The Choice before You: DIVIDE and fight each other or UNITE as AMERICANS and FIGHT

[Skwmom]

the true enemy.

If you want to continue the "divide and fight" strategy of the Clinton and Bush years then Clinton is your candidate. Dividing OUR country by having people engage in bitter fighting has enabled the big money special interests to control this county. This strategy even proceeds the Clinton and Bush years, it just became more intense during those terms. The middle class has been pitted against the poor, homosexuals against heterosexuals, black against white, white against Hispanics, college educated against high school grads, the rich elites against the working class, illegals against citizens, Republicans against Democrats, etc.

If you want to "unite as AMERICANS and fight" to take back this country from the big money special interests, to tackle the monumental issues facing this country and world, then Obama is your candidate. Only by uniting and taking an active interest in our government (e.g., knowing enough about what is going on in DC to hold our elected officials accountable and pushing our elected officials to tackle the tough issues, to serve the American people rather than the big money special interests) will anything get ACCOMPLISHED for the AMERICAN people.

We are in a defining moment in American (and world) history. Either we will come together as AMERICANS (not has Republicans, Democrats, Independents, White, Asian, Native American, Black, Hispanic) and tackle these tough issues or America's greatest years are indeed behind us and the American Dream will become a memory of America and what it use to represent.

OBAMA IS A FIGHTER. He's just SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW WHO THE REAL OPPONENT IS.

[Craftsman]

1. I will not unite behind a racist or someone who support racists

[Skwmom]

3. Trying to paint Obama as a racist is really sad.

[Craftsman]

7. Did he support this church?

A church that repeatedly says these things?

[Skwmom]

11. Over 20 years how many sermons do you think Wright gave?

THOUSANDS and yet they play the same few excerpts again and again. Is DU nothing more than bitter fighting? One would think so if they came here on only select days.

[Kittycat]

12. Ignore the expedia mascot

[casus belli]

6. Woot, another one for the ignore list.

C-ya.

[Craftsman]

9. Don't care.

[MethuenProgressive]

2. Skwmom, you won't vote for Clinton if she's the nominee?

[chimpymustgo]

4. As a fence sitter I'm always stunned at the blind onesidedness of some Obama supporters.

The Obama campaign has been just as political and divisive - possibly more so than the Clintons. Why must Hillary throw in the towel? Why not unite and fight behind Hillary?

:shrug:

[Skwmom]

8. Because Clinton is more of the divide and conquer politics that is

destroying this country and I love my country far more than I could ever love any candidate or any political party.

I am an AMERICAN first.

[philk17088]

10. Who's in the lead?

Because Democrats have shown by their voting and caucusing that they want Sen Obama to be the candidate. She trails behind him and has for a while.

This isn't American Idol where Reuben wins but Clay gets all the benefits while coming in 2nd.

[TooBigaTent]

5. How can you include war-mongers, racists, corporatists, sexists, homophobes, etc. on your side

of the fight to fight militarism, racism, corporatism, sixism, homophobia, etc.?

To think that the cons whom we have been fighting will magically change their views and support peace, equal rights, economic reform and other tenets of liberalism is worse than naive, it is self-destructive. They have chosen their side. They are NOT on our side and never will be. Uniting with them only weakens our effort to correct the disastrous mistakes they have supported.

[Skwmom]

13. I think you need to re-read my post. Fighting stupid has done

NOTHING but put our country in a horrible mess and enabled the war-mongers, corporatists, etc. to call the shots. I've known people to change their views once they worked with someone for a common purpose.

NAIVE is thinking you can continue to fight stupid and get a different result.

NAIVE is thinking you can win if you only allow PURE fighters on your side. (You don't believe in same sex marriage - well I don't want you fighting with me to rid our country of big money interests).

By fighting together for A COMMON INTEREST, many of the issues which divide us (racism, homophobia, sexism)will also be overcome.

You believe that you can beat someone into become more opened minded and a better person. That has NEVER worked.

We need Americans, YES EVEN FLAWED, FAR FROM PERFECT AMERICANS, if we are to fight the big money special interests which have a stranglehold on this country. The same interests the Clintons and DLC have gotten in bed with to further their own political power.

[TooBigaTent]

14. Oh yes. By all means, let's invite those who oppose us into our "tent" so that OUR

position on issues becomes the lowest common denominator - that being what everyone can agree on.

Better throw racial equality out because there are some who disagree.

I do not believe that "you can beat someone into become more opened minded and a better person." I just do not want them polluting our side with their views. There ARE some things that I believe ARE a simple case of right vs. wrong. If you want to incorporate their views into your policies, feel free.

Thinking that you would be able to educate them to understand that they are being screwed by the corporations and that would magically move them to abandon their racial, gender, and sexual-based prejudices is naive (all caps not necessary).

[Skwmom]

15. That is not what I mean.

Better throw racial equality out because there are some who disagree. (Where did I advocate throwing out racial equality?)

I do not believe that "you can beat someone into become more opened minded and a better person." I just do not want them polluting our side with their views. There ARE some things that I believe ARE a simple case of right vs. wrong. If you want to incorporate their views into your policies, feel free. (Where did I say to incorporate their views into policies?)

Thinking that you would be able to educate them to understand that they are being screwed by the corporations and that would magically move them to abandon their racial, gender, and sexual-based prejudices is naive (all caps not necessary). (Have you never seen people who work side by side with others change their views. I've seen people work with other races and gays change their views on race and homosexuality. You seem to think that either people are ALL GOOD OR ALL BAD. We are neither. Why do you think MLK took the approach that he did?)

[TooBigaTent]

16. I guess we will just have to disagree. I don't see watering down liberal views to

make them palatable to conjobs in order to get their support as a good way to affect positive change.

If someone does not believe that all people should have equal rights, I do not want them deciding what position our party takes. If the explicit statement is made that "We Democrats believe in equal rights and our platform supports equal marriage rights. If you have a different view, you are not welcome." were made, it would be clear what we stand for and what is NOT negotiable.

You are recommending an approach akin to Sen. Obama saying, "You can believe that only a white man is qualified to be president and that is OK with me. I still want your support and vote." Not every stance on every issue has to be lockstep. but there are some "truths" that our party is supposed to hold. And, if he does win, won't those conservatives want to be "repaid" for their support?