Winning back the White House is bigger than all of us

[Nightwing]

As a lifetime Democrat, I've pretty much seen it all. But boy have I been schooled as I read many negative posts regarding possible candidates for the top of the ticket in '08. I too have been guilty of such basically since I feel that there was much more John Kerry could have done to win in '04 but let me assure you that if John Kerry again wins the Dem nomination in '08, I'll work my ass off to get him elected. I would put aside my petty differences and get behind whomever leads the charge to take back the White House. Why you may ask? Because winning back the White House is bigger than all of us.

At this point in time, I see our party as fractured and broken up into cliques for the person each of us has in mind to lead this party to victory in the next national election. I have no quarrel with the passion of each poster backing their man/woman however I do have a quarrel with those that claim if they don't get their way, they'll either vote Libertarian, Green or not vote at all. For if it turns out that way we are setting ourselves up for another defeat which is incomprehensible.

As I see it, we have four to five legitimate challengers for the Democratic nomination in 2008; In no particular order they are John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Wes Clark, Howard Dean and John Edwards. To me this is a fine pool of talent to run against whomever wins the GOP nomination but only so if we all put aside our personal preferences and get behind the winner of the Democratic primaries.

We can ill afford another loss in 2008 and I fear that will happen if we all play the "If I don't get my way, I'll take my ball and go home" game. Sure there are issues I have with each of the names I've mentioned, but I as a lifelong Democrat will put aside my petty differences for the sake of the party and this nation. It is my hope and dream that all of us feel the same.

So please by all means back the person of your choice but once the dust settles and the ticket is decided, let's rally around our nominee and get the job of taking back the White House completed. The only thing you have to remember when voting for our next President is that winning back the White House is bigger than all of us.

[texpatriot2004]

1. I can do that. It sounds like the right thing to do. n/t

[applegrove]

2. We also have to be aware of how they use fear. They use fear &

vague fear to divide people by how they see the world. The far-lefties will not put anything past Rove & the WH - so they believed diebold. Moderates do not believe laws would be broken as such - only morals and the meaning of the law. So they see voter suppression in ways that cannot be prosecuted. I'm not saying here one way or the other is the truth. I'm just saying we have to agree to disagree and step back and find common ground. Everyone on the Dem side agrees that voter transparency is important.

The list of "fears" goes on and on. The ways these fears smash us again and again tears us apart.

We need to be aware of how we have been separated by being given doses of reality.

That way we can come together and not squabble.

The only way.

[daninthemoon]

3. It's Way too early to be choosing up sides for the next election.

Unless of course we can do a California recall on shrub & co. Aside from that, someone is going to have to show us some new teeth to go against these rethugs. One things for sure, we need someone who will stand as a stark contrast to the guy in office today.
Having said all that... VOTE GORE 2008!!!

[Larkspur]

4. Howard Dean is not running for President in 2008. He said that if he

became DNC chair, he would not run for Prez in 2008.

I will not support or work for any pro-Iraq war Democrat, or any Dem I don't trust. I'm not inclined to vote for them in 2008. I'll vote third party or write in Bugs Bunny. I live in CT so I can afford to do this. If I lived in a "swing" state, I'd most likely "hold my nose and vote Dem" for Prez, like I did in 2004.

In place of the Prez race, I'll focus on Congressional, state and local races.

[daninthemoon]

5. Well said.

[Nightwing]

9. Forgive me for not understanding

But it's opinions like that that have led to two terms of *.

Are we really ready to chuck it all in 2008?? Not this Democratic voter that's for sure.

I respect each and every opinion, and will fully support whomever heads the Dem ticket in 2008. I just wish more people would do the same.

[Larkspur]

22. I'm sick of supporting Dem war criminals. I demand better Dem leaders.

The DLC Dems are as war hungry as Bush. AIPAC wants us to attack Muslim nations. The Likkudites in that group are delusional, like Bush.

I will not vote for war criminals, like Clinton, Biden, Bayh, Lieberman, etc.. It's my moral duty to not support them.

[renie408]

24. I don't think it will be a problem

I don't think any of them are going to get the nomination. I am looking at something more like some combination of Kerry, Gore, Edwards and Clark.

[ABaker]

32. I don't understand

I am no more fond of Feinstein, Casey and other DINO's that you are and am doing all I can to prevent them from getting the nomination.

However, if they are the Democratic candidates for whatever office, I will vote for them.

Why? The alternative is another Republican in the White House and Republicans picking up a seat in the senate. So what, you say? Consider this: R's picking up a seat and a seat there adds up to Republicans having a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

With control of the White House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, the Republicans will be able to anything they want and there will be no one to stop them.

And I am sorry, but I just do not understand why that scenario is no different then having a Democratic controlled Senate and a Democrat in the White House

[Larkspur]

36. DLC Dems are Repukes in disguise, so it's like voting for Repukes anyway

[Q]

6. That you call them 'petty differences'...

...shows that you really don't understand what's going on.

We're literally at a crossroads and the 2008 election will decide which direction the party will take. Will the 'new' Democrats finally get their way and establish their corporate-friendly, anti-worker/minority 'third way' as the party agenda and platform? Or will the party reject the third way and move back to taking care of people first and a government of, by and for the people?

The 'petty differences' you're talking about are really life and death issues. They are issues important to millions of Americans.

Public education or 'privatization'?

Separation of church and state or 'faith-based' government services?

Collective bargaining, good wages or slavery to corporations?

Choice for women or government control?

Will the Democratic party leadership continue to support the Bush doctrine of illegal, aggressive wars?

Democrats MUST keep in mind that some 'new' Democrats want many of the same things as the Bushie Right. Their 'the era of big government is over' agenda has many of the same goals in mind...such as 'reforming' and 'privatizing' many government programs and services.

2008 will be a pivotal election. Our only hope to retain control over our own party is to support and vote for Progressive candidates.

[Nightwing]

10. What's going on is we must win at all costs

And if that means I must get behind a Dem candidate I'm not thrilled with, I'll sure as hell do it. I cannot state it enough; This nation cannot afford another Rethug in the White House period, end of story.

[calimary]

16. There is wisdom in this, guys.

Some of us have had to do this more often than we prefer.

For example, this next year, here in California, I find myself in a position in which I may be forced to vote for Dianne Feinstein, as big a toadying, capitulating, disappointing, spineless DINO as she is. Why? Because she's a DEMOCRAT. And I'm sure as HELL not gonna concede a single Democratic vote to the prospects of handing the enemy yet another republi-CON vote in the Senate. Much as I dislike her and want to see her replaced, the choice may be to stay with her or see her replaced by - YIKES - a republi-CON. CANNOT do that, regardless how much I dislike her. Sorry, this is how it is.

Same thing in Pennsylvania, where the gawdawful rick santorum is running for reelection. True, the best prospects seem to be for that Casey fellow (Bob Casey?) who's pretty good on most issues but is NOT pro-choice. That's one of the most important non-negotiables in my book, yet I am willing - YES - to compromise on that, for the sake of a larger goal - getting RID of santorum who, if allowed to stay on, would prove FAR more dangerous to every one of my core issues than Casey ever could. Besides, if Casey beats him, that's one less in the republi-CON column in the Senate, and one more Democrat. And it could mean the difference between us remaining behind in the Senate or scoring a takeover. So, okay then. Let it be Casey.

Last year, I, an unapologetic, unrepentant Howard Dean fan, went ahead and gave my all to John Kerry, including way more in campaign donations and time out of my kids' school schedules - both of which I could ill afford. I still did it because of the critical importance of DEMOCRATS WINNING. PERIOD.

And I'll do it again. Eagerly. It is not always necessarily a crime to let the ends justify the means - at least for the sake of the larger good.

Whatever the differences are, sometimes it's more important in the larger scheme of things to swallow them and march in lockstep. That hasn't hurt the enemy camp a bit, has it? Simply put, if THAT'S what it takes to win, and THAT'S one of the ways they do it, WHYTHEHELL can't WE do it?

I'm just sick and tired of losing because we all can't stop bickering over the fine points and get behind the one unifying larger point.

Please, guys, consider this. At least consider this. Okay, fine, you want to be a purist. So do I. I have my pet issues and my priorities. But I also want to be something else: A WINNER.

[Q]

31. If we can't 'afford' it...why is there no Democratic party effort...

...to investigate election fraud and make sure that we have a 'free and fair' election in 2008?

We have a leadership that is seemingly clueless about what the majority of Democrats need and want in their elected leaders. They're driving people AWAY from the party with their ignorance, enabling and appeasement of horrible Bush policies.

And it seems that you're not listening any better than they are. You simply don't get it. Many, many Democrats will NOT vote for Republican-lite in 2008. Expect to lose again if you don't offer the Democratic electorate a CHOICE of a more progressive candidate.

[demnan]

7. Most of us here have been through that

and Kerry let us down. I won't give him another chance and I don't think the majority of the Dems will do that either. Other than that, I'll support the candidate (I think).

[kentuck]

8. The "Peoples Party" would rather have the King than the House...

that represents the people? I have a problem with that.

[lthuedk]

11. Without a paper trail,

we lose. It is that simple. No matter the margin we win by, the vote is under alien-and I mean Un-Americon control.

Just what is the status of count all the vote legislation? I thought so.

Stephen

[Stinky The Clown]

19. Without media coverage of this vital issue, no one knows about it but us

It is all accusations and sore losers and arcane facts. With no media coverage of this HUGELY important issue, it will never get corrected.

Fix the media and the people will fix the machines. With torches and pitchforks.

[Q]

38. Sorry to say...but that's a copout...

...it's the duty and responsibility of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY...the loyal opposition...to demand that our system of elections be repaired. We can't depend on the corporate media or the corporate GOP to do it for us.

We're on our own.

[Coexist]

12. I voted for two candidates (Gore and Kerry)

who didn't have my heart. I didn't feel moved by them, inside, I felt like they were just paying a little lip service to issues that were important to me.

I can't do it again. I am through with "going along". As much as I resented the Nader voters in 2000 - I will vote Green, or whatever party comes up with a candidate that rocks me, politically.

Sorry - I can't do it again.

(on edit: Not that I disliked them - Kerry is amazing sometimes, but I won't vote for Clinton, no matter how much I would love to see a woman in the White House.)

[Pithy Cherub]

13. Principles on matters of life and death are too important

to give away to a politician that does not merit my vote. If acquiescing and appeasement appeal, then that is your right or solo opinion. That does not preclude me from voting MY principles, values and conscience. Never again in this lifetime will my vote be cast for people who are in favor of the Iraq War, CAFTA, or bankruptcy bills. Public policy choices have dire consequences.

A vote is not a mere democratic tool, but an expression of self. If democracy is about doing the greater good for the most people, then it also means standing up to those that cheerlead for the sake of mythical paty unity to elect someone who espouses values that are held by other parties. The Iraq War and the economic devastation rendered in this country of which many appeasement Dems participated is part of the problem.

The call for getting behind whomever regardless of the facts, rings hollow.

[ibegurpard]

15. Absolutely

well said.

[renie408]

25. Well, what a rousing speech

Hey, I hope that the satisfaction you get from your expression of self gets you through another four years of Republican leadership if they win again.

I have children to think about. They are not going to be comforted much by my expression of self.

[ABaker]

34. See post #32. n/t

[StudentOfDarrow]

14. Out of curiosity, why did you not list Feingold as a candidate?

It seems as likely that he will run as Edwards or Clark. By the way, I'm recommending this.

[snowbear]

17. Happens every time Nightwing... But remember......

What happens with the Democratic party after we have a nominee -- every---single---election?

We become unbelievably UNITED behind that candidate. We always do rally.

Happens every time.. :shrug:

The Republican party hasn't had reason to be critical of one another for two presidential elections. But just wait!!

"As I see it, we have four to five legitimate challengers for the Democratic nomination in 2008; In no particular order they are John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Wes Clark, Howard Dean and John Edwards"

That's what many of us think right now.. but really, none of us have a clue who will emerge. For example, Governor Mark Warner of Virginia hasn't been shy about his intentions to run.

I'll bet anything that the list of actual candidates we end up with won't look anything like the speculative polls we put on here for the next couple of years..

[BlueIris]

18. Nice post, Nightwing. Replace "Dean" with "Feingold" and we're on

the exact same page, in fact. Relax, Dean supporters, it's just that I think he's better off where he is.

I'm slowly sliding into thoughts of '06 more than '08, but my thoughts are also, still, inter-party rivalry matters not when the country is in straights as dire as these. Even if, God forbid, our '08 candidate is someone I despise...well, I'll probably have to quit my job again and help that person's campaign. Because otherwise? Canada/Switzerland. I don't like the cold.

[Totally Committed]

20. I WILL NOT BACK OR RALLY ROUND A DLC CANDIDATE.

I am drawing the line NOW.

No.

Never again.

Sorry. Even if the DLC candidate wins, the little guy will lose. AND, there will be a President who might as well be a Republican for all the good he'll do us. But, the corporations will be happy.

NO WAY.

TC

[SaveElmer]

27. So I assume...

You will be actively working against the renomination of the 1/3 of Democratic United States Senators that are members of the DLC?

[Totally Committed]

30. Not working against....

Simply refusing to participate.

And, seeing that I have been an ACTIVE Democrat all my life (money, time, effort, blood, sweat, tears...), this will be new for me. But, I am bound and determined to no longer aid and abet, as you say, a full 1/3 of my Party to work against my interests. Never again.

If the candidate is DLC, not a dime, nor a moment of my time will they see. Ever.

I find myself, in the twilight of my life, realizing not every Democratic candidate sees the Democratic Party as I do. Not every Democratic candidate wants the same things I do for my country and my fellow citizens. Not every Democratic Candidate, will step up to the plate and protect his/her constituents over corporate interests.

I am sick of the cycle of diminishing returns I see in my Party. I vow to no longer continue to participate in that diminishment. There are people out here hurting, REALLY HURTING, from the very actions the DLC has taken in going along with the RNC's policies and voting against our interests.

My welfare and the welfare of the little guy is not their concern, so they can fucking run without me. Capice? Hope so.

I only wish others would join me and be as vocal as possible in letting the DNC know this is our intention. Maybe THEN they'd listen....

TC

[ABaker]

33. See post #32. n/t

[txaslftist]

21. Hear hear!

Hate to borrow a puke phrase, but united we stand, untied we... well I guess we trip.

[renie408]

23. I think Kerry, Edwards, Gore, Clark....

But whoever wins the nomination will have my whole hearted support. I cannot imagine doing anything else to my children. To throw my vote away because the Dem who most closely represents every ideal I have didn't win the nomination would be just plain stupid.

[category5]

26. Forget the White House....just win back congress...and

bring back the days prior to 1994 when we ruled the congress
except for minor interruptions. Puke presidents like Nixon even
Reagan, Bush 41, et all could not force their agenda down our throats
like Bush 43 is doing. He got his fricking tax cuts for the rich,
his wars, his cutting off help for the poor, his rape of environment,
dismantling of international treaties....etc etc.

JUST WIN IN 2006 is all I want.

[Lecky]

28. Haha, I feel the same way...

and if that makes me a sheep for the Democratic Party then...

baa!

[WildEyedLiberal]

29. Yay for unity

:yourock:

[ABaker]

35. See post #32. n/t

[oasis]

37. Democrats will have a wealth of qualified candidates by 2008. I'm sure

that after the primaries, a nominee will emerge that 90 percent of Democrats can really get behind.

[Uncle Joe]

39. Al Gore all the way. n/t

[Raster]

40. 2008 will be critical, however 2006 is The Holy Grail.

If there is to be any type of true accountability, rational discourse and honest appraisal, then the current Congressional leadership MUST change. If we allow Congress to stay in the hands of the dark side, Jesus Christ himself could be elected to the Presidency in 2008 and we would still be in a world of hurt. And it's not just the republicans who are to blame, it's also the DINOs and other flavors of republican lite.