How can a candidate unite the country, if he/she

cannot get at least a majority vote in the primaries/caucuses and unite the party?

We are headed for another "hold your nose" and vote election in November, and that doesn't bode well for the party, IMO.

Where is Al Gore when you need him?

More importantly, how can she win?
That is a better question.

Regardless of who is elected, though....we, the people, need to take back this country from those who bribed it away from the politicians who were supposed to be representing US.

to hell with "uniting the country." All that means is that we will have to get in bed with the corporatists who run the country now.

We, the people, have to take back this country from those who have a stranglehold on it.

Reality check: This election---including the primaries/caucuses---aren't about us. It's about the candidates and those who bankroll their campaigns.

Follow.the.money.

The Republicans seem far more divided on their candidates than we do on ours. The top three for us have consistently been (alphabetical order here) Clinton, Edwards, Obama

McCain, who was fourth in Iowa placed first in New Hampshire. Huckabee, who was first in Iowa was third in NH. Thompson, who was third in Iowa, barely registered in NH.

I know many progressives don't like Hillary, but she still enjoys a lot of support. And most of us will unite behind our nominee, whoever it may be. Now look at the Republicans, the evangelicals are not going to be enthusiastic about anyone other than Huckabee. But, the corporate types of the Republican party are not comfortable with him.

So see, it is not such a bad thing that we have healthy debate in the primary and don't rush to secure a nominee, because we are still more unified than the Republicans.

The Repigs seem to be congealing around McCain, and they will unify their party by making Fuckabee their VP nominee.

Many people like *all* of our candidates. Picking one over the others to vote in a primary or caucus does not always indicate that the others would be unacceptable. Democratic favorability polls indicate that the party would unite behind any of them.

The Democratic Party isn't DU. Just because "we" tend to obsess over one candidate and detest the rest doesn't mean anything.

TZ is correct. I'm still undecided, but will be satisfied with anyone of the top three.

is way too simplistic for the real dynamics happening here.

I believe that there are MANY more people who "detest" the "front runners" than usual, and it's not because they "obsess" over one candidate in particular.

What is detested is not the candidates themselves, but what they stand for.

When the "front runners" are as centrist and corporatist as this group is, it's more likely that MORE people find them ALL unacceptable.

Yes, there are still plenty of people who will never look past the campaign hype and media spin to notice, and will vote for the eventual nominee.

There are still plenty who will buy into the "lesser of two evils" voting strategy.

The number that won't do either of the above, though, is growing. Even if enough people unite to defeat the republican in the GE, assuming that election fraud doesn't play a part, the Democratic Party is not united behind the platform of the eventual "winner," which does not bode well for that person's term in office, or for the overall health of the party in the long run.

most formidable candidate - the guy who already won once - chose not to run. A huge disappointment for me and even some republicans I know who were eager to vote for him. I respect his decision, but I'm still not happy about it.

... Lincoln would have NEVER been elected and and "compromise" would have left people enslaved for many more years.

Just sayin'. :shrug:

People may well be ready to unite behind a candidate, but the MSM and party leadership get to choose which one.

but even if one candidate was winning 52% to 30% to 18% that still would not mean that the party was united. That 48% could completely despise the majority candidate. Typically at some point, candidates B and C encourage all their supporters to support the winning candidate and I am sure that will happen again.

At this point I am still hopeful. Hillary has a lead and some momentum, but even in her "victory", 62% of New Hampshire voted for "Not Hillary". Although I am not that impressed with Obama and his bi-partisan rhetoric, it will not bother me too much if that 62% unites behind Obama. I will be happy to support him in the General Election. I think he differs significantly from Hillary

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt

I see there are the people in their 40's who want a president closer to their age , this is what happened with Clinton with rock the vote and MTV and bush sr was a real horror show just like bush jr is in a different way .

There are still elements of race and the female issue which I don't believe for a second has changed suddenly as people would chose to believe , they shoot right past this issue as if it does not exist .

And of course the media plays their role as the usual freak show .

To me it seems as if all reality has been stripped away and we are left with this surreal atmosphere where no one wants to bring on the truth for fear of losing something , the people who bring out the truth are left out of the picture on purpose .

It's early as well as late in this game since it began a year ago and has a year left to go all the while the criminal elements contiune to do their bidding .

I feel the worst is yet to come and anything can happen whether or not you chose your candidate it makes little or no difference .

This country united , right , we are still seeing smoke from the civil war .