If Tim Roemer gets the DNC chair post, the party could split.

[Cascadian]

It should not be a surpirse to everybody that the DLC has placed Tim Roemer as a candidate for the chairmanship of the Democratic Party. He has been placed there to counter Howard Dean. It seems that Roemer's candidacy is gaining ground. I cannot believe Nancy Pelosi, a one-time firebrand liberal, has given her endorsement. Hasn't anybody sent Pelosi a letter about this? It seems to me that the DLC is making an attempt to shift the Democratic Party closer to the GOP's stance particularly in regards to abortion, gay rights, Iraq, and the whole thing. You know and I know this is unacceptable. Will progressives and liberals continue to support a party that is drifting closer to fascism? Why? If Roemer gets it does this mean Joe Lieberman will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008?

The wise decision should Mr. Roemer get the seat is to leave the sinking ship called the Democratic Party and make a new start of it in a new political party that will carry on the true Democratic Party values. I know this is not a popular idea but why would you want to be associated with a bunch of Republican wannabes and weak-knees? Ultimately, I would want to see the new party unite with other progessive and left third parties to form a united opposition coalition to get these bums out of office from the local level to the federal level.

The only candidates I see that are worth their salt in this are Dean and former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb. Other than that, I cannot see how the others will be affective. Roemer is too much of a DLC player to be DNC Chair and I would encourage anybody who plans to vote for the post, not vote for Roemer. Otherwise, the Democratic Party is finished.

John

[Mend]

1. Not one "red" cent

I would no longer donate to a "red" Democratic party.

[w13rd0]

2. Roemer will mean...

...that I will no longer feel compelled to keep trying to ride the dead donkey.

[sellitman]

3. Your vote doesn't matter anyway

It didn't in 2000.....it didn't in 2002 & 2004 why does any of this matter? We can have Barney as our DNC chair post. As long as the Pukes control the voting machine nothing else matters.

Nothing!

[Lorien]

35. In total agreement with posts #1,2, and 3

If the democratic party continues on it's red path, then I can't support it-and millions of others won't, either. We're doubly screwed; the machines are rigged, and the DLCers won't confront the fact that the machines are rigged; instead, they are working to kill liberalism from within. The DLC IS red! Their purpose was to drive the party right and ultimately destroy it. Many DLC leaders are "former GOP strategists"-there's nothing "former" about them, they are STILL GOP strategists, and they are winning.

Without a new voice to lead us out of the DLC darkness, the donkey is indeed dead.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

68. AND also that they're also in control of the media.

The media is either bribed or threatened into submission.

[Cascadian]

4. kick

[Al-CIAda]

5. Member of the 9-11 Whitewash cOmission? no thanks -eom

[Cascadian]

6. That's another reason not to support him.

Roemer's win to the DNC seat will further show that this country's democracy is a mockery. The Democratic Party needs a whole new direction. Let's get rid of the people currently running it and bring in a new team that will revive the populism and progressivism it once had.


John

[KittyWampus]

7. Where's Your Proof Roemer Is Gaining Ground? The Supposed Pelosi

endorsement happened ages ago.

Meanwhile, Dean seems to have LOTS of support with daily announcements of endorsements for Chair.

Your harping about DLC leads me to believe that your REAL purpose in this post is to divide Democrats.

In fact your entire post leads me to that same conclusion.

[Cascadian]

10. The fact is that the party is already divided.

No matter what your conclusion to what my view is. However, your assumption of me is wrong. The fact of the matter is that the DLC wants Roemer to win. Look what they did to Howard Dean during the primaries last year. Do I see a repeat? It is possible. We must hope for the best but prepare for the worst. I am not advocating the break-up of the Democratic Party but let's face the facts. The rift between the mushy middle, DLCers and the lefties and progressives does exist. To who the Democratic Party selects as their chair will set the direction to where the party goes.


John

[KittyWampus]

15. YOU Said Roemer Is Gaining Ground. Please Cite Some Proof.

Otherwise, your entire post was fearmongering.

[Cascadian]

20. You want proof?

DLc member are you? Although not openly, the DLC is backing Roemer. Not only Pelosi is backing Roemer but Nevada Senator Harry Reid. Both leaders of the House and Senate respectively. Those are significant endorsements in my view. According to the South Bend (IN) Journal, he is getting support by two congresswomen from California, Anna Eshoo and Ellen Tauscher. Other endorsements are from former U.S. Sen. John B. Breux, D-La, Indiana Democratic Party Chairman Dan Parker, former Rep. Lee Hamilton, of Indiana, Rep. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, Scott Patrick, an at-large DNC member who is a former DNC treasurer, former U.S. Sen. Max Cleland, of Georgia, among others. The endorsements are a huge mistake.

[KittyWampus]

30. Did You Change The Thread Title To Mask Your Disuptive Intent?

you are transparent.

[Cascadian]

32. There was no disruptive intent but I was a little agitated.

I had a second thought and changed the title. I do not like to be pidgeonholed. Obviously you do not like my view on what has been happening with the Democratic Party and you are just as entitled to you opinion as I am, but when you push somebody and make assumptions then it causes friction and it's something I have trouble with. Now you know.

John

[K-W]

48. You are being WAY too pessimistic, and unreasonable.

And the truth is that parties dont change overnight, never have, never will. The party shifted left because there were independent movements that got people to vote for liberal candidates.

Expecting the party to just up and shift with no electoral pressure from massively organized liberals is historically ludacris. The very fact that howard dean is being considered should give us all hope.

Your spinning it into a discourage defeat bothers me alot.

[Cascadian]

54. Of course it should give us all hope.

But let's not look at what is happening with rose tinted glasses. The DLC is a cancer for the Democratic Party and what is disturbing is that they have corporate money behind them and that speaks volumes. It is no secret that the DLC does not like Dean and I am convinced they will try to wreck him a second time around. Don't you understand? I hope he does get the chair. I really do but there is nothing wrong in watching our backs.


John

[K-W]

58. Nobody is wearing rose tinted glasses.

Nothing I have said is in the least bit romantisized or optimistic.

If we dont do something, nothing will change.

That isnt rose colored glasses Cascadian, its realism.

The DLC isnt cancer. The DLC is group of democratic politicians who enjoy power because they won elections when liberals were losing elections.

The DLC will try to stop Dean. And if they have more political power than we do right now, they very well might succeeed.

But so what? If we want to replace the DLC we have to do the same thing that they did. WIN ELECTIONS. Until we get liberals and progressives elected, we cannot have high expectations of the party.

The fact is that the party is a formal structure with access to power. It is not the people in it today that we should worry about. It is the people in it in a few years after we have tried to WIN ELECTIONS and take power.

[K-W]

38. That isnt even remotely accurate.

The future of the democratic party wont be decided by the chairman right now. It doesnt matter who gets it. If progressives cant build an electoral block to suppor thier issues, progressvism will fail to get power whether dean is in or not.

And if Roemer is in, and progressives get enough supporters to weild power at elections, the party will shift left without howard dean.

This is an extremely unimportant selection. And if you think Superman Howard Dean is going to singlehandidly make a party full of centrists progressive you are lost.

[Cascadian]

46. Here is what is accurate.

The fact is how long are those on the left and the progressives are going to allow to see the party become a clone of the Republican Party? Not for long I would think.


John

[K-W]

51. Do you think liberals are wizards?

That at the sight of our frustration the world will bend to meet us?

We are on the historically weak side of a political battle older than this country.

I dont know how long the left will let this happen, but it is up to the the left to stop it by organizing, forming and infrastructure and spreading our ideas.

If we do that the party will become a formality, as we will control who wins democratic primaries with our populist base.

If we dont do that, it doesnt f'n matter who is in washington. As long as centrist votes and corporate money spell electoral success, corporations and centrists will run the party.

Its just that simple.

[Cascadian]

37. Pelosi DID in fact endorse Roemer.

Do a Google news search and you'll find it everywhere. Once again you are wrong to assume I want to break up the Democratic Party. Who on earth are you to accuse me of this?

John

[Clark2008]

89. I was wondering about this, too.

From everything I've been hearing, the players are Dean, Frost and Rosenberg.

:shrug:

[tx_dem41]

8. Well, since he has no chance of getting it...

its a moot point. Not sure why its even worth discussing, unless one relishes in dividing the party.

[Cascadian]

11. Once again.....your view of my post is just specualtion.

I am not advocating the breakup of the party but I am just telling what I think is happening and the fact is that the party is divided at this time. The party is at a crossroads. Either it returns to the left and champions the progressive agenda and become fighters or keep the status quo or worse be more like the Republicans. The question is where is the party going to go?


John

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. Because if we don't discuss these problems NOW

then the DEM party will definitely split and I will be going with the progressives.

Wake up and smell the roses before it is too late.

[Cascadian]

13. That is what I am talking about.

Alarm bells are ringing, people. Time to wake up!


John

[tx_dem41]

14. And you are doing a very good job....

at ringing them.

I think we should try to as narrowly define our party as possible and then commence with the purging. This philosophy has a wonderful track record in history.

I see a great deal of dialogue going on in the party that is constructive in nature. Aren't you following these stories (e.g. Hillary's statements re: abortion last week). The party is about 99% solid on Social Security (just follow the stories of supposedly "wishy-washy" Congressmen/Senators publicly stating that they are against privatization).

Look back at the great years of FDR. The party was strong, and that was with a weird mix of Northern Liberal congressmen and Southern Conservatives (to the core)! The "utopia" you are looking for NEVER has occurred! Why? because you end up with no one on your side.

[Cascadian]

16. We do not need any conservatives in the party.

Let them have the Republican Party. Democrats need to better define themselves and it's by not trying to be like Republicans. I am afraid the tactics it has been using has proved to be a failure and we must shift away from the Republican Lite option.


John

[tx_dem41]

17. Well, what would you have us do?

Specifically, on issues.....

[Cascadian]

22. We need to not "go along to get along" with the GOP.

We cannot support them in issues like foreign policy, social security, labor issues, free trade, defense, homeland security, Iraq, Iran, moral issues, the environment, chocolate...EVERYTHING! Every damn issue we have to make a stronger stand against their agenda. We do not need a party that is not able to be effective as an opposition party.

Should I cite some more?


John

[tx_dem41]

23. You didn't answer my question. You just gave an "anti-Republican"

list of generalities. A platform that is solely "anti-Republican" is just as bad as one that is "Republican-lite".

We need people to know what we are FOR, not what we are against.

[Cascadian]

26. We obviously have to offer the country solutions.

But do it in a way to show them we are looking out for them more than the Republicans are. Universal or affordable Health Care, apprenticships programs for jobs, keep Social Security public, energy alternatives, humanitarian programs, stronger workers rights, diplomatic solutions instead of invading countries we deem as "threats". The list is endless. We need some spinsters to convince mainstream America that it will benefit them.


John

[tx_dem41]

28. We agree on that. Thanks, for answering. n/t

[Cascadian]

43. I am sorry I was vague.

I have a habit of letting the passion get in the way of my critical thinking and there is a tendency to generalize but if does come from the heart.

Always a pleasure.


John

[Lefty48197]

9. If they don't nominate Howard Dean

I'm leaving the Democratic Party.

[patricia92243]

18. Probably me too. I just wonder if Dean will quit being the Democratic

water boy and break off into a new party.

[tx_dem41]

25. No, Dean is loyal to the party.

Thank goodness some are.

[Lefty48197]

91. btw, I was just kidding when I said I would leave the party

I like to make fun of those that really think that way.

[Walt Starr]

19. David Frost, too

since he'll make Lieberman "the voice of the Democratic Party"

:eyes:

I am firmly NBD. If anybody esle gets it, I'll be firmly convinced the Democratic Party is D-E-A-D!!

[tx_dem41]

50. errr...Martin Frost.

David Frost!?! ...I spent 10 seconds trying to figure out the connection between David Frost and Lieberman. Don't do that again!:-)

[Walt Starr]

88. D'OH!

:+

[KissMeKate]

21. It will be Rosenberg.

He is the stealth DLC style candidate and the DNC is counting on not enough progressives to know about him so we will stay compliant and quiet when he gets it.

Roemer and Frost are just the appointed boogeymen.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

24. if roemer gets the chair i leave for Greener pastures!

[orpupilofnature57]

27. Standing up for the idea of (PROGRESSIVE) was the first mistake.

The very mention of the word smacks of lite sycophancy.

[Cascadian]

29. Any alternatives to the words "progressive" or "liberal"?

eom


John

[orpupilofnature57]

33. Don't need one for Liberal,unlike Progressive an ambiguous word.

[K-W]

36. Yah, liberal is so clearly defined in America today,

What on earth are you talking about?

[orpupilofnature57]

42. Whats eroding the party, progressives!!

[K-W]

45. Please do not post here if you hav no intention of discussing.

We dont need half sentances and inflamatory unsupported statements.

Those do not a discussion make.

[orpupilofnature57]

70. Did you have something with actual, content?

[K-W]

71. In response to those people who have posted full thoughts,

I have had plenty of content. For you to post only crytpic nonsensical posts and then critisize me for responding without content is a bit laughable.

[orpupilofnature57]

72. Check out reply #33 a full thought or Drive- By statement?

HOW ARE YOU AT KEEPING FACTS STRAIGHT FOR SHORT SPANS OF TIME.

[K-W]

74. Wow, you managed to articulate one simple statement.

Without anything to support it, on one post of this thread.

[orpupilofnature57]

76. Sorry ,I meant #36 when you attacked liberals.

[patricia92243]

31. I wonder if the Party really understand how much danger they are in from

we, the people - if they don't listen to us and just go ahead and ramrod their own choice as head of the party. I really don't believe they know the dire consequences that will transpire if the Democrat Party is no longer a party of the people.


Their only hope will be if Dean still remains a Democrat.

[K-W]

34. Way to turn a positive into a negative.

We should see the consideration of Dean as a massive step forward whether he gets it or not.

Some of us are in this for the long hall. I dont mind that you want change overnight, but please dont discourage hardworking progressivs because of your unrealistic expectations.

[orpupilofnature57]

39. Effective means of change??Liberal ideals a little tough to chew??

[K-W]

41. What on earth are you talking about.

I did btw change my post, sorry about that.

But your post still isnt english. Try expressing complete thoughts.

[orpupilofnature57]

47. I'm sorry.what did you mean by effective change?It seemed vague.

[K-W]

49. Buy a dictionary.

It tells you what words mean, but heres a freebie.

Effective change means change that produces the desired effect.

[orpupilofnature57]

56. IS THAT A FAIRY TALE DICTIONARY?Explains animosity

By the way, effective and are two different words.

[K-W]

59. No, a real dictionary.

Effective is actually only one word.

[orpupilofnature57]

61. Thats good now where in the dictionary does it speak to "desired"

[K-W]

63. in the d section

Most dictionaries are in alphabetical order.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

77. I can't help but laugh

at some of the posts in this thread.

We should see the consideration of Dean as a massive step forward?

Does that mean that we should view it as, well they still won't let us out of time out but hey I was allowed to actually speak so i'll be happy with that and just wait it out here in the closet hoping maybe someday I can actually come out and play.

Does the Party realize what danger they are in if they push through their own agenda and ignore the base?

Why on earth would they even think they are in danger? Because they have felt the pressure put on them by the "Base" in the recent past?
Answer: No. If you are never made to behave then you probably never will. So why on earth should they start now. What they have been and are currently doing has worked for them in the past and I see no reason for them to feel the need to change now.

The problems as I see them are that our elected democrats have never been held accountable by this so called "base" that everyone keeps talking about. It should be pretty obvious that the message they have sent this mythical base is "we run this show and we are going to do things OUR way". And for the most part they have succeeded with little to no resistance. They tell this base who they are going to run for what and who will not be allowed. That has also worked for them. Then when it all fails, again, this "base" without fail, starts making all kinds of excuses fast and furious as to why it's not this one or that one's fault. Then they begin to dream up all sorts of scenarios of what is REALLY going on. The most recent that comes to mind was all the talk after the quick K/E concession was that was just a public display to hide what was REALLY going on behind the scenes or "under the radar" I believe was the most popular phrase. So everyone sat, and waited. Waited to find out what dynamic super hero thing they were doing that was going to expose the corruption and come through as the knights in shining armour. What did they do? Nothing. So, do I sympathize with the so called "alarmists"? Yes, yes I do. It has become the pattern of this country, including the "base" of the democratic party to sit and wait and HOPE there is something going on. And all the while be perfectly ok with the fact that nothing really significant is occurring and accepting the token bones being thrown as a sign that things are changing. Never really considering the possibility that this is the MO of our politicians and has been occurring for years but no one seems to ever catch on and realize they are being played. This happens with the BOTH parties. So, we the people can either sit here and be happy with the bones being tossed out on occasion and get a whole lot more of the same or we can revolt and make it clear this is OUR country and you work for US. Shape up of get the hell out! Question is, which do you choose?

I will give my disclaimer now that the contents of this post are my personal opinions and are directed an no one specific. Just the feelings I have on the subject. Nothing more, nothing less.

[American Tragedy]

79. How shall we revolt, exactly? Write angry letters? Threaten to leave?

I've been doing that for years.

[RobertKennedyjr]

40. Let it be know, any third party will not succeed and if the party ever

were to succeed, the success would likely only be short term. If you want change, this will have to come from within the Democratic Party. We must battle corruption because most Americans share this value. The electorate must elect progressive non corrupt leaders who are not corporate cronies.
We can elect a progressive leader who is pro life, but still pro gay rights, pro stem cell research, Anti Iraq war, believes health care is a right, gives everybody a chance to succeed and a second chance, helps people help themselves, a free college education, lower taxes for the middle class and against the corruption which is destroying the United States democracy.

[K-W]

44. The party is a reactionary strucuture it is incapable of leading change.

But it is extremely capable of giving us access to government if we build up our populist strength.

But some people here would like to close those doors forever because a massive social movement of marginalized people didnt just spring into existance overnight at the wave of Howard Dean's hand.

[welshTerrier2]

65. agree and disagree ...

i'm in full agreement with the idea that a long-term view is necessary ... and i strongly agree with your point that, whether one likes Howard Dean or not, it is more wise to invest in "the movement" than in celebrity ... if Dean is to be today's figurehead of the movement, no problem ... but the vision, as you pointed out must be a long-term vision not overly dependent on any specific person ...

so to that extent, i agree with your post ...

HOWEVER, i'm not necessarily in full agreement with your implied theme that change must occur from within the Party ... here's how i see it ... the Party is an established structure with access to power ... if we are able to gain a voice within the structure, that's probably the fastest way to "get a seat at the table" ... but if those currently holding power within the Party refuse to share power and if we are unable to gain a voice, alternatives are viable and well worth considering ... i have no disagreement with those who say third parties will not be winning elections (nationally) anytime soon ... i agree with that ... but "winning" is not the end goal of fledgling third parties ... the goal is to be given a greater voice ...

if a substantial exodus, say 25%, of Democrats left the Party and went to a third Party, i.e. they remained politically active and didn't just "drop out", the Democratic Party that was able to get them to vote ABB the last time would be forced to negotiate modifications to its platform to attract the "outsiders" ...

so, while I agree that working inside the Party is a better "first step", i don't see it as the only viable step ... i cannot imagine selling my soul to a Party that goes along with an illegal invasion, allows the super wealthy to own our government, and infringes on a woman's right to choose ... if I don't see "sharing of power" occurring under the big tent and the Party promotes a platform and candidates that are not at least reasonably inclusive of my values, I think it would be best to do all I could to force them to compromise ... and I think, in some circumstances, that the force i could bring to bear might be greater by leaving the Party ...

it's not a decision I'll make lightly ... but it is very definitely a possibility ...

[RobertKennedyjr]

69. You make good points

Those with a voice at the table are most likely corrupt, and therefore the idea of becoming the party against corporate cronyism is probably not going to happen. The choice is then left to the people to elect good nominees and I guess the way to do this is get the message out.

[orpupilofnature57]

52. Again,I believe you should be using the word Liberal, for those great..

Ideas. and welcome to DU.

[K-W]

53. You dont properly understand the terms.

Many people on the left are not liberals.

Progressive does not equal liberal.

Not to mention that the word liberal has ALOT of historical baggage.

[orpupilofnature57]

57. Progressive=guilty liberal, explains the animosity.

[K-W]

60. Once again you have made absolutely no sense. EOM

[orpupilofnature57]

64. SORRY, seemed unequivocal to me,I'll have to be more progressive.

[K-W]

66. No, im just asking for complete sentances

so I have a snowballs chance in heck of figuring out the ideas you are trying to communicate.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

81. Bullshit..........................

"Guilty liberal"? WTF is that supposed to mean? What is this liberal guilty of? Looking outside of the mainline democratic party agenda for solutions to political problems here in the US? I agree with K-W, please explain, succinctly, what you mean by "guilty liberal" please?

To counter your definition of "Progressive", I went to wikipedia and got a pretty good definition of how progressivism in the US is defined.

Social safety net
Those that work hard and play by the rules should receive a decent standard of living, as well as freedom, security, and opportunity.

Democracy
Minimize concentrations of political, corporate, and media power so that individuals have a stronger voice in their government. Publicly finance elections to reduce the influence of wealth in the political process. Improve public education, especially in civics and history so that more citizens can take part in the political process. Bring corporations under stakeholder control, not just stockholder control.

Larger role for government
Government provides public services that the private sector cannot or is not doing effectively, or ethically. Government should promote and, if possible, provide greater democracy, more freedom, a better environment, broader prosperity, better health, greater fulfillment in life, less violence, and the building and maintaining of public infrastructure.

Ethical business sector
In the course of making money by providing products and services, businesses should not adversely affect the public good, as defined by the above values.

Foreign policy
The same values governing domestic policy should apply to foreign policy whenever possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism#United_States

The word "liberal" has just been a placeholder of what is considered the political left, and a hunk of nomenclature to counter the "conservative" right. I see progressivism as a more detailed definition of what is considered one aspect of "liberal" politics in the US. "Guilty liberal" is just hogwash and doublespeak.

edit: poor grammar

[orpupilofnature57]

83. Enlightening, thank you for the definition,I stand corrected.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

84. Not a prob..........................

:thumbsup:

[DoYouEverWonder]

73. I think splitting the parties

both REP and DEM would be a good thing. A viable third (or more) party that appeals to progressives and moderates would be the nail in the coffin of both parties.

A lot of people are ready for major changes. That is why Ross Perot had so much appeal when he started out. Too bad his wackiness did him in and a little personal threat from Rove.

There are many countries that have multi-party systems. In order to get things done they form coalitions. I am sure that coalition building would become very important if there is a split in the parties here.

The only way we are going to change anything is to change ourselves. Don't be so afraid to try something new, it is the only way we will survive in the long run.

[tjdee]

55. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

The solution to the Republican machine is not to break into fifty little pieces.

If Dems are stupid enough to do that, I have to wonder what it is they're really trying to accomplish.

I don't imagine that will happen though--the individual candidates have more to do with the success of the Democratic Party than does the DNC chair.

[K-W]

62. Yep, its about restoring representatiion.

The right has, as they have done for just about eternity, has used varioius methods to marginalize the left.

This has led to a democratic party that contains a huge constituency on the left, but doesnt have many leftist elected officials because the playing field isnt level.

We have to counteract the power of the right and get people in office that reflect our views. If we do so, the party will shift accordingly.

It isnt about killing the centrists, its about giving them their proper amount of influence by balancing them out.

[tjdee]

67. I would agree with that...

Any time someone talks about splitting the party, or the party splitting, I just have to shake my head because the desired effect is to as you say, balance out the centrists.

Splitting in two doesn't do that.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

75. People who think that Dean is Liberal or Progressive are mistaken.

He's pro-gun, pro-death penalty, is not good on the environment at all. He's also very far to the right when it comes to criminal justice. The only reason he supported the gay unions thing was because he was "forced" into it.

Just because he "sounds" and "acts" Progressive doesn't mean that he is. You need to look at politicians records and not fall for their rhetoric.

Why is Dean so different from everyone else? Why is it always a case of "If I don't get my way, I'm taking my ball and going home." Or maybe I'm being unfair to Dean and it's his supporters who are the crybabies and bullies.

If one wants to "lead" a team - you need to know how to be a team player.

[orpupilofnature57]

78. To a liberal ,those are progressive views,or the difference between us.

[Cocoa]

80. you wish

the dem party isn't going to split over the DNC chair, this whole thing is being way exaggerated.

So various people have various preferred candidates, so what. That happens when the nominee is chosen for the presidential race, and the party lasts.

And the race for the nominiee is about ten zillion times more important than the one for the DNC chair.

[janx]

82. Not now it isn't. Because if the Dem party doesn't get its act

together, it won't matter who is nominated for president in 2008.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. I hope so. A split is long overdue.

Right now we have a party that is ideologically 1/2 center-left, 1/2 center-right.

As for myself, I'm switching to Green this year and will vote accordingly.

[orpupilofnature57]

87. Maybe thats it, evolution

[Stop_the_War]

86. If the Democratic Party becomes Republican-ish,

I will stop supporting it.

[Cascadian]

90. this really deserves....

one more kick!