly, more poisonous to the cancer than it is to the patient.

Even though the patient is becoming sick, if the cancer is not yet in remission the doctor must continue the chemo.

Corporatism is a cancer on our body politic, if we discontinue the chemotherapy before corporatism is in remission then the body politic will eventually die of the cancer.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for the cancer of corporatism.