Progressives only. Anyone but Clinton will not work. UNITE will work.

I'm polling progressives only. Moderates and fiscal conservatives please don't participate.

Progressives, only answer this poll if you will hold yourself morally bound to the winner of this poll if the total number of votes goes over 100.

Anyone but Hillary will not work in your primary.

I suggest people pick one viable candidate who appears the least conservative and will take a figurative flamethrower and scorch the Republican party and the Republican candidate to ashes in the general election campaign. For example one of the themes: Who lost the world trade center in 2001? The Republicans, weak on national security and defense.

Which of these viable candidates will you vote for? You will stay morally bound to the winner of this poll if the poll goes over 100 total votes. Don't vote if you will not stay bound to the winner of this poll.

PLEASE VISIT A NEW FORUM FOR PROGRESSIVES http://PROGRESSIVES.ACEBOARD.COM

:applause:

.

Didn't know that. :shrug:

Fiscally responsible does not appear conservative.

I would want congress to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for new social programs such as single payer universal health care.

Warren Buffet I imagine would not mind.

Some I'd be more happy about than others, but there's no dealbreaker (for me personally) like Senator Clinton in there.

I'm going to call Chris Dodd and tell him I WON'T be voting for him until he publicly spits on the CEO of Westinghouse and hobbles a Walgreen's manager with a sledgehammer like what'sername in Misery, or the GOP won't get any more insurance money. Or something.

You have a more optimistic assessment of the magnitude of DU than anyone else I've seen.

Oh, and I voted anyways.

Are most of us crazy left wingbats to you? I'd think that explains your feelings.

Most of my disagreements have to do with strategy or implementation. And I disagree less than people think because I generally don't contribute unless I have something novel to say, which is usually when I disagree. People post about things like how the phone companies are tapping our calls and I really don't have anything to add because I don't like it either.

can't all just because of strategical disagreement. At some level do you just ideologically disagree? After all sometimes it's better to be further left strategically. The Georgia Democrats have failed miserably in recent years because they've tried to be Republican-lite which is something the new party chair, Jane Kidd, thankfully realizes.

...before coming to that kind of conclusion.

from my impression. I saw the Nader video. Obsessed-much?

The first time at least. The second time, OK, I approached him.

Also if you'd been around, you'd know that the post-about-Nader-every-day thing has been going on for just about three months, though I've posted stuff about him before (especially in the run-up to the 2004 election).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3331917

You should put him in there to ruffle you know who's feathers.

TNAKS A FUCKLEN LOT

At least, that's who financed and ran his 2004 campaign.

Edwards is making some positive signs but his AIPAC Israeli-Palestinian policy won't solve the single biggest cause of the current middle east conflicts and thus is very regressive.

:bounce:

:eyes:

Edwards is the only candidate who is likely to convince General Electric to force Bush to resign.

kick

Are you kidding?

What precise criteria are you using to determine that Hillary is the anti-progressive-christ but Joe fucking Biden is an acceptable alternative??? :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: