OK, the next D nominee says.."Your either with us or with the terrorists"

[Nimble_Idea]

I have the same position as the previous commander in chief.
"Either your with us or with the terrorists"

Any comments?

[OrlandoGator]

1. Fine with me, so long as he (or she) doesn't create more terrorists.

That's the kicker.

[Nimble_Idea]

2. hey I like that

that's the spirit.

Yeah, the next president will surely do a better job at it.

[Catma]

3. I vote

third party out of hatred for the system as it is. Of course I'm already pretty close to doing this at the moment

[Nimble_Idea]

6. yeah but that could be anything

be a little more specific about your third party. For all we know it could be something more right of shrubya's clan.

having clarified your third party, I say vote your hearts content.

I watched last election as many people stood with the Dems against the Red Machine that probably voted green in 2000 and it was great to see that. Granted , the Green party was missing in alot of states but it was still an option, as were other third parties, in crucial states but the third parties made no real significance in the Red Army's defeat of the people.

I just think if the Nominee said tuff stuff it might work with red meat america. Tuff but Smart foreign policy.

[satya]

4. Well, I'm in, as long as s/he is talking about the BFEE. n/t

[kenny blankenship]

5. I would kind of expect such

an asshole to also say stuff like "the American way of life is non-negotiable" while defending our generational failure to prepare for the end of cheap petroleum and our irresponsible despoiling use of our own nation's land, and while defending our shared "individualistic" contempt for civilization and the pattern of anti-civilization, slash'n'burn development it has inspired.

I would expect such an asshole to continue the Iraq oil grab at all costs, and perhaps even to seek to expand our areas of virtualized colonial occupation through still more confrontations and military "operations" in the Mid East region.

I would expect such an asshole to do little or nothing to reverse the civil-liberty destroying acts and directives of the Bush administration and the post 9-11 Congresses.

I would expect to find no good reason to vote for such an asshole and little choice other than to stay home or help elect him/her, and thus incur my own share in the blame for the seemingly inexorable Nazification of America.

[Nimble_Idea]

8. your statements reflect one side of the outfield

I't says another things to the right field as it does to you.

What if he said this but was very liberal in other areas and was a much smarter man. He just wants to assure the nation that he will not be "SOFT ON TERRORISM" it's just as bad as being labled "SOFT ON CRIME"

It just seems to me after having seen what happened in '04 that the next Nominee (whoever it is) is just going to HAVE TO get people that didn't vote for Dems last time to know that liberals can protect America.

If liberals can't combat this image , then everthing you said here will be for nothing because it will never change anything. It will either stay the same, or get worse.

[kenny blankenship]

13. Apart from the glaring and repeated error

of grammar, your borrowed slogan is itself a terrorist threat.

[LittleClarkie]

7. Fuck off, Joementum

Give it up, dude. Give it up.

[Nimble_Idea]

9. Was I just labeled with Joementum????

damn, that was harsh man.

Very, very low indeed.

[LittleClarkie]

11. Hrrr... you're going to be the next Dem nominee?

The nominee you set up sounded like the guy, and you asked for comments, so I was telling your next Dem, Joe, to give it up.

Not you, dude. Not you!

btw, confidentially, I'm a girlie.

[Olney Blue]

10. Not crazy about it for these reasons:

1. Our candidate should not validate the present Crisis-maker in Chief by having the "same position"
2. The "for or against" ultimatum is too reminiscent of the bullying image of this administration that has enraged and alienated people globally
3. Our damaged reputation on the global stage (abuse scandals, lies, war, etc.) has hurt our moral authority. Who wants to rally around hypocrites?

The new D leader should be someone who will inspire, not threaten.

[Adelante]

12. Unfortunately, the "previous" commander in chief

Didn't fight the terrorists. I would hope any Democratic president would do a real job of it.

[LuPeRcALiO]

14. Sorry, Junior's been saying that for the last four years

and he's been in bed with the Saudis the whole time.

I think we can do better.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. Sorta...

Acknowledging that voters are scared quite literally out of their wits (albeit intentionally) is politically pragmatic. A candidate with "the same position as the previous commander in chief" lacks a winning strategy.

A candidate who is a clear champion for economic justice, fiscal responsibility and civil rights and who can also articulate an intelligent strategy for dealing with the real threat of international AND DOMESTIC terrorism can get votes, but the statements; "I have the same position as the previous commander in chief" and "I'll effectively fight terrorism" are mutally exclusive - they do not belong in the same speech.