Democrats just want to beat Bush - any Dem who can will do

[Jersey Devil]

USA Today highlights a fact that will dominate the entire presidential campaign: "Only President Clinton provoked greater hostility in the opposition party than Bush does now, according to Gallup polls that go back nearly four decades. Two-thirds of Democrats across the country disapprove of how Bush is handling the presidency, compared with just 51% who felt that way about President Nixon in 1972.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-01-26-beatbush-cover_x.htm

[CWebster]

1. As tinoire so astutely pointed out

ABB the DLC's rallying cry to have us all line up behind their annoited candidate.

What a lost opportunity. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

[Jersey Devil]

4. Well, then take your ball and go home if your guy doesn't win

but make sure it meets with the standards that will be set by Bush for the next 4 years minimum.

The DLC is not an evil bogeyman, just a group with a different viewpoint. I am a Dean supporter and hope he wins. But if he doesn't I will support the Dem nominee no matter who it is rather than have 4 more years of this Draconian monstrosity of a "government".

[bowens43]

2. Not all of us are ABB.

I'm not.

[Jersey Devil]

5. Great - another vote for Bush, in effect

Politics is all about compromise. If you are not willing to compromise then you usually will wind up with nothing.

[grytpype]

3. Only two-thirds?

Who are these Dems who approve of Bush? I've never seen or heard of one.

[Jersey Devil]

6. Not here certainly, but then this is not the real world

I take it you were joking. At least I hope so.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Any Dem? I think not.

Those that rolled over for bushCorp on the IWR won't be getting my vote if we are unfortunate enough to get stuck with either of them.

[Jersey Devil]

8. So then you prefer Bush

That is the net result.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Nope. I'm against bushy and those that supported his war.

And, I'll be voting against them.

[Jersey Devil]

16. But who will you be voting FOR?

Third party candidate means 4 more years of Bush. Then you will have your self-satisfaction, which won't even get you a subway ride.

[Monte Carlo]

9. You can't be neutral on a moving train.

If you are not going to stand up in November against Bush, then everything you have said about him can be discounted.

[ibegurpard]

11. If I'm to be expected to stand up against Bush

then I expect a candidate that has done the same. I haven't seen that from some of the ones we have running.

[Jersey Devil]

12. Pols can grow and change just as any other human being

It is true that much of politics is posturing for what pols think voters want. Can you say with certainty that your candidate, no matter who it is, has done none of that? Can anyone ever say that?

It's all about compromise. There is no pie in the sky.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. I'll be voting against bush and against those that support him.

Which means that I'll be voting for Dean, Clark, Kucinich or Sharpton..or green.

If you're willing to settle for a guy who voted for the slaughter in Iraq..have at it. I'm not.

[VOX]

10. ABB here. I don't like the idea, but another 4 years of * is unthinkable.

It's time to get * OUT -- and any way that happens is a step in the right direction.

[Jersey Devil]

13. Judging by what I am reading here it will take some doing

to get many of the Dems on board when the primaries are essentially over. I for one hope it does not linger past Super Tuesday or I fear we may be looking at a divided party and a disaster.