16 years. Can Democrats think strategically and unite?

[Ian_walker]

There is a great strategic win available to the Democratic party.

Simple question are you capable of seeing it, or are you so riven with disunity that you would rather the NeoConMen won again?

It does not matter which candidate wins the nomination if the party is disunited.

Any one who puts down either Democratic party candidate must surely be one of Karl Rove's Trolls or someone dumb enough to be his Puppet.

[ingac70]

1. Tell it to Hillary.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4932857&mesg_id=4932857

[Ian_walker]

4. Or to YOU!

Start working for the Democratic Party or be branded a Rove Troll

[ingac70]

5. I'm not the one publicly saying McCain is better than Obama.

[Ian_walker]

7. Democratic party supporters get behind the candidate

Half of the party supports each candidate.

Both will make a great President.

16 years of Democratic rule is more important than one of them winning

[Selatius]

18. It goes back to the question of what is a republic.

Are people who live in a republic obligated to cast votes to candidates they disagree with? Or must the candidate earn the consent of the governed?

[Ian_walker]

28. Only a Republic for Republicans. For Democratic Party it is a Democracy

Guess you have to choose your philosophy

[Selatius]

29. The US has never been a democracy. It's been a republic by definition.

A democracy in the original definition is a direct democracy. That is not what the US is. Besides, that doesn't answer the original questions I posed.

[Ian_walker]

33. You are incorrect

Have you read Plato's Republic? The USA is not like that, though I am sure Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove think it is.

Question is do you?

[Selatius]

34. You must not have read Aristotle then.

If you don't wish to answer the original question I posed to you, I have no reason to continue further with you.

[Ian_walker]

36. I read it well enough to realize it is evil.

I read it well enough that when I saw the NeoConMen's ideas on a Straussian text that I recognized it for the same evil concept.

[Selatius]

37. But that's not answering the original question I posed to you.

Let me repeat the question:

"Are people who live in a republic obligated to cast votes to candidates they disagree with? Or must the candidate earn the consent of the governed?"

If you dispute the use of the term "republic," that's fine. Substitute it with something else you prefer, but the question remains.

[Ian_walker]

44. You are mixing party with nation.

Your thinking seems a little woolly.

1) It is not Republic it is Constitutional Democracy.
2) You are mixing up the party with the nation, usually something both republican's and communist's do.
3) You assuming that ideals are attainable objectives rather than navigational goals
4) You are failing to understand the power of the strategic over the tactical
5) You do not seem to be aware that politics is the art of the possible or it is just hot air

So taking you woolly question and decoupling it to remove your ambiguities
Are people who live in a Constitutional Democracy obligated to cast votes to candidates they disagree with? You are not obligated by law to vote period. So that question is null, a straw man question.

Or must the candidate earn the consent of the governed? No Every dictator since Darius and before proves this. Once again that question is null, a straw man question.

Now let us ask proper questions that actually mean something.

Do you want another 4 years of NeoCon Men in power?
Are you a Democratic Party supporter?
Do you want 16 years of Democratic party power?
Do you want Democratic Party policies to be enacted?
Are you sick of nearly a Decade of the NeoConMen screwing up America?

[Selatius]

64. I disagree, because voting (or no voting) is a choice with both primaries and national elections.

That is where your argument collapses.

You are not obligated by law to vote period. So that question is null, a straw man question.

Disagree. I never argued in the first place voting was compulsory. That's a strawman I won't defend. Allow me to rephrase the question. Should a person who has the option of voting or not voting, vote for somebody with whom he disagrees? That question, my friend, is the kicker, because it leaves the choice up to the individual to decide. Some will decide to vote for that particular candidate. Others won't. That's the nature of free will. No amount of argumentation will take away the fact that the individual decides as per the US, and if that be the case, then on the macroscopic level there will be disagreement simply because each person arrived at a different result in terms of voting vs. not voting.

By all means, I'm not picking a flame war with you, but you seem extremely interested in not engaging the question.

Or must the candidate earn the consent of the governed? No Every dictator since Darius and before proves this. Once again that question is null, a straw man question.

Disagree. For me to accept the argument as true that a government should not need the consent of the governed, I must reject the Enlightenment idea that government ultimately derives its power from the consent of the governed, a bedrock principle of modern democratic tradition. I don't reject it. You confuse ideology with historical facts. I specifically posed this question to test your ideology, not your grasp of history. If it were a question of history, I would agree with you, but that was not what I was asking. I was asking a question of your beliefs. Do you accept that Enlightenment ideal?

It is a historical fact that Darius ruled without being elected, but it is a belief that government derives its power from the governed. I'm talking about belief. If I reject the Enlightenment idea that government derives its power from the governed, then I inherently weaken the argument in my mind to allow people to vote at all.

As a result, I cannot accept your framing of the situation with the questions you posed, simply because you avoided the premise of my question by attempting to excuse it out of hand without a convincing argument.

[Ian_walker]

74. You keep asking the same question...

You keep asking the same question as you your self said you were just rephrasing it:

Should a person who has the option of voting or not voting, vote for somebody with whom they disagree?

Question altered to make aplicable to women voters too, hope you do not mind, I make the same mistake myself sometimes.
To which the exact same answer can be given:
You are not obligated by law to vote period. So that question is null, a straw man question.

Please try to ask a more specific question. You may wish to include the following in you question:
Democratic Party supporter
Democratic Party member
Unity candidate

Do you accept that Enlightenment ideal?

Asked and aswered I saw the way you were going to argue and preempted it

1) It is not Republic it is Constitutional Democracy.
2) You are mixing up the party with the nation, usually something both republican's and communist's do.
3) You <(are)edit> assuming that ideals are attainable objectives rather than navigational goals
4) You are failing to understand the power of the strategic over the tactical
5) You do not seem to be aware that politics is the art of the possible or it is just hot air

You seem stuck in the dialectic friend NEWS UP time to update your philosophy the world is multiordinate.

Having answered both your questions, though not in a way you hoped to manuver me into I am sure; would you do me the kindness and now consider atempting to aswering the questions I put to you?

As you see they contain no Straussian Text or Aristotle's representation of Plato's "Noble lies"

I repeat:

Do you want another 4 years of NeoCon Men in power?
Are you a Democratic Party supporter?
Do you want 16 years of Democratic party power?
Do you want Democratic Party policies to be enacted?
Are you sick of nearly a Decade of the NeoConMen screwing up America?

[Selatius]

75. OK, let's try to get down to the base.

We'll take my question:

Should a person who has the option of voting or not voting, vote for somebody with whom they disagree?

And we'll alter it to say this:

Should a Democratic Party member who has the option of voting or not voting either in a primary/caucus or a national election, vote for somebody with whom they disagree by varying degrees?

But before you answer that, let me first answer the second half of your post:

1) It is not Republic it is Constitutional Democracy.

We'll agree to disagree. Refer to Merriam-Webster for the definition of a Republic such as found here:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

2) You are mixing up the party with the nation, usually something both republican's and communist's do.

I don't mix anything. I never attempted to mix in the first place. Allow me to answer below.

3) You <(are)edit> assuming that ideals are attainable objectives rather than navigational goals
4) You are failing to understand the power of the strategic over the tactical
5) You do not seem to be aware that politics is the art of the possible or it is just hot air

I never revealed my position to you. I came into the conversation without bringing my views into the matter but attempted to ascertain your views by posing those questions. Points 3, 4, and 5 are attempting to assign views to me that I haven't revealed.

Allow me to preface my answer by revealing my position in full to you.

If you must know, I actually agree with you. Politics IS the art of the possible. Tactical voting is not something I would say I am above. I voted for Kerry even though I was not too enamored with him. (I thought his position on NAFTA was too weak, and economic issues are issues I rate very, very highly, and I thought his position on the IWR was bad)

However, I would say that given the nature of free will, there will always be someone else who does not, for instance, believe in tactical voting to achieve strategic outcomes if the tactical maneuver may violate the persons position on an issue, the dilemma of "the ends justify the means." I was trying to get you to realize that with individual choice comes disagreement. That's the nature of things.

I answered yes to all the questions you posed, however, I was trying to get you to recognize that even if a person may answer yes to all those questions, he or she may decide on a course of action that is different and may bring disunity as opposed to party unity. That's the nature of free will. That's why I, personally, don't see the need for asking for unity because I may disagree with others, but I respect their views, and I weigh their view equally against my own.

I do believe government derives its power from the governed, but sometimes I ask myself at the end of the day what I'm getting by continually compromising and falling back to voting for somebody who is "the lesser evil." I was taught that if I accepted a deal that I thought was bad, that I should accept it only with a concrete concession. I like to refer to the Irish Free State as an easily comprehensible example. Should we hold out for all of Ireland being free in this struggle for independence? Or should we accept the deal where most of Ireland is free except with Northern Ireland being controlled by the British Empire and then work to free it at a later date?

The question as to whether accept partial independence or hold out for total independence was a question that dogged the IRA in the early 20th century.

[Exilednight]

22. I disagree with your statement that: "both will make a great President". IMO only one will, the ...

other is repug-lite. Tastes terrible and less fulfilling.

[tridim]

2. We're trying, but Hillary's ego is in the way.

[Ian_walker]

11. Not the Candidates Ego's.

It is not the Candidates Ego's, it is petty partisan egos of certain supporters and the actions of people working as puppets for Karl Rove or acting as Rove's Trolls

Get it together people

[HCE SuiGeneris]

41. Saying that there cannot be vocal dissent is beyond ridiculous.

How do you vette the candidate otherwise?

[Ian_walker]

49. Dissent is not the same as abuse and lies

Look at many of the the thread headlines. They come straight out of Karl Rove handbook. And as each side comes to the fore people posing as the other side does hatchet job on the winning candidate.

Let us admit it the neck and neck now only 0.1% between them.

The only choice is the Dream Ticket.

Which means the Democratic party MUST UNITE

[HCE SuiGeneris]

51. No. The disruptors here on this site do not wield such power.

The party will unite soon... the infighting seen here is not representative of the democratic party as a whole. We will unite behind the nominee.

[Ian_walker]

57. I agree but the Dream Ticket is prize worth fighting for.

Unity with a Dream ticket would put the Democratic Party on the way to a new Democratic age. To me that is worth fighting for.

[JackORoses]

3. Nice try. We don't want Hillary. 8 years of Obama will be just fine.

[Ian_walker]

6. Your Reply sounds like that of a Rove Troll

JackORoses either you are a Democratic party supporter and will get behind any Democratic party candidate or you are doing Karl Rove's work.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

14. It's Hillary who's gone Rovian. Seriously, how can you not see that?!

[Ian_walker]

20. Because Unity is more important than your ego

Because Unity is more important than your ego.

It does not matter to either Obama or Clinton which Democratic Party candidate wins. To them it only matters that the next president is from the Democratic Party.

The only ones who wish otherwise want it because they are Rove Trolls, or their ego is so big they think their candidate is more important than a Democratic win and are thus the puppets of Karl Rove.

[Exilednight]

23. "It does not matter to either Obama or Clinton which Democratic Party candidate wins."

Then Hillary shouldn't have a problem with dropping out for the good of the party; but she does have a problem with dropping out for the good of the party!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

39. I agree with you, unity IS more important than ego -- ANYONE'S ego, including Hillary's.

If Hillary was truly interested in party unity, then why, for instance, would she diss Obama in favor of McPain? If all that truly mattered to Hillary is that the next President be a Democrat, she wouldn't give McPain fodder for the GE to use against Obama. I don't see how any reasonable person could disagree with that statement.

And, in the unlikely event Hillary does win the nomination, how could she possibly unite the party, which would require her to pick Obama for VP? How could she do that after dressing Obama down and telling everyone who would listen how unprepared he is to lead and be President? The VP is supposedly "one heart beat away" from the presidency. There's no way in hell Hillary could then turn around and proclaim Obama IS ready by choosing him to be her VP. That choice, being one of the most important decisions a presidential nominee has to make, would make her look pretty foolish and she would lose what little credibility she has left.

Unity is an important goal once the nomination process has been completed. No question about that. But each candidate has the responsibility to conduct their campaign in such a way as to facilitate that unity. In my humble opinion, Hillary has not fulfilled her part of the bargain. If that makes me a "Rove troll," so be it. I've been called lot worse by my ex-wife, although nothing comes immediately to mind.

[Ian_walker]

54. In here we are talking about supporters Ego's. Your's included.

Supporters need to start thinking strategically. There is 16 year democratic prize up for grabs here.

Because voters throughout the country are now hungry for change.

They are sick of the Republicans damaging the US economy. They are sick of the Iraq war. They are sick of the American image being dragged through the mud. They sick of rising gas at the pump. They are sick of the dollar in their pocket being worth half of what it was. They are sick of it all. Most of all they are sick of the NeoConMen and their lies and deceit. And they are hungry for change.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

65. Obvioiusly, your EGO is so over-inflated, you can't engage in serious back-and-forth discussions ...

and respond to letitimate points anyone else has raised. Repeating the same tiresome arguments that have already been rebutted shows that your EGO has so clouded your mind, you enjoy hearing only the sound of your own "voice". What a dullard you are.

And please don't bother with any more of your boring responses, you're permanently on ignore. Begone!

[backscatter712]

42. Tell that to your princess.

She's the one behind in delegates and the popular vote. Maybe she should consider bowing out so the Democrats can unite.

[Ian_walker]

46. Are you for the Democratic Party or against it?

It is a simple question. If you are for it you will not denigrate either candidate. You will get behind the candidate no matter who it is. A real democrat unites.

[backscatter712]

55. Before I'm a Democrat, I'm an American.

And I will vote for the candidate that is best for America.

I happen to be a member of the Democratic Party as well, in hopes of participating and bringing forth the best candidates and the best policy for America, but if it turns out infighting and political dirty tricks prevent that from happening, I will do what is best for America. Country before party.

And if you don't like it, suck it.

[karynnj]

47. I assume it matters a lot to BOTH Obama and Clinton

I don't recall your concern when HRC said she was throwing the kitchen sink at Obama if you did - give me a link. If not, I can't take you all that seriously.

[Ian_walker]

50. It matters to them more that it is a Democratic Party President

Simple fact BOTH have said it. It is there in black and white.

[JackORoses]

17. Obama has locked up the Nomination and you're damned right I'll be supporting him

There is no way I would settle for Hillary now.
Not even with the lure of 16 years in power. She deserves no part in Obama's Administration.

[karynnj]

45. How is asking that the candidate who has more delegates be the nominee Rovian

Why not say unite behind the one with more pledged delegates. JackORoses has been here for a long time - I don't always agree, but he is a Democrat, intelligent and a good poster. You are brand new and there's a very authoritarian tone. Every post seems to reduce to "get behind HRC or you're with Rove.

HRC is losing the math - temper tantrums of her supporters does not seem a reason to give her a nomination she didn't earn.

[Ian_walker]

52. The candidates win when they win. Unless you are Fox news in Florida?

I am not bothered which one wins, but calling it before the election sounds like a Karl Rove trick from Florida.

With less than 0.1% between the candidates the best option is the dream ticket.

And all the delegates need to be counted yes that includes the super delegates. As long term Democratic Party members, they will surely vote for the candidate who promotes Democratic Party Unity. Both candidates supporters need to realise that.

In all honesty the question now seems to be: Who will lead the Dream Ticket?

[SoCalDem]

67. Huh? If someone does not support YOUR person, they are a Rove Troll?

Geez Louise.. someone needs a nap..

[Ian_walker]

72. Since I support BOTH persons...?

Since I support BOTH persons I think you argument is blown out of the water.

The thread is about the Dream Ticket. It is about both candidates and their supporters uniting behind both candidates and the Democratic Party to pursue a strategic victory of 16 years in power; in the Presidency, Senate and Congress.

Below I have rewritten the quick draw competition version of the Chris Weigant speech (follow this link for the original version of the speech)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/how-obama-could-wrap-it-u_b_85595.html

I call it the quick draw competition because the Candidate who first makes this speech wins the the unity and undecided voters of the Democratic party and with this middle ground the Democratic nomination for President. They also win the Super Delegates because they are the long term members of the Democratic Party and will vote for the Unity Candidate.

THE TACTICAL WINNING SPEECH

"I would like to address the people in the Democratic Party for a moment.

Our party is now pretty equally divided between myself and Senator (Obama/Clinton). The race is about tied. We are obviously the two strongest candidates this party has to offer to win the White House in 2008. We both have our relative strengths, and much of the electorate is genuinely conflicted over who to select in the voting booth. Some say this is fracturing our party, but I don't believe that is true. The Republican Party is divided because of antipathy among their different factions -- but I'm proud to say that our party is conflicted over who is the best between two very good choices.

So I would like to take this opportunity to offer Senator (Obama/Clinton). the Vice Presidential spot on the Democratic ticket, should I be nominated for President. Should they be nominated, and should they offer the same to me, I am publicly saying I would accept that as well. I think both of us should get behind the idea of a 'dream ticket' right here on this stage. I challenge my opponent to do the same."
Cue Instant pandemonium! Among loud cheers and a few groans from supporters of the candidate that did not make the speech.

This version of the speech leaves the contest open but runs it without internecine war and unites the whole party. I wonder if Pelossi, Howard Dean, Chris Redfern, George Stephanopoulos and the growing number of other Democrats are mediating how the deal can be done? A joint non aggression pact of not putting out tactical version of the Chris Weigant speech instead to put out this strategic version of the speech.

THE STRATEGIC WINNING SPEECH
"We would like instead to address the people in the Democratic Party for a moment.

Our party is now pretty equally divided between ourselves. The race is about tied. We are obviously the two strongest candidates this party has to offer to win the White House in 2008. We both have our relative strengths, and much of the electorate is genuinely conflicted over who to select in the voting booth. Some say this is fracturing our party, but we don't believe that is true. The Republican Party is divided because of antipathy among their different factions -- but we are proud to say that our party is conflicted over who is the best between two very good choices.

So we would like to take this opportunity to offer each other the Vice Presidential spot on the Democratic ticket, should we be nominated by the party for President. Should the other be nominated, we are publicly saying we would accept that as well. We think both of us should get behind the idea of a 'dream ticket' right here on this stage. We challenge our party to do the same."
Cue very long standing ovation

The choice is there for the candidates to take.

[Abacus]

8. I miss adverbs.

Edit: Well you fixed it, but I still miss them.

[anigbrowl]

9. Anyone?

“I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

“I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she said.
***

"He will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Sen. Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002," she told reporters, rejecting her rival's complaints that she was engaging in fear-mongering.

"Everyone knows that John McCain will make this election about national security. That is a given. And it will be imperative that we have a nominee who is able to stand on that stage with Sen. McCain, and I believe I am the person best able to do that," she said.
***

Why does Hillary Clinton keep denigrating Obama while vindicating McCain? Are we letting the GOP set the agenda now?

[ingac70]

10. She's a stalking horse for McCain.

Her words prove it.

[Ian_walker]

13. And that is Rove Troll remark

Did they feed you that one at Karl Rove's HQ or did you just learn to dumb parrot it from some else who did?

[ingac70]

16. Take it somewhere else...

Mr. signed up in Feb 2008.

[anigbrowl]

58. What about Hillary's words, then?

And who put you in charge anyway? I question how in touch you are when you're posting from the UK.

[Selatius]

12. No, we can't unite. The party acts more like a coalition than a traditional party.

Members of the coalition often have different and conflicting interests they wish to push.

Maybe if this were a multi-party representative democracy, the party would have a lot more internal unity because folks who disagree were always free to join the other parties on the left. See the Greens, Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, labor parties, etc. Of course, I wouldn't be a Democrat if that were true. I'd likely be a Social Democrat or a member of a Socialist Party instead.

Of course, we don't live under such a system. Our voting system is inherently more restrictive in that regard. That's unfortunate.

As a result, I don't expect unity.

[Ian_walker]

15. UNACCEPTABLE!

Get off your butt and do something about it.

[Selatius]

19. It's impossible to eliminate conflicting opinions. It's human nature.

You ask for that which is not possible.

[Ian_walker]

26. People unit all the time. The USA would not exist otherwise.

You may have noticed. UNITED States of America.

[Selatius]

27. Hah, they unite against outside enemies, hardly in any other case.

And the last time I checked, the country could barely exist 200 years without a bloody civil war and over a century of domestic terrorism and conflict.

[Ian_walker]

30. What the heck else are the NeoConMen who run the GOP if not enemies?

So you kind of proved my point

[Selatius]

32. Notice I said "outside enemies"

I specifically wrote "outside" on purpose. Neocons are an internal problem, not an external problem like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union or Imperial Japan.

[Ian_walker]

38. Republicans are Outside the Democratic Party, You may have noticed that

Republicans are Outside the Democratic Party, You may have noticed that.

So The Democratic Party are uniting against the outside enemies. Unless of course you cannot see this because you are not a Democrat?

[Selatius]

40. Uh, registered as a Democrat here. However, you split hairs.

You know exactly what I meant. I even buttressed it by naming "outside" examples like Nazi Germany, etc. The Republican Party is an internal issue in that it exists within the United States, not without like Nazi Germany.

[anigbrowl]

59. Who put you in charge? Get over yourself.

[Ian_walker]

61. I have always been in charge of my own voice. It is called Freedom of Speech

If my voice seems loud to you it must be either because what I have to say interests you or because you afraid of of what I advocate.

Those who promote unity for the Democratic Party frighten some people. I wonder...

[City Lights]

21. Sounds like you're calling Hillary Clinton a Karl Rove troll, 'cause

she's the one sucking up to McCain while insulting Obama. Now that you've put it that way I have to agree.

[Ian_walker]

24. Either you are for the Democratic Party or you are against it

It does not matter which candidate wins. It would be a damn site better for the party if it was 16 years of winning. That requires unity.

[City Lights]

25. Same goes for Hillary. Why is she actively promoting Gramps?

:puke:

[backscatter712]

43. Now you sound like Bush...

Yer either with us or yer with the terrists!

[Ian_walker]

48. And you sound like some one trying to Disunite the Democratic Party

It is a very old saying from long before Shrub and his NeoConmen.

[Bake]

31. Funny how within ONE MINUTE of your OP, the Obamoids were pointing the finger at Hillary

And it just went downhill from there: charge, countercharge, etc.

But you hit the nail on the head. Neither side seems to be able to see it, though.

Bake

[Ian_walker]

35. And Retaliating does what?

BOTH sides must stop bashing the others candidate in order to UNITE and win.

Saying a candidates name in conection with a rebuke does nothing.

Do good by calling for unity

[CitizenRob]

53. Obamaoid? welcome to my ignore list.

This is a civil discussion board. Name calling puts you outside that.

[Ian_walker]

56. Instead you would do better to call for unity

Unity is far more important than your ego. Shrug it off and get on with being a Democratic Party supporter.

There is a 16 year prize up for grabs here.

[anigbrowl]

60. Yeah, and there's a hard sell sales pitch going on too.

I don't think much of your bully tactics. Besides, I'm not convinced Hillary will be able to run in 2016, she'll be almost as old as McCain.

[Ian_walker]

62. Sometimes Banging Heads Together is required

Unity people do not have to be meek little hippies. Apologies to the hippies. :D

[Bake]

63. Let me respond to the faux outrage here

Yes, I said Obamoids. Look at the thread - who was the first to point the finger? And within ONE MINUTE of the OP appearing? The Obama supporters. Yes, the Hillary supporters got their shots in too, in this thread. In this forum, of which I've been a member since it BEGAN (!!) I've been called Hillbot, troll, sockpuppet, etc. by Obama supporters, many of whom haven't been around here more than a week or two. So who is the troll?

There's b.s. on both sides.

If an Obama supporter wants to put me on your Ignore list, I'll wear that as a badge of honor.

Bake

[scheming daemons]

66. If Hillary is the nominee... we get ZERO years..... with Obama, we get EIGHT....

...

Hillary is unelectable in a GE.

[Ian_walker]

70. NOT TRUE The polls disagree with you

The latest Washington Post-ABC News Poll shows Clinton beating McCain by Six points
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_030308.html?sid=ST2008030502748

Of course the Dream Ticket means a landlslide.

[Upton]

68. Hillary is the one breaking apart the party

it appears she will stop at nothing to achieve her goal.

[Ian_walker]

71. She is the only one offering the Dream Ticket then?

it appears she will stop at nothing to achieve her goal

You mean like uniting the party...?

[Independent-Voter]

69. From an outsider's viewpoint: The Dems look like a fucking Banana Republic right now

Super Delegates comprising 30% of your delegate vote? What the hell kind of shit is this?

I've supported and donated to Obama, but the dems need to get their shit together as a whole before any more $ or votes will be coming from many independents. As of right now, there's barely a dime's difference between you guys and the republicans, except the pubs are herding their cats and heading in the same direction now.

[Ian_walker]

73. Super Delegates prevents fake democrats screwing the nomination

One of the purposes of the Super Delegates is to prevent fake democrats screwing the nomination.

We all know that Republicans try to game the Democratic Party nominations. They have even admitted as much them selves.

[Seabiscuit]

76. We will and we must unite because we can not allow the Republicans to rule again! nt

[Ian_walker]

77. UNITY is what terrifies NeoConMen

You know UNITY makes sense because NeoConMen are Terrified of two little words:

DREAM TICKET

Why do the GOP have nightmares about it?

Why is DREAM TICKET the thousand pound guerrilla sitting among all the breakables in the dainty GOP room?

Why do NeoConMen glance at it and then hold their hands up to blinker their eyes, muttering "Can't see it, Can't see it, Can't see it." hopping that will make it go away?

Because as any loyal Democrat can see, it is not just a single candidate or a mere 4 or 8 years of presidency.

It means a raft of candidates for both presidency, representatives and senate; and time enough in office that they can bring about true change and the dawn of a New Democratic Age for America.

It means Democrats at their convention with the next two winning candidates already lined up and shouting "16 years, Sixteen Years, SIXTEEN YEARS!"