Cindy stands alone if she opposes the 2008 democratic nominee

[Proud2BAmurkin]

including Clinton.

We can't give up another four years to these fascist fucks.

[AuntPatsy]

1. I am firmly in your camp. God bless her, but I speak for myself.

[SammyWinstonJack]

12. Agreed! nt

[Ken Burch]

50. Has Cindy actually SAID she wouldn't back Hillary yet?

I'm not sure this thread isn't jumping to conclusions and aiding the pro-war side for no good reason.

[progressivebydesign]

123. She said that unless Hillary changes her support of the war..

that she feels we should derail Hillary's political ambitions. It was pretty clear that Cindy wants Hillary to denounce her original support for the war or be shunned as a candidate. I'm sure another DUer can find that info for you.

[Ken Burch]

154. Well, that's not quite the same as saying she WOULDN'T support Hillary

Actually, it is quite legitimate for Cindy to take that position.
Why should Hillary get our support no questions asked?

It's not really worth working to elect someone who'd actually be to the right of Bill.

The peace movement SHOULD use its strength to get a candidate we can support.

[SharonRB]

212. That doesn't necessarily mean that if she somehow got the

nomination, Cindy wouldn't vote for her. What are her other options? Not voting? Voting for a Repub? Voting for someone who doesn't have a snowball's chance to win? I don't think Hillary will get the nomination, but if somehow she does, I think Cindy will come around without a better option.

[0007]

268. C'mon man, come with a link. What your saying, won't fly.

Asking another DUer?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. I'll stand with Cindy before I'll stand with Hillary.

She (HRC) is DLC and she won't repudiate the Iraq invasion. Feh.

[BillZBubb]

11. So, in your pique, you'd risk another Repug for 4 years?????

Please. Your priorities are out of whack.

I don't care if HRC is DLC, MLB, or NBA, if she's the Democratic nominee she'll get my total support. If Cindy doesn't like it, she can be a nitwit and vote for Nader.

[Cleita]

15. Hillary is another Repug for four years.

Although she is one I could tolerate. She wouldn't do what the fascist PNAC neo-cons have done to our country.

[BillZBubb]

30. NONSENSE!

How many Repugs support national health care? What Supreme Court nominees would she make? Would they be Repugs too? Clinton is decent on the environment and race issues. Any Repugs fit that bill? How about on choice? Etc. etc. etc.

It really amazes me that people so casually throw around the Repug label. We're back to Maher's bullshit Gush/Bore equivalency. Now, hopefully, nobody accepts that stupidity. Don't make that mistake with Hillary.

[Cleita]

42. Nixon supported national health care.

Hillary's plan didn't work because she didn't cut the fat cats out of her plan (corporate insurance and HMO's). It was a plan that couldn't work in the long run. The start of the privatization of Medicare had happened during the Reagan/Bush years. Most seniors thought it was a good idea at the time the way it was sold to them.

I know. My husband almost lost his life because of the privatized Medicare HMO he had joined with because they had painted such a great picture with drug coverage, which traditional Medicare didn't offer so he thought it would have been better. He bought all the bullshit that was spread at that time about government not being able to cut waste or run things as efficiently as private business.

[Ken Burch]

158. So a pro-choice conservative who keeps the war going

is ok, so long as he or she makes a nice court appointment?

And will the court appointments still matter by then?

Roe will be gone and that fight will be lost.

[helderheid]

91. And there is no difference between Gore and Bush either, right?

:eyes:

[Leopolds Ghost]

149. The Gore of 2000 (w/ Donna Brazille) is not Gore of today

If Donna Brazille ran with Lieberman today, would you say there's a huge improvement?

[Jai4WKC08]

266. Why, because he's given a few good speeches?

They've all done that. Even DLCers like Clinton and Bayh. Talk is cheap.

Let's wait and see how Gore runs a '08 campaign, assuming he chooses to do so, before we decide. There is NO evidence he would do it any differently than he did in 2000. He let the Repugs and the media they control walk all over him.

We will need a fighter in 2008. Gore may prove to be one, but I sure haven't seen it yet, and I saw enough of the opposite in 2000 to last me a lifetime.

You can blame it all on Brazille, but Big Al hired her, kept her around, took her advice. He's responsible for his failures, not her.

Fwiw, most of Clark's '04 staff were former Gore people. He made the same mistake of listening to them instead of going with his instincts. But Clark was a novice in '04 and thus more likely to follow professional advice over what his gut told him. Gore has been in and around politics his whole life--he has no excuse and should have known better. If anything, he's more likely to revert to the same old political machine he knows best.

Clark on the other hand appears to have learned his lesson, from his own campaign and from being on the inside of Kerry's. He knows the importance of grassroots and how to grow 'em. He's into new technologies. He sees the weaknesses of establishment politics. He's figured out the media game, and the Repug Noise Machine. He won't run unless he has a plan to defeat them.

And if Clark hasn't learned enough to make what he knows work, it should become painfully obvious by the time the '08 primaries roll around. Hopefully, the same will be true of Gore.

They're both good men and either one would make a fine president. I think Clark is the better choice for a lot of reasons, but I could support Gore if he wins the nomination. I have no problem with people who prefer Gore, and have not made a habit of running him down on DU or anywhere else. I've even defended him a time or two.

But don't tell me "the Gore of 2000 is not Gore of today." You just cannot know that to be true, and it sounds an awful lot like wishful thinking.

In the meantime, it's more important to win back Congress. If the current criminals hold the majority by Jan 09, and are left in charge of every committee, any Democratic president will be hamstrung.

[progressivebydesign]

125. Oh God! Yeah.. and Gore is JUST LIKE BUSH????

I've heard that argument before. The purists are intent on destroying the Democratic Party once again. I think Jeb or Rudy will make a lovely president.. thank you. :sarcasm:

[xultar]

229. Ahhh this is DemocraticUnderground not GreenUnderground.

[IndianaGreen]

278. Is this PROWAR underground?

No candidate that supports the war, opposes LGBT and abortion rights, will get my vote!

[porphyrian]

53. It's a moot point. Hillary won't get the nomination.

The party can't stand to lose that many votes from within its own ranks, let alone across the irrationally-Hillary-hating population.

[BL611]

82. Message from planet earth....

The anti-Hillary sentiment of many on DU in not indicative of the Democratic party outside of DU!!!Hillary is very popular, considered LIBERAL, and is the clear front runner in '08

...Ok you may now return to planet DU lefty.

[tk2kewl]

85. but it is generally the activists that vore in primaries, so we shall see

i am not a big fan of hillary either and i think we can definitely do better.

she is popular largely amongst people who don't pay enough attention IMO

[RB TexLa]

99. Glad someone made that point

I remember John Kerry won the Mississippi Democratic primary with something like 70% of the vote.

[porphyrian]

90. I'm standing right here, drama queen.

Hillary isn't as popular as you seem to think, but believe what you want. My information was based on empirical evidence, not an extrapolation of opinions here.

[merh]

95. And your sources are?

Most folks I know in the party cannot stand how Hillary has contaminated herself by adopting the ways of the repukes (unless of course your sources are the DLC - you know, the repuke lites, the repugs in dem clothing).

Most dems I know resent the hell out of the way Hillary and Big Dawg have hitched their wagons to the Bush family train.

:hi:

[meganmonkey]

116. I'll second that, merh!

I don't know anyone, other than my mom, who would be super excited about Hillary. And between work and friends, I hang out with Democrats of all ages and stripes. They all seem to see right through her.

:shrug:

[merh]

120. Hey ya MM!

I don't know who can't see through either Clinton at this stage.

If you lie down with dogs, you get fleas and they are jumping off of Poppy and his family and onto Big Dawg. Do you know that his & poppy's organization is as bad as the Red Cross. I emailed them weeks ago, asking how the money they raised will be used (given I have a personal interest as a Katrina survivor) and they have yet to respond. My phone call to his Harlem office was transferred to a voice mail system and wonder of wonders, NO RETURN CALL YET!

The Clintons can buddy up to the Bushies all they want, I will never vote for Hillary and those pushing for her as our '08 nomination know that the rest of the country won't either.

If you know you are going to have a hard time in '08, don't you think your best bet is to chose your opponent and to chose the weakest opponent imaginable. :shrug:

[Lorien]

174. Amen merh. Most of those on the left that I know ARE NOT Hillary

fans OR DU members-and most of them are waiting for an "unknown" to step from the shadows who shows spine and true Democratic values; not another servant to corporate interests. I hope such a person exists.

[Liberal Dose]

103. Hillary is considered LIBERAL? HAHAHAHA!

Who told ya that, Babs or Poppy? :rofl:

[Greyhound]

112. Her nomination would ensure the repukes victory

OTOH the next prez will probably be a 1 term because of the mess he/she will walk into. The problems 44 will face are not fixable without a political revolution, and I don't see it happening yet. Of course, 3 more years could make all the difference. In any case I'm just too damn tired to vote for "the lesser of who gives a damn" again.

[FiveGoodMen]

141. I think you're wrong

[Ken Burch]

165. BTW, BL611

Bobby Kennedy would never back Hillary.

[blm]

213. Message to BL611 - let's see how DEBATES turn out before she's anointed.

.

[DemonFighterLives]

241. Is this your first visit to Earth?

Hillary is too full of herself. Cindy is right and Hillary can't seem to see it. The war is not good and the continuation of it is not in the country's best interest.

[sproutster]

159. God let's hope not

If it's Hillary vs. McCain...

[Clark2008]

81. The thing you're overlooking here is that if HRC is the nominee

There WILL be another Republican for four more years because Hillary cannot win any more states than Kerry or Gore.

She will not turn any red states, which we HAVE to do, to overcome Diebold and the Republican nominee.

Hillary is despised in the red states, even those who are moderately purple. There are Democrats who won't vote for the woman because of a variety of reasons and only a handful of swing voters who care anything for her.

I don't dislike Hillary. I just don't want to lose again.

And, there's no way in hell, despite the fact that I am a woman and would love to see a female president, that the American public will vote for a woman as POTUS while we're at war (and we will be in 2008 - with someone).

[SharonRB]

214. I have to agree with you, Clark

I don't dislike her, but I don't think she can win. She won't get my support in the primary, but if she manages to get the nomination, I'll support her with all my heart. No way I want to lose again.

[Liberal Dose]

101. What is worse, a real Repug or a pretend one?

DNC + DLC = GOP

[progressivebydesign]

129. Oh Bullshit. Look at Hillary's record.

It's almost an embarrassment to see thinking people here say that Hillary is a republican. Look at her voting record and what she's done already. Just because you dont' agree with a few of her votes, does not make her a republican. You want a republican??? Try looking at Bush or perhaps Frist or DeLay.

The DLC vs. Democratic Party infighting is such bullshit and all you're doing is helping the REAL republicans win over and over again.

[Liberal Dose]

139. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

Hillary is a DINO. She would NEVER get my vote.

[trogdor]

255. She'd get my vote, and nothing more.

No money, no time, no effort, not even a bumpersticker on my car. Why should I waste my limited time and money on another loser who goes, "I'm only 70% as evil as the GOP candidate?" She'd have to prove to me that she has a better plan for running the country than the other guy.

[enough already]

256. Only a "nitwit"

would vote for someone who doesn't denounce this war and promises to get us the fuck out NOW, whether Dem or puke.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

22. Pique? No pique here -- and I didn't say I wouldn't vote for her

if (God forbid) she should ultimately get the nomination. But I will NOT even consider supporting her in the primaries unless, for starters, she stops appeasing the Republicans and starts standing up for progressive principles. If she is nominated, I would have to vote for her only because any Republican would be worse. But I wouldn't like it.

[elehhhhna]

87. I got your back. So let's not make Hil the nominee, right?

The Reeps are too busy shoving her down our throats, she's NOT the most qualified Dem (imo) and she's owned by Saudibank.

NO MORE AMERICAN POLITICAL DYNASTIES. PERIOD.

Let's try using friggin MERIT as a measurement again. Shit.

[RememberWellstone]

92. Nonsense!

Look, Cindy has drawn attention to something very important, but she is going way over her head going against a POTENTIAL NEXT PRESIDENT in the process. It makes no sense to pull down our own party members for a cause. Especially when they could be the next POTUS.

[mod mom]

96. I agree. I vote for a third party candidate before HRC. Cindy won't

stand alone!

[progressivebydesign]

130. Yeah. That worked out real well for us in 2000, didn't it?

For all the high principled people that voted third party. Don't you think that perhaps ensuring that the Iraq War Team has no power anymore is a bit more productive? Or shall we all make a lovely, principled, stand and watch the PNAC continue to destroy America?

[SeanQ]

109. I'll work my tail off against Hillary in the primaries!

If she gets the nod :eyes: , I'll probably hold my nose and vote for her . Then if after all that work (and the lessons we should have learned by now) the DLC still gets another shot I will, regretfully, promptly leave the party as a lost cause. Hopefully we'll be able to make a new progrssive party, with arms wide enough for everyone from Dean & Clark to Kucinich and then some.

But I'd rather just have new leadership and vision rise to the top in the Democratic party. We the people got Dean the chairmanship over insider protests, hopefully we can continue that trend!

[seabeyond]

148. i am not a fan and will work against her in primary and absolutely

vote for her if she is the one we chose

[seabeyond]

147. wow.... my children cant afford that

and i know hillary will do a better job with iraq and our soldiers above and beyond any repug. example, kosovo.

this isnt thinking things thru

[Tiggeroshii]

160. Progressive Punch's progressive rating for Clinton: 91.79%

Despite a clear position on the war, she is a clear progressive based on her voting record. People haven't exactly been the best at tracking these DINO's lately. Her and Feinstein are some of the most lberal members of the Senate. Your attacks should probably be focused towards guys like Ben Nelson from Nebraska. That's a REAL moderate or "DINO" as others would put it.

http://www.progressivepunch.org/

[TheGunslinger]

173. Bingo! Hillary is GOP-lite. She's NOT what we need in a President.

Keep her in the Senate.

[radio4progressives]

193. I'm among hundreds of MILLIONS standing in Support of Cindy

Might even think should run for office in '06 and maybe even in '08.

[formernaderite]

251. Here, here...Cindy has my support

we lost in 2004 because Kerry's message however nuanced, was NOT clear on support for the war.

[zann725]

267. Same here. Hilary defintely DLC. No, thanks.

n/t

[Ken Burch]

3. It's early yet. We don't know who that nominee will be.

Hopefully Hillary will see the light and realize that the country is now left-of-center and antiwar.

She'll have trouble getting nominated if the insists on running as the second coming of Scoop Jackson. Too many of us know that electing another Democratic hawk is the same as electing a Republican.

[Wilms]

4. Relax. No Hillary. No problem. eom

[Proud2BAmurkin]

23. So no difference between Hillary and Bill Frist? nt

nt

[Wilms]

44. Not at all. Just saying my hope is the Dem's put up someone else.

[Ken Burch]

58. Since most of the polls show Hillary losing to most Republicans

Why SHOULD we nominate her?

She is in about the same situation as Mondale was during Reagan's first term, and with even fewer reasons to go down in flames with her than Mondale offered.

Why should the party tie itself to her?

[AntiCoup2K4]

80. As far as I know, Hillary's never killed cats for fun

...but she probably would if she thought she could get votes out of it.

[Ken Burch]

156. If she hasn't, it isn't because she's against cat killing

It's because she's against fun.

[SeanQ]

110. Just because I'm not fond of Hillary and

have absolutely no desire for her to be the next Dem nominee for president, does not mean I would compare her to the likes of Frist. I don't trust her, she changes views to suit the political weather and has hitched her fortunes to the DLC (and as a family to the elder Bushies). But that doesn't mean I think she is evil! Sheesh! :crazy:


:P

[Greyhound]

114. Not enough, both are corporate politiwhores. n/t

[jim3775]

5. I hope it doesn't turn into another Nader/election 2000 debacle n/t

[jonnyblitz]

29. well if it does the DEMs have themselves to blame. nt

[Ken Burch]

46. And Hillary could easily prevent that IF:

1)She'd break with the war now!(It's never going to be a war that has majority support again)

2)She'd back electoral reform, and make it a first priority.
There was never any reason for ANY Democrat to support preserving the Electoral College or to oppose Instant Runoff Voting.

[SeanQ]

111. Umm .... not that I'm against reviewing the Electoral College

or the possibility of runoff voting. But I think more important aspects of your second point to deal with first are open, fair elections with non-partisan oversight and which are fully accountable (and re-countable)! We can leave more controversial changes for after we can trust the vote in general perhaps? :)

[Ken Burch]

155. I mention those issues because they are red meat to Greens

and Nader people. It would be a way to get them to come over and feel they've done so without selling out.

This is important, as a lot of former Greens who voted Kerry feel they wasted their votes and got nothing from the party.

Besides, there's no good reason for any Dem to be against either one.

[progressivebydesign]

131. Yeah, the ones that refused to vote for our nominee. n/t

[Tom Joad]

6. We need to stand against the fascist enablers too.

[crispini]

7. I am hoping for a vigorous and thorough primary debate

and I certainly hope we get a strong anti-war candidate out of that process.

But as soon as the primaries are over, I will become an ENTHUSIASTIC and HEARTFELT supporter of our Democratic candidate. No matter who it is.

[ErisFiveFingers]

8. I'll wait to see who the nominee is, first.

No point voting for a DINO fascist, is there?

[LittleClarkie]

9. I'm not into locksteppage either

But I don't think you can speak for everyone who might stand with her. Just yourself. She will not stand alone. But you won't be there. Okay.

That said, it's too fuckin' early to be worrying about who that person will be.

[jonnyblitz]

31. oh nevermind...delete. nt

[AuntPatsy]

39. Sorry but it is not to early to recognize reality that just might bite us

in the ass if we are not bein vigilant..

How in the world do you think these murderous scumbags that have virtually single handily destroyed this proud nation in four short years got to be where they are now?

Do you honestly believe it was by sitting around waiting until the primaries before they began to plan thier attack on our beloved democracy?

Granted, Cindy's message rings loud and clear to many, but with the power and status she has recieved comes responsibility like it or not...


People will follow her, like you I dont like to lock and step mode, and it is not what I am about nor is Cindy I believe, she has repeatedly said many times she speaks for herself and herself alone, it's one of the many things that I like about this women, she is strong, but her strenght could easily become another's weakness, do you see what I am trying to say?

[LittleClarkie]

54. Perhaps you misunderstand me

It's too early to say "If Cindy goes against the nominee, she will stand alone" when we don't know who the damned nominee will be.

I refuse to accept that Hillary is inevitable.

I'm not sure why not knowing who our next nominee is going to be would make me not vigilant. I'm not sitting around waiting. I'm getting ready for 2006 (Go Bryan Kennedy, btw). I'm just not crowning Hillary queen, is all. I'm not quite sure what you're talking about otherwise.

Actually, considering who I do support for 2008, I'm sitting pretty, Cindy-wise. She kinda liked Sen. Kerry when she met with him. She even put him on her hall of fame page.

[Larkspur]

10. I'll stand with Cindy. I've already pledged not to vote for Lieberman in

2006, and I've pledge not to donate a minute of my free time or a penny of my hard earned salary to any pro-Iraq war Dem's campaign. My 2008 vote is not guarenteed at this point and right now I would not vote for any pro-Iraq war Dem.

[Mr_Spock]

13. Where did THIS come from?

Is this the most insightful thing that could be posted tonight 10-27-05 - 3 years before the election? I think not.

[IChing]

16. ......

:popcorn:

[dweller]

38. ..burp...

:toast:

dp

[understandinglife]

176. Ditto. Why such a meaningless distraction in the midst of monumental ...

... crises???


Peace.

[katinmn]

216. Flamebait is what is it

It's a shame, too. Caused lots of bad feelings.

[radwriter0555]

14. Clinton is little more than a bush crony now, unless she withdraws her

support for the iraqi invasion.

If she has the grace to withdraw her support from the bush regime, I'll reconsider, but that, combined with Bill's cozying up to the bush regime really turns my stomach.

Luckily, the only ones insisting Senator Clinton should run are the republicans.

Clinton is a smart woman, she knows when she's being used, I hope.

[countmyvote4real]

27. You got that right, rad.

"the only ones insisting Senator Clinton should run are the republicans."

[countmyvote4real]

17. You think?

I am not supporting any candidate that thinks their judgment to support this illegal war is infallible. Look again. Sheehan is not standing alone, but Clinton (and any number of fRep light Dems) might be if she continues her masquerade sucking up to AIPAC.

[nashville_brook]

190. amen bro!

why are we treating hillary like royalty? she has a place in politics that she has earned and is working well. she HASN'T sewn up the nomination unless folks know something i don't. now is the time to take our temperature and be sensible about who can win.

[oioioi]

18. Golly. After walking through ditches in Crawford, however will she cope?

[cascadiance]

19. The Democrats need to stop answering to corporate bosses with the DLC!

They need to do this before they can become a viable majority party again representing the PEOPLE again, not the corporations. Our Democracy is for the rights and welfare of people not corporations. Until the party fixes itself to be more answerable to people instead of corporatinos, it will always be a mionority party. The Republicans will always appeal to the core of the corporatist lobbies, and the rest of us standing outside don't have anyone unless the Dems wake up.

I strongly support Cindy's courage to speak up where grass roots change is necessary to take back the white house and congress in the coming years. She speaks the truth! Hillary needs to wake up and smell the coffee and see that the country has already started to wake up and won't accept more "corporate" politicians (that should dare not try to hijack the "moderate" label). Even the moderates, who can get just as bankrupt as the rest of us, are starting to see what's been happening.

[brainshrub]

20. I will stand with Cindy. Screw the Dems.

As least with Cindy you know she will stand her ground on her values.

Screw the damn: "Oh, we have to back a mushy-middle, surrender-monkey because otherwise, we will lose" logic.

There are only two people whose recommendation means so much to me, that I would vote for that candidate despite my own personal opinion was. One of them is Cindy Sheehan.

If Cindy asked me to, I would vote for Kerry again.

That's saying a lot.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

25. So no vote from you in a Clinton-Frist race? nt

nt

[Ken Burch]

47. Frist is toast.

He's nowhere near a nominating majority and he's losing support.
Try again.

[brainshrub]

75. I will not cast a vote from a space of fear.

Sheehan taught me, by example, that nothing is impossible if you come from a space of love. You have to vote for who you think is best for the country, not the lesser of two evils.

2004 will be that last time I vote for a candidate from a space of fear.

[Ken Burch]

170. Do you actually WANT Hillary to be the nominee, Proud2B?

If so, why?

[progressivebydesign]

132. Yeah! It's worked out SO WELL these past 5 years.

I think that standing on principal and putting the very same PARTY who engineered the war and forged the documents will really help keep more soldiers from dying. :sarcasm:

The only difference is that we can all be here in 2009 lamenting the troop deaths in Syria and Iran. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[niallmac]

21. I'll will complain and argue my point of view about who the

2008 candidate should be until the final bell because I am all knowing and have
powers that mere mortals can only dream of. But, if as is usually the case no one listens
I will certainly rally around whoever the nominee is because in the end we either hang together or spend another four years working for the evil empire.

[jonnyblitz]

24. HA..I stand with CIndy before I stand with some pro war DEM

asshole. SORRY.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

28. If Nader hadn't nitpicked Cindy's son would be alive.

Truth.

[Ken Burch]

56. Wrong. If Gore had run as a Wellstone-like populist

or had even looked like he had a pulse, Nader wouldn't have gotten a single vote.

The DLC CAUSED the rise of the Green Party and Nader, and the sooner Democrats realize that and respond accordingly, the better.

Left-bashing leads to defeat.

[John Q. Citizen]

115. Lie. Gore won. It's a free country. Even you can run, assuming you

are of legal age and an American citizen.

You might not like that about America, but I do.

Scapegoating will come back to bite you, and that's the truth.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Cindy won't be alone if she opposes the pro-war collaborators.

The "fascist fucks" have accomplices(D).

[converted_democrat]

63. I agree. n/t

[oioioi]

32. Haven't we had enough nepotism in the WH?

It's time for some fresh bloodlines?

[SOS]

275. Agree

It's enough already with these three families:

1980 Bush VP
1984 Bush VP
1988 Bush P
1992 Bush P v Clinton P/Gore VP
1996 Clinton P/Gore VP
2000 Bush P v. Gore P
2004 Bush P v. Kerry P
2008 Clinton P v. Jeb Bush P ???

Bush, Clinton or Gore as President or Vice President in every freakin' election for the past 28 years.
Enough!! Paul Hackett would be a nice addition.

[fed-up]

33. I will only vote for a candidate w/a history of anti-war voting record

I will NOT vote for anyone that switches just because it is the "politically correct" thing to do.

I want a candidate that can think for themselves and read the same alternative news that I somehow managed to find during the lead-up to war.
I want a candidate that can filter through the lies and BS of the opposing party.
I want a candidate that votes for THE PEOPLE and not THE CORPORATIONS that buy their votes.


I will NOT even consider voting for Hilary, I don't care what party she claims to represent.

[oioioi]

35. Nominate Howard Dean!

[MojoXN]

34. If the Democratic party runs Hillary in '08...

Then I'm with Cindy. Flame away, boys and girls, flame away.

MojoXN

[oregonindy]

36. sorry tired of demopublicans.....

if they cant take a real stand like real humans they arent worth the energy it takes for me to say their name.

Kucinich
Leahy
Byrd
Conyers
and all the others

these are they people who deserve our votes and our support

[hiaasenrocks]

37. Agreed. But she's already lost me anyway. n/t

[lebkuchen]

40. Hillary doesn't impress me

300 million people in the US, there ought to be somebody other than a Bush or a Clinton who can do a better job than our current chimpanzee.

[jim3775]

41. The question is: would you rather have President Frist/Rice/McCain or...

President Rodham-Clinton? Think about that (and what happened in 2000) before you abandon your party. And don't say "they are the same" because that is the Nader line of bullshit from 2000 that cost Gore the election and ushered in the age of bush. Regardless of her position on the war Hillary would be a million times better than rice/frist/mccain.

[Ken Burch]

48. She won't be any different from Frist or Rice or McCain at all

If she keeps the war going.

Electing a pro-war Democrat means keeping the entire Bush agenda in place for all eternity.

[longship]

224. You don't understand.

Clinton loses if she supports the war in Iraq. It's very simple. Politics 101. Incumbent party stays in power when there's no difference between the parties on the major issue.

I will not support Clinton at all, unless she changes her position on Iraq.

[Ken Burch]

238. Which is a moot point because, as we have demonstrated

the polls prove that she can never be elected.

There is no case for nominating someone we already know is doomed to defeat.

Let's nominate a real, fighting Democrat like Russ Feingold or Dean or Obama.

There is no case for Hillary. End of discussion.

[upi402]

43. no to DINO's

I'm done with dual-party corporatism. Have spine, install appropriately.

Democrat/Republican -two sides of the same coin. It's been that way since Raygun and the business round-table.

[Marr]

45. I think we can do a little better that "not a fascist", don't you?

If the Dems don't earn my vote, they won't get it. I held my nose and voted for Kerry last time simply because Bush is so bad, but never again. No more freebies from me- it only enables the rightward drift of the party.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

49. Not a Fascist sounds good after 5 years of this fascist rePUKEism

real good

[upi402]

52. but that's how BushCo sneaked in...

and voter fraud was unchallenged by DINO's

[AntiCoup2K4]

83. If you vote to enable fascism

...aren't you also a fascist?

How many of the votes which enabled the fascists came from Hillary?

[Ken Burch]

168. She did vote for the Patriot Act and has not ever questioned it

So we can't actually call her an opponent of fascism.

[FreedomAngel82]

51. I don't want any more wars either

If Hillary wants my vote and she does run she has to denounce the war and admit she was wrong. What if an anti-war republican comes out? :shrug:

[Ken Burch]

60. Is there really such a thing as an antiwar Republican?

At least, is it humanly possible that one could be nominated?

[sleipnir]

55. Well, I'll vote for Hillary, but I think we can do better.

Let's hope we can....

[JohnnyCougar]

57. I won't vote for ANY candidate who won't denounce this war immediately

Feingold didn't vote for it, and he has said that we must leave by 2006.

I'd vote for Kucinich, too.

[wmills551]

59. Cindy Sheehan can't get into the news cycle unless she attacks Dems

And she is addicted to the fame now. She has no business going after Dems.

[Ken Burch]

61. Whereas you, by contrast, have every business going after her

and, for that matter, going after everyone else?
Go away, Mills, we're on to you.

[Bridget Burke]

78. Why don't you just say that Cindy has "jumped the shark"

According to Google, that's the latest Right Wing Talking Point about her.

[JohnnyCougar]

62. I'm voting Green if Hillary is the nominee.

And I won't campaign, either. I will actively encourage other anti-war Democrats to vote Green, too.

You can't keep rewarding somebody for getting it wrong.

[onenote]

69. that worked well in 2000, didn't it....

[Mutley]

64. I don't think there will be any female Presidential candidates this time.

I don't think the general American public has come around yet to the idea that a woman can lead just as well, if not better, than a man. I think if the dems run a woman we will almost assuredly lose -- and based on bullshit like the last time with the "morals voters". We'll have people who would otherwise be very open to democratic ideas -- considering the unhappiness with the war, but they will refuse to vote for a woman.

I don't like it, I just think that's the way it is.

[pinniped]

65. Hey Mutley, nice pic. What city is that?

?

[Mutley]

66. Baltimore. View from I-83 southbound heading into downtown.

Thanks! :D

[pinniped]

68. Thanks!

.

[MadHound]

67. Sorry, but stopping the war is the number one priority

If the Dems can't figure this one out and put up a suitable anti-war candidate, screw 'em, I'll vote Green.

What good is being in power if you are going to continue to do the same old shit once you have that power?

And it isn't like the anti-war position is unpopular, the majority of Americans are now anti-war. This seems like a no-brainer, but lord knows, the Dems coporate masters still see money in that there war, and thus both parties continue to ride it for all it's worth. And thousands upon thousands on both sides continue to die.

That is the litmus test for the '08 election. If the Democratic candidate doesn't pass that, they will not be getting mine, or millions of other votes nation wide.

[onenote]

70. which means, of course, that the war will continue

You think a republican is going to end the war faster? You think the Supreme Court will look better with another repub making the choices until 2012? You think civil rights in this country will improve?

onenote

[Ken Burch]

72. A Democrat elected as a defender of the war CAN'T stop it.

End of discussion there.

Hawks never become doves after the election.

[MadHound]

77. So we should reward the warmongers as tens of thousands continue to die?

And quite frankly, what the fuck good is it to elect a Democrat if they're going to act like a 'Pug? How in the hell do you think we're going to stop this war if we the voters continue to give the warmongers a pass simply because they have a D behind their name? That little D doesn't automatically make somebody a saint friend.

You may be willing to have the blood of innocents on your hands and conscience, but I'm certainly not. And believe me, if you knowingly vote for a warmonger simply because of that magical D behind their name, you WILL have innocent blood on your hands.

Sheesh, it is absolutely amazing how many people are willing to let innocents die for partisan politics. How in the hell can you live with yourself?

By the by, guess who ended the Vietnam War? Yeah, that's right, a Republican. Hmmmm!

[Greyhound]

118. That seems to be their position, a dem fascist is preferable to

a re:puke: fascist. :banghead: Power to the sheeple!

[MadHound]

126. Yes, it amazes me how easily it is for many people here and nationwide

To put partisan politics over matters of life and death.

And people wonder why myself and others see little difference between the two parties:puke:

[Ken Burch]

166. A democrat elected as a hawk CAN'T end the war

It is simply not possible.

[LWolf]

71. I don't think she stands alone if you aren't with her.

There will probably be a big shift in the camps people choose to make their "stand," but I don't see her alone.

If Democrats want to retain support from the left, from progressives, from the anti-war camp, they will nominate someone who supports those visions in deed as well as word. If Democrats have decided that they don't need those other camps to win, they won't let that factor into the nomination. It's really up to Democrats who stands with them in '08.

Iraq is the biggest, most visible issue out there; to nominate a war-supporter would be suicide, in this Democrat's opinion. As a progressive Democrat, I'll continue to work with and support progressive Democrats. I'm not real enthusiastic about fighting the internal "electable" wars, losing the nomination to the less appealing on issues but "electable" candidate who doesn't win the GE -- again.

I hope that Democrats can see the obvious:

When you berate your progressive members, and begin to suggest that they march in step or say goodbye, you put them on the defense, instead of standing with you. Make them angry enough, disenfranchised enough, and they may choose to withdraw their support. That is no way to win partners and influence voters.

I have no idea where I will be in 2008, with any politician or activist. It all depends on what they say and do between now and then.

[Loonman]

73. No way in hell will Hillary win if she runs

It'd be an exercise in futility and we'd get another Repub Administration.

[LynneSin]

74. I agree with Cindy when it comes to the Democratic Primaries but...

...she will alienate a large group of her supporters who, like myself, want to end repuke rule in 2008.

I think if we all unite together and support Cindy's request for the primaries then we won't have to worry about alienating Cindy in the general election because we will have a candidate who wants to end the war.

But we are a small part of the democratic party, let's just hope our voices are loud!

[JNelson6563]

76. I won't oppose any Dem, like Cindy

but there are those I will not work very hard for. Other races would get the lion's share of my time/effort.

Julie

[DrunkenMaster]

79. Yer Kinda Missing the Point

The point is that if there is no realization and admission on a political level that the US acted improperly, we will have "another four years of these fascist fucks" no matter which candidate wins.

Duh.

[file83]

84. UNITE = I like Cindy......... DIVIDE = I don't like Cindy.

It's that simple.

Let the debate about the war continue, but what ever we do, we must NOT DIVIDE the Democratic party.

Let Hillary be a Centrist, help us win back the Majority in 2006, then we can pull home as many troops as we want. Cindy isn't thinking about the long term strategy. If we don't get back the majority, we may never leave Iraq no matter how many fences she ties herself to.

Cindy, I support your plight, but not your politics.

[BlueEyedSon]

86. I oppose dynastic presidencies.

[Califooyah Operative]

88. huh?

I don't think she'll stand alone regardless, and she can oppose whoever she wants, and why don't you wait and see who the nominee is and whether she opposes them or not.

[Miss Chybil]

89. Clinton. Gore. Clark. I'll go for any of those. Cindy Sheehan

doesn't tell me who to vote for any more than any of you do.

[ShaneGR]

93. So errmmm, did Cindy do all this to run for office?

I'm confused.

[Bonobo]

94. Hate these baiting, fascistic threads. Shrub tactics.

I vote my conscience.

[porphyrian]

97. That statement isn't true.

She doesn't stand alone. Her methods may not be the most effective or prudent, but she's gathered a sizable following that is ignored at the peril of the Democratic party. I know what you're saying and I certainly agreed with it when I voted for Kerry last year (who I don't felt represented me very well, but had to be better than bush), yet I also understand the need from the liberal third of Americas population to for chrissakes get some representation in government already. How many times do we have to settle for a "moderate" just because they're "better" than a republican? There are multiple battles being fought here, and some are beginning to feel that watching the whole thing crumble and starting over is easier than fixing it at this point. If I had any power in the party, I'd think about addressing their concerns.

[buddysmellgood]

98. HEY, I know! Let's have a divisive bullshit argument to splinter us right

now! Why wait?
Here's another. Yur either for us, or agin us....discuss.

[Theres-a]

102. I was thinking the same thing

[progressivebydesign]

133. Yep. We have lots of time to destroy ourselves from within again.

I am going to keep track this time of everyone that insists they will not vote Democratic in 2008 for whatever their principled reason may be at that time, and those that start these divisive fights. Then I'm going to start a thread in 2009, when we are at war with Syria and Iran, and ask each one how that worked out for them.

The republicans blow, but man... they can teach us all about unity and sucking it up for the good of the party (to win elections).

[Ken Burch]

167. It goes without saying that a Democrat elected as a hawk

would be indistinguishable on foreign policy and everything else from a Republican, and that that Democrat would have us at war in Syria and Iran too.

[Ken Burch]

169. Tell that to the DLC'er who started this fucking thread.

There is never an excuse for Cindy-bashing in DU.

And, c'mon, if Cindy DID campaign for Hillary when Hillary is certain to run as LBJ in a pantsuit on foreign policy, the right-wingers would all say "see? she never wanted the war stopped. She didn't care that Casey died. She just wanted to elect a Democrat".

[Junkdrawer]

100. Clinton will have zero grass roots, but I'll bet she gets the nod...

It's good to count the votes...

[LibertyorDeath]

104. Oh for the love of fuck...Hillary does not stand a chance of becoming the

next POTUS.

Not a fucking chance.

The nomination sure actually making it to become the first Female President don't make me laugh.

[SlipperySlope]

105. Cindy has an absolute Veto over any D candidate. Period.

We've backed her this far, we can't stab her now.

Maybe *she* should run?

Go Cindy Go!

[Skinner]

106. For the record.

If Cindy opposes the 2008 Democratic nominee, she won't stand alone. Surely there will be plenty of people who stand with her.

But just in case there's any confusion: They won't be able to use this website to oppose the Democratic nominee.

[John Q. Citizen]

117. Even if Jeb bush switches parties and gets the nomination?

Not likely, for sure, but as H. Truman said, never say never.

[mzmolly]

196. I'll say never.

NEVER.

[jonnyblitz]

135. that's fair. i wouldnt want to be a member if this site is promoting

a pro-war candidate. I have no problems complying with the rules. :hi:

[Mr_Spock]

142. LOL - I was wondering about that

Cindy can be a Democratic activist, just don't come round here at DU trying to round up support against the Democratic party or it's nominee :D

I have a feeling her views will have changed by then. Or she will become irrelevant. Or Hillary's views will have changed by then. Or Hillary will become irrelevant (unlikely).

[mzmolly]

197. Agree on both counts.

:hi:

[gardenista]

143. That's good to know. nt

[G_j]

150. maybe the pro-war Dems should be listening to her NOW

she is not an exception, she represents millions.

wake up and smell the coffee

:donut:

[mzmolly]

198. Define a pro-war Dem?

Can someone do that for me please? Are we talkin Zell Miller or Lieberman?

[katinmn]

207. Pro-war dems say that we are bringing democracy to Iraq

A pro-war dem looks the other way when faced with the Downing Street Minutes, the polls showing more than half of Americans oppose the war, and the raging poverty across our own country.

A pro-war dem thinks sending more troops to Iraq will solve the problem, that America will win, that there will still be flowers thrown at the feet of the soldiers.

A pro-war Dem will not admit that the US is causing the "insurgency" in Iraq, when all the facts say otherwise.

[mzmolly]

210. Well if you can find me one Dem who meets all of your criteria, I'd

like the links.

For example, I just googled your first example and found that Hillary did NOT look the other way on the DSM.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/12/rs.01.html

[EnfantTerrible]

172. That is disappointing to hear, Skinner

Perhaps I can refresh your memory as to what's written on your own "About DU" page:

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.

Are you saying that this does not hold true? Or is DU now unofficially/officially affiliated with the Democratic Party/DLC? Whose goals define "shared goals"? If they are goals as defined by DU then please make those clear to those of us who still value exercising freedom of thought and expression. This is hardly the way to conduct a forum for free discourse, IMO.

[BamaBecky]

175. I figured out a long time ago, exactly where DU stands........

[mzmolly]

200. Well it's in the user rules and the place is called DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND

;)

[understandinglife]

178. I was about to post exactly the same. Skinner, please respond.

Thank you.


Peace.

[nashville_brook]

189. isn't it a little early to call the nomination for Hillary? shouldn't we

be vetting all possible nominees in the harshest possible light PRIOR to the primaries. how else will we nominate someone ABLE to win?

[mzmolly]

203. Skinner did not call the nomination for anyone, he simply said

what is in the user rules: in summary (use someone else's bandwith to help Republicans win.)

Skinner has allowed vigorous debate in the Primaries, but he rightfully supports the nominee when a nominee is chosen.

[mzmolly]

199. You should read on!

Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

[EnfantTerrible]

221. What I quoted is this sites own description of itself.

The "rules" you have quoted do not support that self description and one of them needs to be brought in line with the other for the benefit and understanding of all who post here.

on edit: FYI this site is not called "Democratic PARTY Underground". I noticed that you have made a point of reiterating the name of the place as an answer to other posters on this thread.

Here's a definition of the word Democracy and by extention "Democratic":
http://www.dwatch.ca/democracy.html

A DEMOCRACY IS a society in which all adults have easily accessible, meaningful, and effective ways:

to participate in the decision-making processes of every organization that makes decisions or takes actions that affect them, and;
to hold other individuals, and those in these organizations who are responsible for making decisions and taking actions, fully accountable if their decisions or actions violate fundamental human rights, or are dishonest, unethical, unfair, secretive, inefficient, unrepresentative, unresponsive or irresponsible;
so that all organizations in the society are citizen-owned, citizen-controlled, and citizen-driven, and all individuals and organizations are held accountable for wrongdoing.

[LoZoccolo]

258. We think people understand that this is Democratic Party Underground.

We're not going to spend much time trying to get you to stop deliberately misunderstanding that. If anything, that rule you think should not be there (why don't you go run your own site) should tell you that.

[EnfantTerrible]

262. Who is "we"?

The site description is there for anyone who wants to read it. Do I need to quote it again?

"...this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole."

If you are not going to spend much time debating this then why are you responding to posts that were never addressing you in the first place?

Skinner can clarify things himself if he cares to.

[LoZoccolo]

263. He already did clarify things.

You're the one saying he didn't know what he was talking about.

[LoZoccolo]

264. Also, "we" is "most of us".

Every so often there comes a person who doesn't understand that this place is for people who support the Democratic Party, and can understand that just because the site has no official connection to the Democratic Party doesn't mean it still isn't for support of that party, and fails in trying to engage us in a guilt trip for wanting to be productive here and not be constantly nagged by people who wish to do the Republicans' work for them and leech off our time and bandwidth.

[EnfantTerrible]

265. More "With us or against us" rhetoric

from a seemingly self appointed spokesman of the DLC and DU. What you advocate is blind party loyalty at the expense of exercising those "unalienable rights" that the Framers held to be "self evident". It is this type of group-think that does more to aide the Republicans than any individual dissent will ever do and contributes to the overall erosion of Democracy and the Party you claim to represent. Boorishness and bullying coupled with thinly veiled and unfounded accusations all wrapped up in the banner of Party loyalty perpetuates the dysfunction that afflicts current politics while illuminating how negligible the difference in behavior can be between DUers and Freepers, VichyDems and Neocons. Many of the best and brightest that posted on DU have either been forced out or have left voluntarily, refusing to be subjugated or silenced. The affects of this migration are becoming more and more apparent on these boards.

[LoZoccolo]

271. That's the way it works at the voting booth.

If you do not vote for the Democrat, you help the Republican. Republicans understand this and this is why they propped up Nader.

You can have your own opinion all you want, and talk about it all you want, I don't care about you doing that. But once you get in that voting booth, if you have failed to get the candidate you want through the primary, and you don't vote for the Democrat because you want to take it out on the rest of the party because of your own failure, you are helping the Republicans. That has nothing to do with what you or I think; that is reality. I am not responsible for it, and you cannot change it. If you think I'm a bully, think about how reality setting in for all the people who've died in Iraq and because of Katrina has been for them.

I don't care about these people leaving either. Most people in the real world seem to understand these simple principles of reality. For some reason, these people who operate outside of reality tend to congregate on the Internet and spend an inordinate amount of time working to get Republicans elected and distracting the rest of us from real-life efforts, as you have been doing all up and down this thread. I don't care for these people being here if they are going to take us further from our goal. There aren't many of them in the real world, and as the survey I took yesterday was indicating before it got locked, there aren't many of them here either. They leech an inordinate amount of our time.

[EnfantTerrible]

272. Cindy is distracting you from "real-life efforts"?

She is one of those who has tasted this "reality" and if the any of the DLCers had a spine by opposing the war from the outset and were actually public servants instead of politico careerists we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The reality is that the Dem party is weak and complicit. They don't have the courage of any convictions and instead poll for their opinions. What you have expressed here will only serve to ensure the continuation of this weakness by attempting to silence those who challenge this "leadership".

[LoZoccolo]

274. In some ways, yes.

Yep. If she is working to get a Republican elected, she is generally working against my agenda, no matter what else she does.

[EnfantTerrible]

282. You really believe that she is

WORKING TO GET A REPUBLICAN ELECTED!!!! That is truly IGNORANT. She is one of the people you were referring to in your attempt to silence me!!! Y'know "If you think I'm a bully, think about how reality setting in for all the people who've died in Iraq and because of Katrina has been for them." She's done more in the last 6 months to hold this regime responsible for the war and to bring national attention to it to boot than any of the DLC has in 5 YEARS!

I'm done talking to you. Enjoy the lemming life... right off a cliff.

[LoZoccolo]

285. If she works against the Democrats, yes.

It is possible to take a step forward and two steps back.

[greyl]

219. copy:I hope you realize that you are free to be critical of Dem candidates

during the Primaries, preferably while having 1 or more favorite Democratic candidates that you are championing. You are also encouraged to communicate how you feel with the Democratic campaigns as they wage the battle to defeat the repugs.
After our Democratic Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates are chosen, how would it make sense for democraticunderground to let attacks against the Dem candidate go unnoticed? We fight it in the MSM, why the hell not here?

/copy
edit:fixed title

[EnfantTerrible]

220. Oh right, I get it now...

Once the nominee is in place then we'd better aquire a taste for a different flavor kool-aid. Be a good soldier, stay on message, stop thinking, stop questioning, stay insulated. In case you haven't noticed this is the strategy that has been employed by the current administration. What a success it's been for them.

So, how would it make sense? It might actually help to prepare the nominee for the fight if the base never stops questioning. I would hope that the questioning wouldn't go unnoticed and that ensuing debate would hone the arguments. Then the nominee might actually be able to articulate a cogent and concise message to the American People. Then we don't end up with the same problems that were faced in 2004. It would seem that folks here are awfully eager to get in line and that winning is all that matters. It's not a victory, though, if the Dem nominee is just a repug-lite centrist. Who cares which party is in the White House if the problems remain the same. Call me crazy, but it takes a bit more than a Dem in name only to garner my support. What they stand for is all that matters to me. If the nominee is a prowar Dem I will be damn loud in my disapproval and will voice that opinion until I am no longer able. I don't take marching orders from the DLC. If that means that DU will no longer welcome me because I may voice an opinion contrary to what the party leaders want to hear then it's not worth being a member here. On that day they should remove the word "Democratic" from the name of this forum and the lemmings can keep their bandwidth.

[greyl]

222. No, I don't think you do.

You are hypothesizing a "negative" future in which the Democratic nominee is someone you will hate while the DU continues to champion them. (After the gauntlet they will all probably go through during the primaries)

I suggest you value you free-speech here today. It's not against the DU rules to be critical of Democratic politicians! But it will be against the DU rules to spout right-wing talking points after our presidential nominee is chosen. If you choose to be a staunch 3rd or 4th party voter, wouldn't your time be spent at their underground websites after all? Why squander your time tilting at windmills? Really, it seems to me like it would be in your own best interest. If your "negative" future comes to pass, that is.

[EnfantTerrible]

226. Being against a pro war Dem

is hardly congruent with right wing talking points. Nor am I "hypothesizing" anything. What I take issue with is being told that I am not allowed to be critical of the Dem nominee on a site that professes to be democratic. You seem to adopt the "with us or against us" mentality which is much more in line with the talking points you are referring to.

As for your suggestion, I will answer with this: I value my free-speech EVERYDAY, not just today, and if, here, that is subject to time limits, then I would offer your own suggestion back to you.

on edit: typos

[greyl]

231. Using your logic, we would allow limbaugh to post here because

this site is "a Democracy". I think you're confusing the various meanings of "democratic" and "Democratic". This site can't be considered "a Democracy" and I don't know of any that can.

"Being against a pro war Dem is hardly congruent with right wing talking points."

I wouldn't and didn't say that exactly - straw-man. To clarify: "After the primaries, when the Democrat has been chosen to defeat the bush admin, posting non-constructive criticism of the candidate with the intent of reducing the votes they get or disrupting the unity that will be necessary here will be frowned upon (shocker) and will indeed be effectively congruent with right-wing talking points.

Who would you like to see going against the repubs in 2008?

[EnfantTerrible]

248. It was you who, in so many words, equated

criticism of the Dem nominee with right wing talking points:

"But it will be against the DU rules to spout right-wing talking points after our presidential nominee is chosen."

There is no straw-man here. In fact, I believe it is you that runs the risk of wearing that moniker. It is this attitude that any criticism of the nominee is automatically right-wing talking points and should therefore be silenced that exemplifies why I wrote to Skinner in the first place. One can only construe from his post that once the nominee is chosen the law at DU is either get on board or shut up. You take pains to bold " non-constructive criticism", but that is subjective. Who will qualify what is constructive or not? The "unity" around a nominee will never be cultivated by quelling contrary opinion from within the party. It can only be called false unity when that is the case.

This thread is all about the pro war/ anti war debate regarding our Dem reps and possible candidates. What you have mislabled "hypothisizing" in my posts is actually just the given circumstances of the thread. It is you who are guily of "hypothesizing" that any criticism I may have of the nominee will be non-constructive right wing talking points.

It may be worth pointing out that my OP was directed at Skinner and not you. He is more than capable of answering for himself.

[countryjake]

227. Why is it okay to spout RW talking points against Ms. Sheehan?

The woman simply oozes everything right and good about taking a stand and actually doing something positive to make others realize the twisted path that this awful War, the lying politicos, and cunning fascist neoconservatives are taking us down!

I've been a registered voter for almost 40 years and have never checked a box for anyone but a Democratic candidate, when I've voted. However, I have many times found that it 'twas a finer thing to sit out an election, than to join in the selection of a person who didn't represent me in any way. I've done my share of stumping the pavement to get out the vote for those candidates who did garner both my respect and support, also.

Now I've never posted or read at any other underground political websites; there is quite enough of that sort of diversity to be found here, if one is inclined to sort out the opinions. I have enjoyed like-minded posters here, exclusively, for a long, long time, before I ever registered to make a comment, and only finally signed up because I couldn't hold my tongue after all the caterwauling due to last year's election.

It is the people who create history, not the candidates or the politicians, and as soon as that philosophy gets skewed around (anymore than it already is) is the day we can kiss this democratic system goodbye. Last year I donated hard-earned money (which I didn't have) to encourage a man who I thought deserved both my support and my vote, only to watch him mysteriously disappear from the canvas mid-year, replaced by someone whom I could barely, grudgingly place my mark beside his name. I do not take my vote lightly and I do not vote for those who do not represent me... if the Democratic Party thinks that condemning this woman who speaks truth to power is a popular position, who, exactly, DO they represent?

[greyl]

232. All criticism of Cindy isn't necessarily right-wing talking points.

We just can't expect everybody here to agree with everything she's ever done and speak of her as if she were infallible or doesn't respond to suggestions from her fans. (<--I mean fans in the best way possible) As it is now, she is a public figure and open discussion and criticism about her is allowed. Just like criticism of Democratic politians is allowed.

Now, if she became the Democratic candidate someday, or even a fellow member of DU, that would change. :)

[countryjake]

234. That's true. But...

I happen to live in a rural area, teeming with conservatives, religious folks, fundies, and downright suspicious-of-any-government types, who thankfully are somewhat isolated from the general RW consensus, (aside from that pig with the radio program) due to lack of interest in computering, minimal cable access, and lives too busy to fool around with politicking, which is more likely to raise gunfire, than not.

In speaking with these friends and neighbors, discussing the War and the actions of this mother who's lost her son to it, I've found that there is an incredible amount of support among them because they can identify with her plight, feel that this administration should speak with her and answer her question, and think she deserves, at the very least, the respect any other grieving parent deserves who has suffered such a loss. Now that may simply be because our county has also sacrificed boys during these last two years; young men that everyone watched grow up, saw them off when they went overseas, and stood together and wept at their funerals, so it's much easier to relate to Ms. Sheehan's protests.

It just strikes me as odd when I come in here to this liberal gathering-place and read some of the harshness directed toward a person who is doing all she can to stand up to a mighty power who has stolen the lives of so very many. You're right tho, she is a public figure, fair game for discussion, and constructive criticism will only make her stronger, while those who wish to silence her make it very clear what kind of future they're aiming for!

[greyl]

244. Cool. I think it's important to refrain from hasty labelling of people.

To use an extreme analogy, categorizing someone as anti-progressive because they criticize Cindy Sheehan at all is like a white cop harassing someone just because they assume they are black.

As with the races, there exists a fairly smooth continuum between "Pro-Cindy" and "Critical of Cindy" and, much farther over "Just Nuke the Mid-East because the bush admin knows what's best for the entire planet".
Ya know?

For the record, I'm Pro-Cindy, with some very minor reservations.

edit: added "assume they"

[countryjake]

246. Agreed! But take out Cindy and insert "War". Then say that again!

There's where the crux lies; what is progressive about supporting this movement in the Middle East, at all? The stance so many supposed liberals have been taking, (for many years now, not just since the White House was commandeered) has been one of aggression, trumped-up sanctions, and distaste for governments who don't kowtow to American interests. My fear of the battle brewing in Iraq began long before the Republicans had their hands on the throttle, back when those other millions of children and poor suffered and died, due to OUR foreign policy...OUR insistence on UN sanctions after we'd already crippled that nation! You were right, if you transpose the words I've mentioned...not a very fine line between being Pro-War and Critical of the Methods and all three of your suggested stances do lie on the same side. I dislike sticking labels on folks, too, but I'll call a duck a duck, if it has webbed feet, quacks, and craps all over the place, without thinking!

I found this paragraph interesting, in Hersh's summation of the Leak Investigation and the state of the mess in our country:

~snip~

"'America's current troubles in Iraq might be less severe', he says, 'if Al Gore had won the election.' But Hersh is under no illusions. Even before Bush, 'the Clinton administration had made it repeatedly clear that it was interested in only one thing in Iraq — regime change. And Al Gore was part of that policy.'"



Investigative Reporter Seymour Hersh is No Longer a Lone Voice in the Wilderness
By MICHAEL POSNER From Monday's Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051031.wxhersh31/BNStory/Entertainment/

[Mutley]

250. We all agreed to the rules of DU when we signed up here.

Included in those rules is something along the lines of "no one here will use this board to oppose democratic candidates." If you did not agree with that rule, you did not have to sign up. This is a privately owned website, and the owner is free to moderate it in any way he chooses.

If a democrat is nominated who I am not willing to support, then I will not be spending much time on DU during the election. There are plenty of other outlets for that sort of dissent. However, I would be willing to support NEARLY any democrat at this point. I think our most important goal should be taking back our government and our country. If that means supporting a democrat who rubs me the wrong way a bit, then I'll do it. I did it last year. Everything else can come after.

[LoZoccolo]

257. Waah waah we've heard this over and over again.

We are here to get real things done and not be distracted by people helping the Republicans so much that the Republicans donate money to their causes and gather petitions for them, and I personally couldn't care less if people trying to distract us from that get their posts deleted and or themselves tombstoned. Whining about how that makes you feel doesn't make me feel better about the fact that we have had numerous tragedies befall us due to the actions of some whiners in the 2000 election.

More information on where I stand:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2203808

[kliljedahl]

188. Well if that nominee is a pro war nominee

I'll oppose them here, I'll oppose them everywhere I can. In other words, you're going to stifle free speech?

[mzmolly]

195. What does pro-war mean exactly?

Free speech? Rush Limbaugh doesn't post here, and doing damage to the Dem nominee should not be allowed at "DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND."

I suggest people find another discussion board if they want to help Republicans win.

[katinmn]

206. Nice

:sarcasm:

Please understand that some of us can't stomach the thought of supporting a candidate who supports an illegal, horrifying, bankrupting, isolating war. It doesn't matter if they are Republican or Democrat - we hate this war that much. Do you know what it's like to feel that strongly about something?

It's a deal-breaker and there are several other candidates that are not talking about sending 100,000 more troops to die for a lie.

And did I miss seeing Howard Dean's grassroots plan blossom? You know, where common citizens are invited into rather than locked out of the process.

Did I blink and miss the primaries? Why are Democrats so ready to accept the crowned one?

Refusing to pledge support for a pro-war candidate who would have us believe we are on a noble mission in the ME doesn't make someone a fucking Republican. It means they have principles, a concience and the brains to learn from past mistakes (i.e. voting against their principles in 2004 and STILL losing).

When someone says, 'Support Hillary or you can't be part of MY party,' I say: Screw them. Stop acting like a brownshirt and a narrow minded ideologue.

Next they'll be asking people to sign loyalty oaths.

[mzmolly]

208. I am opposed to war thus I refuse to support MORE of them.

I do not support Hillary for one.

I am arguing against furthering the PNAC agenda via our quest for perfection. As far as I know, Hillary will not pursue the remaking of the entire middle east, if she gets elected. And, I have yet to see ONE post showing me where Hillary = Bush on the Middle-east. What I have seen is much ado about nothing and the blind following of a heroic anti-war Mom named Cindy Sheehan.

Also, Dems who call for increased military generally call for INTERNATIONAL support. This was greatly overlooked when Kerry was said to = Bush on foreign policy.

When someone says "I'm anti-war, but I don't care if we allow Republicans in office for another 4 years to start more wars," I say screw them, stop acting like a hypocritical narrow minded single issue voter. Start thinking about our future, EVERYONES future. We can't afford another Republican presidency. And, if you think we can then don't bitch about the situation were in today.

As for Dean, if you want to start a thread questioning his leadership - be my guest, I'm not going to discuss every issue under the sun in this thread.

[katinmn]

209. Certain political think-tanks are circumventing Dean's plan

By claiming the nomination for HR, they are leaving the grassroots out -- see?

Nothing I wrote can or should be construed as an attack on Howard Dean. I wish the elitist political clubs would quit meddling in our democracy so Dean's plan would be allowed to work.

[mzmolly]

211. Gotcha.

:hi:

[longship]

225. Pro War == Hillary's position.

Hillary wants more troops in Iraq!! For christ sakes, that's what we did in Viet Nam. Didn't do a damned bit of good. So we sent even more troops in. That didn't work either. So we bombed and bombed and bombed. Then Viet Nam attacked with the Tet offensive. So they sent more troops. And soldiers died. And Viet Namese died. And we destroyed a country. Then, after tens of thousands of our soldiers died, we cut and ran.

We've been there before and Hillary herself knows it. If Hillary Clinton gets the 2008 nomination and still has her same insane position on Iraq, I will not be voting for a Democrat for President.

I cannot support *any* candidate for President that will support the Iraq war. It's just that simple.

[greyl]

218. I hope you realize that you are free to be critical of Dem candidates

during the Primaries, preferably while having 1 or more favorite Democratic candidates that you are championing. You are also encouraged to communicate how you feel with the Democratic campaigns as they wage the battle to defeat the repugs.
After our Democratic Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates are chosen, how would it make sense for democraticunderground to let attacks against the Dem candidate go unnoticed? We fight it in the MSM, why the hell not here?

[mzmolly]

192. Awesome!

Thanks Skinner. :toast:

[xultar]

230. THANK YOU!!! This is DemocraticUnderground...

[rucky]

107. Cindy's not really asking for much.

Just an apology from someone - anyone - who supported this war.

Why is that so tough?

[DistressedAmerican]

108. If That Is Not Pure Flamebait I Have Never Seen It.

Have fun with that...

[hiley]

185. you are right

:)

[WI_DEM]

113. Her stand is very understandable--she won't support anybody

who supported this corrupt war--or voted to authorize it. That said, I will support the Democratic nominee, but if the democrats are smart they will nominate an anti-war candidate.

[Lethe]

119. if Hilliary wins in 08... 2 families would have ruled US for 24 years

scary

[dogday]

134. Very astute analysis

In the long run it is about power and who has had it and who is going to get it. Your analysis of powerful families running this country is right on time.

[Ms. Clio]

163. Brilliant point

I am sick to death of the dynasties.

[progressivebydesign]

121. I'll stand with our nominee and support Cindy's cause.

I refuse to watch another Democratic train wreck in 2006 or 2008.

I despise the GOP but I've learned that they have a way of coming together for the good of their evil empire. Democrats, being the free-thinkers and independent folks we are, always blow it by allowing our differing self interests to break our unity.

Cindy has her own stance, and that is great for her and her own experiences. I just can't even think about NOT getting behind our nominee in 2008, nor can I get involved in tearing down any of those in the primary. I don't want another Iraq, and I don't want anyone else to lose their loved ones in an unjust war. I just think that attacking our Democrats from within the party is the wrong way to ensure that it doesn't happen again. For once, I'd like to see some real party unity this time, and not assist in taking down our own party by attacking each other in the primaries.

[NancyG]

122. Totally agree. Can't have another 4-8 years.

The circular firing squad should end when a Dem sews up the primary season.

[bloom]

124. That's why we need a nominee who doesn't go along with the fascist fucks.

including Clinton.



(Cindy shouldn't be standing along - the nominee should stand for us).

[mmonk]

127. More bait and attack? She won't stand alone.

Wishful thinking.

[dogday]

128. I oppose any Candidate who is for the war

that simple. Your platform beter be to end the war or don't even look at this voter. No way will I go along and be with the masses, I must seek my own candidate.

[Ian_rd]

136. She won't stand alone, Hillary will.

Even after Hillary loses with her spineless nonposition on the war, Cindy's rallies will be as crowded as ever.

If the Dems lose in 2006 and 2008, it their fault for being cowardly Republican-lite pieces of worthless crap in the DLC/Al From mold. It won't be Cindy's fault.

[roguevalley]

137. you assume that woman will get the nomination. Not from me or mine

I will NEVER forgive her unwillingness to admit when she's wrong. Bush can't. She won't. I pray she won't get the nomination. I am sick of the same damned two families fucking with our country for 25 years.

[AZBlue]

138. THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!!

For looking at the Big Picture and stating the obvious.

I don't want one more soldier killed in Iraq. I want a plan today, no make that yesterday, to get us out of there and to help the Iraqi people out of the mess that we created for them. I want the criminals that lied and cheated and led us into this illegal invasion to be prosecuted. And I do believe that this will happen.

But, I decide who I will vote for because this is a democracy. I look at the "Big Picture" and realize that not only should you never base your decision to vote for someone only on one issue but you should also keep the bigger goal in mind (of gettting the Republicans out of power). Only then can we bring about the changes we seek.

Nothing in Iraq will change if they still run the country. No, actually I take that back, things will change - they will continue to get worse. And more Americans and Iraqis will be killed.


Edited to add:
Voting for Bush to have the power to invade based upon deliberately false info from Bush & Co DOES NOT EQUAL supporting the war.

Not asking for immediate and complete withdrawal of troops because that would leave Iraq in an even bigger mess than it's in now DOES NOT EQUAL supporting the war.

We all need to remember these things.

[Zhade]

140. I will stand with Cindy against the war, period.

No matter who the nominee is - this war must end, NOW.

[stevietheman]

144. I'm with Cindy. If Hillary gets the nom, I'm voting a third party.

I am not supporting *anyone* who continues to support the war in Iraq. No matter what.

It behooves Democrats to look at *all* the candidates who run for the nom, and not automatically hand it over to Hillary, anyway.

[robertpaulsen]

145. Uhhh...did you forget Diebold & friends makes this thread a moot point?

We didn't "give up another four years to these fascist fucks". These fascist fucks have stolen the elections, regardless of our choice. Until Democratic politicians can stand united behind true electoral reform, our government will continue to remain solidly Banana Republican.

[arwalden]

146. Here We Go Again. Like It Or Not We Have A Two-Party System.

Only one of two candidates will become the next president of the United States. Any vote for a "third party" candidate... that is to say... any vote that does not DIRECTLY BENEFIT the Democratic candidate has the net effect of BENEFITTING THE REPUBLICAN candidate.

There are no two ways about it. These are the facts.

Good thread, Proud2BAmurkin :thumbsup:

[countryjake]

151. Guess that's why there are so many registered non-voters!

Why can't there be a party that represents the common people?

[arwalden]

153. Well, First We Need To Eliminate The Electoral College...

... and have our president elected by a majority vote and not a plurality. In the event that no candidate gets a majority, then we would have to have a system in place for instant run-off elections.

[Warren DeMontague]

186. Well, as someone who had countless arguments with Nader people

in 2000...

As someone who will NEVER forgive Nader for 2004...

As someone who supported Bill Clinton tirelessly for his whole two terms..

As someone who firmly believes scorched-Earth, petulant, 'all or nothing' attitudes towards politics are self-defeating..

As someone who has never voted anything other then Democrat for any major office in my entire adult, voting life...

And lastly, as someone who supported John Kerry in 2004, through the primaries and beyond, because I believed the hype about how his 'nuanced' positions on things like the IWR and the fact that he was a war hero made him 'invulnerable' and the 'reasonable choice', and I believed the blather about how he "wouldn't quit fighting".. (Silly fucking me. In retrospect, we SHOULD HAVE RUN HOWARD DEAN)

I still have to say, clearly and loudly, "No more. No more half-assed, bullshit, mealy-mouthed selling out to 'appeal' to the 'values voters'. Screw that. They're not voting for us, anyway. No more Leiberman-style neo-con flatulance. No video games, no war on porn, no trying to out Jesustalk the other people, no telling the millions of hardworking Democratic constituents who want an end to the Iraq war, or an end to the Drug war, or for whom reproductive choice is a deal breaker, or gay marriage, or the right of terminally ill people to choose a pain-free exit, or the teaching of evolution, or the separation of church and state, for that matter.... to get to the back of the fucking bus. Not this time."

My message to the "don'tcha wanna win?" crowd- YOU NEED US MORE THAN WE NEED YOU. And we've been trying it your way for far too long, already. We're already in hell. The Democratic Party can't win its way out of a paper fucking bag, and we already let the DLC write the playbook. What's the one thing the Democratic Party HASN'T tried lately? COURTING THE GOD-DAMN BASE. Getting people excited by something a little more inspiring than "we're slightly less noxious than the other guy". Having some vision (remember that?), and the NERVE to step on some sacred cows while articulating it. Developing a two-pronged strategy to win poor rural voters by unapologetically supporting things like a SPHC system and simultaneously winning Urban Libertarian-Minded voters by unapologetically supporting getting the government the FUCK out of people's personal space.

They better do it this time, and seriously, or I will walk. And if people like me walk, there's not going to be much of a party left.

[Ken Burch]

235. Right on! Best post of this thread thus far! nt

[DemonFighterLives]

242. Very Well Stated

I am still apt to check the democrat box, though if Hillary is there, I won't have much hope.
Perhaps Cindy will provide Hillary with a wake up call.
And Yes, We Should Have Run Dean!

[IndianaGreen]

280. Over 2,000 dead GIs supposedly to bring democracy to Iraq

while we don't have democracy at home. A 2-party system is undemocratic and it is the reason why the elites control this country.

Death to the 2-party system and its oligarchs!

[MisterP]

152. 3,000 then 6,000 then 10,000 then 30,000 then 50,000 then...

and maybe 20 times as many Iraqi dead

[Ken Burch]

157. If Cindy endorsed and worked hard for a hawk

That would mean she was giving up everything she believed in. It would mean she was abandoning the fight for peace. Why the hell should she endorse whoever we nominate, no matter what?

As I've said, no one elected as a hawk ever becomes a dove.

[Beelzebud]

161. I'm against Hillary for one simple reason.

I'm tired of America being run by two families.

Bush Clinton Bush Clinton Bush Clinton....

Enough already!!!!

[Crazy Guggenheim]

162. I have a question for the people who are currently supporting Hillary.

Are you ready for the onslaught from both the MSM and the RW? Did Hillary kill Vincent Foster? Is Hillary a lesbian?

[jzodda]

164. AGREED

We can fight amongst ourselves AFTER we win, but lets first win and then go back to our own inter-party bickering. We can do nothing nor accomplish anything from the outside looking in.

[garybeck]

171. hillary is my last choice. absolute last.

[mmonk]

177. Does this thread belong here?

[understandinglife]

179. Definitely NOT.

Peace.

[hiley]

180. no

not hardly

[AZBlue]

205. It's here because this use to be the "GD-Politics" thread before Friday

And I think the original message was posted early last week.

[LaurenG]

181. My gut tells me that this will be a different world in 08

I don't think I can take worrying anymore about things that have not happened yet. If Cindy chooses a different candidate thats ok with me. I, like most here have strong opinions about several candidates both good and bad. I'd like to see someone like Fitzgerald run. I like honesty, it works for me.

[Warren DeMontague]

182. Hillary Clinton as The Nominee in '08? What a GREAT Idea!!!

We LOVE It!!!

[hiley]

184. Exactly!

You said it all and for the record I will vote for Hillary Clinton when hell freezes over.

[BamaBecky]

183. Liberals need to get a clue - real soon - about what is

really going on with the secret shadow government, the strings they pull, and who the marionette dolls are on the other end of those strings........

H e l l o ?

[tedzbear]

187. No she doesn't!

As a Green Party member I stand with her!

[mzmolly]

191. I adore Cindy, but I agree. I'm not going to cease fighting the PNAC

Republican agenda in any way I can personally. I do understand how Cindy can feel as she does, but I don't understand the lack of foresight as there are many children who will suffer if another R gets elected.

[AntiCoup2K4]

284. How do you fight the PNAC agenda by electing someone.....

...who agrees with, and votes for it every chance she gets? (Or "he", for that matter since Hillary's far from alone in this one)

[mmonk]

194. sheeesh

go away thread. You don't belong here in the CIA leak case area.

[oregonindy]

201. sorry no more demopublicans. no more candy coating

not another politician whose only interest is corporations and money.

[savemefromdumbya]

202. It's a long time til 2008

just wait and see. Things will be a lot different

[Peace Patriot]

204. We are not going to have any choice in the matter of who gets...

...nominated in the primaries, or 'selected' in the general, in '08, since far rightwing Bushite corporations, Diebold and ES&S, control the tabulation of the votes with "trade secret," proprietary programming code.

We MUST realize this, and strategize accordingly. It's very, VERY important that we don't self-destruct over the issue of a War Democrat. A War Democrat regime may be our last chance to throw Diebold and ES&S election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor.' (--since even War Democrats have to pay at least lip service to progressive values such as transparent elections.)

I repeat: NO antiwar or true populist candidate CAN be nominated.

This does not mean that we shouldn't advocate rightful peace and justice issues, and put as much pressure on the Democrats as we can, and try to make it impossible for them to do anything but stop the war immediately. But if Hillary, for instance, takes that position--not likely, but if she does--SHE. WILL. NOT. WIN. THE. PRIMARIES. And she CANNOT be elected.

The war profiteers are vetting the candidates for '08, and the 'sinking Titanic' anti-Bush political climate, and may WANT to install a War Democrat, to begin taking the rap for Bush's financial and foreign policy disasters, to get a military Draft (Bush can't do it), to maintain the war porkbarrel, and to prepare for installing Jeb (the real Nazi) in '12, after they've finished destroying the War Democrat for everything they themselves have done.

If that's their plan, then it's very, very, very important what we do once another War Democrat is shoved down our throats. My advice: We should throw everything we have behind that person, full support, as we did John Kerry '04--in order to be in a position to influence war policy as best we can), but this time do it in the full awareness of one objective: transparent elections NEXT time.

There are some things we can do in the meantime--projects for statistical monitoring and challenges in '06 and '08 (see http://www.UScountvotes.org, for one), conducting "parallel elections," and independent exit polls, and educating people and trying to get as much transparency as possible, wherever we can get it (see "Mythbreakers," an easy to read pamphlet on the perils of electronic voting, at http://www.votersunite.org.).

We need...

1. Paper ballots hand-counted at the precinct level (--Canada does it in one day, although speed should not even be a consideration, just accuracy and verifiability)

or, at the least...

2. Paper ballot (not "paper trail") backup of all electronic voting, a 10% automatic recount, very strict security, and NO SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code! (...jeez!).

--------------

The war profiteering corporate news monopolies CHANGED their own exit polls (Kerry won) to FIT the results of Diebold and ES&S's secret formulae (Bush won), late on election day. The only way we know this is that they goofed up--had a computer glitch--so that alert bloggers were able to get screen shots of the real exit poll results. The pollsters (Edison-Mitofsky--corporate shills) have promised never to let this happen again, and to keep their real exit poll numbers as non-transparent as the election results will be.

So, independent monitoring of '06 and '08 is extremely important--to overturn wrong results, if possible, and to gather evidence against the machines. The movement to restore transparency to our elections is probably most viable at the state/local level, where control over election systems still resides, and where ordinary people still have some influence. It is a very corrupt scene, but Congress is currently much worse (with Repubs having permitted "trade secret" vote tabulation by Republican companies, and Dems being utterly silent about that corrupt and criminal achievement).

However, if Diebold and ES&S select a War Democrat, and permit at least some Dem gains in Congress (possibly to stop the movement against their machines), then there will be the POSSIBILITY of true election reform, or at least of SOME transparency being restored or assisted by Congress.

The timetable for withdrawal from Iraq (phony or otherwise) will not be nearly as important as achieving transparent elections. If we spend our time tearing a War Democrat regime to pieces over the war, and do not take advantage of the opportunity to restore transparent elections, we will lose our country.

In the 1930s, in Germany, the left/center tore itself to shreds with in-fighting, and never quite realized what it meant that Hitler's thugs were stuffing the ballot boxes. The left/center didn't pay enough attention to the actual mechanisms of power--or to the fact that Hitler was engineering--and wanted, and NEEDED--an aura of legitimacy.

This is where the war profiteering corporate news monopolies come in, in our scene, with their exit poll doctoring--but they have NOT succeeded in getting the American people to buy into their fascist agenda, despite relentless propaganda.

There are many ways that we are NOT similar to Germany in the 1930s (for one, our great diversity as a population--one of our greatest strengths). But this one--the FAILURE of the left/center--is a haunting lesson, and one that we should heed. We must not let it happen again. We must concentrate on SEIZING BACK our power, as a people: Our vote!

[bananas]

249. Yup. n/t

[qanda]

215. I may not stand up with Cindy

But I will certainly sit down with Rosa. If all we are going to get is more of the same NAFTA, CAFTA, War and policies against the poor and middle class, then I will certainly NOT be voting for that!!!!!

[Name removed]

217. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[longship]

223. It's simple.

By 2008, the extent to which Hillary supports continuing the war in Iraq, is the extent to which she will lose the election.

Cindy is not the only person who will not support Hillary under these conditions. I also will not support her. So, I'll stand with Cindy on this.

[Ken Burch]

237. A pro-war Hillary in 2008 will be as electable

as a pro-war Humphrey was in '68.

[longship]

243. Bing!!

nt

[Warren DeMontague]

228. This thread still here?

Man, anybody got an old newspaper we can wrap this baby in?

[AtomicKitten]

233. I will stand with the Dem nominee.

I just pray that nominee has some genuine gravitas. I fully understand where Cindy is coming from, I really do. That's why I want Al Gore to run because he opposed the war from the onset, supported Howard Dean early and publicly, and because he doesn't have the stink of the Iraq Resolution vote on him. If one of these knucklehead Dem Senators would publicly retract, it would be different, but their steadfast insistence on remaining wrong is as baffling as it is unfuriating.

[Ken Burch]

236. You'd stand with Hillary the Hawk?

even though that would mean giving up on ever stopping the war?

[Vinca]

239. Has it occurred to anyone that Hillary may be "playing the game?"

I know it's a novel idea for Democrats . . . that's why we aren't in office. Maybe Hillary is emulating Shrub. Tell the "good folks" what they want to hear, then do what the hell you want after the election. We need to be smart enough to tell the difference between a war monger and an actor.

[Ken Burch]

247. But nobody WANTS to hear a prowar Democratic message anymore.

They people have broken with the war.
Don't you get it?

[AtomicKitten]

245. I said I WILL STAND WITH THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE

What part of that don't you understand?

Any Democratic nominee would be far preferable to the Republican one. If you are content with witholding support for whatever reason, have it. But don't assume you are being righteous in doing so. Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty to change things. And change things we must.

I will work for MY CHOICE during the primary process, however, once the ballots have been counted and the nominee chosen, I'm on board. Period.

[LoZoccolo]

260. Not standing with Hillary would do that. n/t

[BIG Sean]

240. I agree completely...

I respect her, but I will not follow her.

[MadHound]

254. Then if you vote for a pro-war candidate, no matter if they're a D or R

You will have the blood of innocents on your hands. Can you live with that? I know I certainly couldn't. There are somethings that rise above partisan politics friend, and this illegal, immoral war is one of them.

[LoZoccolo]

261. No I won't. n/t

[BurtWorm]

252. Speak for yourself.

:hi:

[erpowers]

253. My Thing

I will support Hillary Clinton if she is the Democratic Party nominee. However, I will not support her in the primaries. I do not like the idea of supporting someone who is rumored to have told a group of Democrats that she is really against the war but supported the war in that a women standing against a war would look weak on national security/defense. If she is really against the war she should stand up and say so. We do not know what Clinton may have told Sheehan behind closed doors. Sheehan may be one of the people who is not willing to stand behind Clinton if Clinton is only willing to silently stand with those who are against this war. About Clinton saying she was against the war but afarid to say that publicly came from Arannia Huffington's blog. Huffington claimed that some Hollywood Democrats told her that Clinton had told them that she was actually against the war, but vote for the war so she could run for president. So, to a degree should we be willing to support Clinton at all?

[welshTerrier2]

259. "We can't give up another four years to these fascist fucks."

or those Democrats who enable them ...

Cindy does not stand alone ... let's hope we're all able to stand together behind an anti-Iraq-war nominee ...

[dogday]

269. My candidate will be on the no war platform

any other one, regardless of affiliation, will not get my vote. I don't want a republican light candidate, I want someone who has the balls to end the war and fix this country. Anyone else is window dressing for the white house....

[Skidmore]

270. Does it occur to anyone that the reason * is sinking is BECAUSE

of this ill-conceived war and that Cindy's voice has been an important one? That descrying this war and the harm it has done to our nation needs to continue and be taken up by Dem politicians, too?

I won't diss Cindy. She stood up when few of these politicians would. She opened a door for them to walk through. Now if they are so stupid they can't see that, then they don't get my vote.

[Bridget Burke]

273. Just another way to discredit Cindy Sheehan.

Those who have belatedly realized that "Cindy jumped the shark" is a Right Wing Meme can now pretend to oppose her as "Good Democrats."

I stand with Cindy now. It's too early for me to commit myself for 2008.

[Skidmore]

276. Nice to meet someone who feels thie way I do.

08 is too far away and I stand with Cindy.

[IndianaGreen]

277. Anybody But Clinton, "ABC" for short, is the rallying cry of millions

of Americans opposed to the war and the neo-liberal policies that Hillary loves so much.

[LoZoccolo]

279. "Ask me about Herbalife" is the rallying cry of thousands

of Americans trying to make money off of multi-level marketing

[IndianaGreen]

281. Go ahead, nominate that prowar, corrupt woman!

Good luck getting people to the polls in 2008!

You have been warned, just as you were warned about IWR!

[LoZoccolo]

283. You people won't follow through on ABC to begin with.

"Anyone but Clinton" means just that, anyone but Clinton. But the minute Joe Lieberman enters the race it will be "Anyone but Clinton and Lieberman". Then Kerry: "Anyone but Clinton and Lieberman and Kerry". Then Dean will say something about how we can't completely pull out right away, or even just neglect to accuse Bush* of war crimes, and then it'll be "Anyone but Clinton and Lieberman and Kerry and Dean".

[Dave Sund]

286. I can see your point

We don't want another Humphrey/Nixon. But wouldn't it be better to nominate someone who is actually committed to bringing the troops home?

[autorank]

287. Hillary will be yesterday's news. She's a media fabrication.

Intentionally and unintentionally. She gets high ratings because of name recognition. Wen I hear "Clinton" I think about the country heading in a decent direction, not fast enough, but that's only because of the stupid Gingrich pod people. That goes for a lot of people so they respond favorably because they know the name. That's the unintentional part. The intentional part is the pseudo liberal press pushing her as the leading candidate because of her high ratings. It's a giant circular argument: she's very well known because of Bill--she rates high in extremely early polls--the press says shes the leader--ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

She supported the war, she moved to the center right very quickly in a very liberal, anti war state. The fallout from the war had not even begun. When it does, she can back peddle but that won't be enough.

She's through as a national figure the minute she gets real opposition. And that's coming...

Keep this in mind...YOU CAN BE SURE THAT EVERY US SENATOR KNEW THAT BUSH'S INTELLIGENCE WAS BOGUS, EVERY ONE OF THEM. THEY'RE LIKE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. THEY KNEW. SHE AND THE REST OF THE DEMOCRATS WHO VOTED FOR THE WAR RESOLUTION DID SO FOR THEIR BENEFIT, NOT OURS, AND DID SO WITH ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS TO BE TOTAL HYPOCRITES.

If you are a Senator, you better be on this list. If not, the truth about the war and the tragic losses across the board DISQUALIFY you from running for president; I'm talking about disqualified by John and Jane Q. Public. They will not be amused.

Here are the Nays on
Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Vote Counts: YEAs 77 NAYs 23 (For Senate)

NAYs ---23
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

This is our Senate Hall of Fame

[IndianaGreen]

288. You'll be the one standing alone if Hillary is the nominee

I want a change in policy not in personnel!

Hillary is a warmonger, a Likudnik, and a neoliberal free trader.

[EndElectoral]

289. I vote for the person, not against the person...if Hilary, can't do it....

[Raster]

290. hold on one minute... so if the dems want to elect a war-mongering

toadie, you're all for it, just as long as it's a dem, eh?

And I'm not saying Hil is a wmt. Let's just define the parameters of our discussion. What's wrong with FORCING the dem candidate to repudiate this illegal and immoral war that has caused untold damage to Iraq and to our own country.

[zulchzulu]

291. Rove Handbook: Chapter 11, page 145. Title: Divide and Conquer

Memo:

Make sure to have Cindy Sheehan on as many right-wing shows telling people to vote for the third party candidate because some people say there is NO difference between the candidates.

Divide and conquer!

[Raster]

292. There's a very simple solution: Hillary needs to come out LOUD AND HARD

against the immoral and illegal Iraq war and immediately call for withdrawal.

[countryjake]

293. Principles of Fascism: Program Charter, First Commandment

1. Smash, ridicule, and eliminate ALL dissent!

The system is flawless, our principles are perfect; those not in agreement shall always be considered divisive and an enemy to our cause!

Subsection - Handling Dissenters
First Proposition: How To Maintain Control

1. Should anyone arise who appeals to the hearts and minds of the general public effectively, label her a "loose cannon", unstable, opportunistic.