If any of you village idiots plans to not vote for the Democratic Party's nominee

[madinmaryland]

in November, then why are you here on Democratic Underground. I will happily support the nominee of our party!

[onehandle]

1. Ditto. nt

[Politicub]

2. I'm with you 100 percent n/t

[olkaz]

3. I pledge to work for and donate to the eventual nominee. Period.

It might take me a week or so to regain my bearings (should my candidate not become the nominee), but after that, I'll be ready to get after it.

Jesus, after all this, we're going to be a force of nature.

[bicentennial_baby]

4. They let you out of the Lounge?

:o



;)

[madinmaryland]

8. You thought I was going to drop the Brazilian bomb, didn't you!

:hi:

[tekisui]

5. Including those who threaten to boycott in FL and MI!!!

[navarth]

11. any Michigan voters doing that are idiots.

I might not be happy, but I'll vote to keep McInsane out of there.

Obama still looks like the best bet to me, but whatever.

[tekisui]

12. THANK YOU!!!

I don't understand the mindset of teaching our Party a lesson by assissting John Dubya McSame. We all get our feelings hurt from time to time, but a President McSame is a very good reason to swallow your pride.

[death to the DLC]

19. It's not about hurt feelings,

it's about the DLC.

Why would anyone continue to feed this cancer that is attached to our party?

A vote for Hillary is a vote for McCain is a vote for the same old usual D.C. bullshit, at some point, one has to proclaim, "No More!"

[Tyler Durden]

34. Then you don't belong here. Do you?

I'm HRC, but I'll vote so as to defeat McCain. If you won't, you don't belong here.

[death to the DLC]

51. who are you to dictate who should be here?

I have been a loyal Democrat my entire life (43 years)

Nothing will change that. I despise the DLC and WILL NOT support ANY of their candidates.

The DLC is not the Democratic Party, they are a cancer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2973191

I will vote down ticket, I have voted in every election since I was able to do so.

I have been lurking at DU since Jan of '03, this lockstep nonsense is very Republican of everyone, I find it offensive.

Please see post #44 & #56, I am firmly in this camp.

My question to you is: Why are you so willing to vote for just another Neo-Con with a (D) beside their name?

[Tyler Durden]

66. It's called "The Rules."

Here we support People with a "D" beside their names.

And as you seem to think a Republican is better than a Democrat, then according to the rules, you don't belong here.

Don't think I'm exactly happy about it EITHER. Personally, I rate the Candidates 1. HRC, 2. BO (VERY close behind), 3. McCain (so distant as to not appear on the chart).

I'm a 14th Amendment Supporter, and none of those three represent ME, but D beats R any day of the week.

[death to the DLC]

73. Where did I state that I think a Republican

is better than a Dem? I didn't.

I do support people with a "D" beside their name, "D-DLC" is another story.

I agree with your last statement in its entirety, but I think we have to ask ourselves, are we voting for real D, or a middle-leaning-right-doesn't-really-have-our-best-interests-at-heart D?

Oh, by the way, I do belong here, in this discourse.

[Tyler Durden]

77. "Real D" and "D" are your subjective choices.

Support someone other than the "D" person after the convention and see what happens.

[Lorien]

79. The DLC supports "republicrats"

why anyone confuses them with Democrats just because they place a (D) behind their name (hoping that that alone will get them elected-and usually it does) is beyond me. Unfortunately, I don't see any real difference between the two front runners as far as policy goes. No matter who gets into office this time around we'll all be pretty much screwed. A year ago the vast majority on this board rejected both HRC and Obama. Now everyone seems to have taken sides with one or the other as a fanatical, angry cheerleaders, but still no one really talks about the issues and the very real problems our country is facing. I suppose that once again I'll feel like I'm being forced to hold my nose and vote for whatever "they" choose for me, but I'm not going to kid myself by believing that either one truly holds Democratic positions on the issues.

[madinmaryland]

84. While I agree with most of your points,

I would like to point out that there were many in 2000 saying that there was no difference between Al Gore and Bush. i would beg to differ on that point, and believe there will be a diffence between the d nominee and John W. McCain.

[Bake]

74. Two words: Supreme Court.

We lose this election and we've lost SCOTUS for a generation.

It's just that simple. If you think there's no difference between justices McLame would appoint, and those HRC would appoint, I've got some swamp land in Arizona to sell you.

Bake

[madinmaryland]

86. I posted this same comment elsewhere in this thread,

and was told that Scalito and Roberts and the D's fault, and that a D would nominate similar justices.

:wtf:

MiM.

[Bake]

90. WTF, indeed!!

Yeah, just like the war is the Dems' fault. Hell, everything is the Dems' fault!

Bake

[madinmaryland]

112. Silly me. I thought everything was the Clenis' fault!

:rofl:

[Hoof Hearted]

75. A vote for Obama is a vote for John McBush, because O simply cannot win.

And does not deserve to, IMO.


That being said, if we are dumb enough as Democrats to make him the nominee, I will probably not rule out voting for him, entirely. I will make that decision in a voting booth in Iowa.

I will NOT vote for McCain. I might write in Hillary.

[death to the DLC]

80. Replace the word Obama with Hillary in your post

and that is exactly how I feel. It is impossible for Hillary to win, too much baggage.

I will NOT vote for McCain either. I might write in Edwards.

[Mezzo]

14. Obama is stopping a revote there...

and thereby turning his back on the state.

You heard me. REVOTE.

Obama is using procedural techniques to stop a revote in November.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/clinton_camp_to_obama_stop_sab.php

[olkaz]

24. Ugh, quit lying - The state leadership already said it won't do it.

Quit smearing and contact them directly.

[Tyler Durden]

32. WRONG.

Google is your friend.

The state has AGREED to the re-vote, it merely requires the agreement of BOTH candidates. The Obama Campaign refuses to agree and wants the delegates split 50/50.

Way to support a voice for Michigan, Barack.

[olkaz]

46. You're right, Google is my friend.

So, I went to Google News, typed in "Michigan Primary" and went to the first link.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/more_on_imminent_death_of_mich.php

"Senate Democrats emerged from a closed-door caucus this morning and proclaimed that a fledging idea floated by top Michigan Democrats to create a special June 3 primary election is all but dead.
"The votes aren't there to do it," said Sen. Buzz THOMAS (D-Detroit), the co-chair of the Barack OBAMA campaign in Michigan

Sen. Gretchen WHITMER, a supporter of Hillary CLINTON, also conceded the chances of a June 3 redo of the Democratic presidential primary were slim. She stopped short of declaring it dead, saying instead that it was "on life support" and in need of CPR.

The Legislature would need to approve a bill by a two-third vote to put in place a June 3 special primary that would replace the results of the Jan. 15 presidential primary, which the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is not recognizing because the early date violated national party rules."

I didn't see anything in there about Obama nefariously disenfranchising Michigan voters. It says that the state legislature will have to get a 2/3 vote on the issue to make it happen (which means it won't happen).

So much for the righteous indignance, eh? Should I go to the next news link on Google here and post that one too?

[Tyler Durden]

61. Try REUTERS, not someone's BLOG

AND try something from LATE LAST NIGHT, not MONDAY.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1823854920080318

Plan for new Michigan Democratic primary falters
Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:02pm EDT

snip

Opposition from lawmakers backing Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's campaign seemed certain to scuttle any proposal to hold a June 3 "do-over" Democratic primary in the Midwestern state.

"There are definitely not enough votes now to support the proposal," said Callie Collins, a spokeswoman for state Sen. Tupac Hunter, co-chairman of Obama's campaign in Michigan.

snip

Michigan Republicans, who control the state Senate, said they would not take up the primary bill unless the Democratic party came together behind it.

The deadline for approving another primary is Thursday, when the lower House begins a two-week recess, lawmakers said.

snip


So Obama's lack of support is scuttling the primary.

I'll wait for your correction of your "blog report"

By the way, it was also on NPR this morning.

[olkaz]

82. Wait, maybe I didn't understand.

So, since the Obama camp isn't agreeing with the current plan for a revote, they're against the idea completely?

In general, would you support this type of election?

"Critics have questioned plans to have private donors pay the estimated $12 million cost, the logistics of holding a statewide vote on short notice and a rule that would bar independents and Democrats who voted in the January Republican primary from voting in the re-run contest."

(From your linked Reuters article)

I don't care who you are. That's not how any fair election should be handled. The Obama camp isn't preventing a revote, they're keeping this thing from turning into a big joke.

Either they do it right, or they don't do it. This is a pretty low hurdle, honestly.

Also: Did you really expect me to sit at my computer and refresh constantly in order to respond to you quickly? Just FYI, when somebody doesn't respond right away, it doesn't mean you can declare some sort of bizarre victory. I was getting some work done, sue me.

[Tyler Durden]

87. Hey I figure an hour is a long time.

You were pretty quick on the draw before, but enough of that.

Who cares if I think it's fair or not? Do you see that it is political suicide to start "disenfranchising" States in the primary? Just quoting the likely RW ad in the fall.

As to it being a big joke, I don't see that. As to wanting my delegates seated, YES, that's a big deal to me.

I will VOTE for Obama if he gets the nod, but I promise you this: it will take VERY LITTLE to push people like me into WORKING LIKE THE FIRES OF HELL ARE BLOWING UP MY ASS to see that another Democrat other than him occupies that office in 2013. Count on it.

As to work, I do that too.

[olkaz]

93. "Who cares if I think it's fair or not? "

Because we're called the Democratic Party. It's either done right, or not done. Privately funded rushjobs delegitimizes this process, if anything. The correctly performed results in the remainder of the states will provide the count just fine.

Now with that said, if Michigan could do the right thing and publicly finance it and do it correctly, I am all for it, and I will be pissed off at Obama if he doesn't agree with that.

"I will VOTE for Obama if he gets the nod, but I promise you this: it will take VERY LITTLE to push people like me into WORKING LIKE THE FIRES OF HELL ARE BLOWING UP MY ASS to see that another Democrat other than him occupies that office in 2013. Count on it."

YOU HAVE UNLEASHED THE FURY OF CAPS LOCK!!!!!

Seriously, calm down. 2012 is the least of our worries right now.

[Tyler Durden]

96. Don't sweat the caps. I'm an oldie with bad hands.

Easier to use caps for emphasis than to play re-fonting games.

I agree, 2012 is the least of our worries, but Obama might not make it without Michigan. Do you think him better than Dukakis? Mondale? McGovern?

[olkaz]

100. Just playing.

Not sweating the caps, I was just playing with you.

I think the more pertinent question is how will the voters react to the situation. I think they should be blaming their local leadership, and if the blame can be correctly placed, it will take a lot of heat off of this thing. I don't know what will happen.

"Do you think him better than Dukakis? Mondale? McGovern?"

Yes. Seriously, with the exception of the old racist vote, there isn't a demographic that Obama can't compete on. To me, beating Clinton (I know, hasn't happened yet) was a much further longshot than beating McCain. The Clintons are probably the best campaigners in our time. McCain is a cakewalk compared to them.

I don't know what's going to happen, but we have two amazing candidates, both of which can trounce McCain. I'm committed to that goal far more than seeing my candidate of choice be the person to do it.

[Tyler Durden]

104. Beating McCain. That we can agree on.

100%.

[Tyler Durden]

68. Hello? Waiting for your response....

Obama is not agreeing so as to hold up the vote until the recess on Thursday, at which point it will be too late.

Tell me I'm wrong.

[Tyler Durden]

78. Then I can assume you have seen what's actually happening...

and choose not to admit it?

[11 Bravo]

39. You are either misinformed, or deliberately untruthful.

(I could have said that you're either stupid or lying, but I'm trying to work on my people skills.)

[Tyler Durden]

65. I will settle for misinformed.

Obama scuttles the Michigan Primary Redo at his peril. Florida was not likely to support him. I don't think it SMART of Michigan to dump the Democrats if Obama pulls this, but since the only Democratic Party Presidential candidates that won Michigan between 1968 and 2000 were named Carter and Clinton, I would tread lightly in Michigan if I were Obama.

[varkam]

108. Right you are

:hi:

[mzmolly]

97. Michigan stopped the

initial vote with their own procedural BS. THEY decided that they wanted to play by the rules. It's too late to bitch now. They played chicken and lost.

[DemzRock]

6. Agreed! n/t

[jpak]

7. This won't change any village idiot minds you know, right???

They will hold their breath until they turn blue...

[madinmaryland]

9. As I said, if they don't plan to vote for the democratic nominee, they why are they here?

[Earth Bound Misfit]

10. I strongly agree--

I posted my intention to vote DEMOCRATIC, regardless of who the candidate is, on another thread:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5136609&mesg_id=5144790

[madinmaryland]

13. Welcome to DU!

The feelings you expressed are the same ones I have. My concern is the GE, and we have had a full slate of qualified candidates this time around.

:hi:

[Orrex]

15. I've been saying that since December 2005

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=4505590


Seriously, I will vote for whoever is on the blue ticket in November, whether or not that candidate is my ideal choice. To do otherwise is self-destructive madness.

[DrDan]

16. so exactly what is the purpose of your post?

to let everyone know that you are a blindly loyal D?

I live in Florida. I have been disenfranchised by the party - the party has decided they will select a nominee sans my voice.

So exactly why should I follow their recommendation?

Note - I did not say I was going to vote for McCain. I could never vote repub. And I also did not say I was not going to vote - I certainly will.

I shall vote my conscience. I feel no guilt in doing so. If you think your middle-school name-calling will change anyone's mind - you are very mistaken.


on edit - let me add. I staunchly follow the rules of this forum. Please read them if you have doubts.

[Orrex]

17. What, exactly, is the point of *your* post?

To tell us that you're going to vote in November? Bully for you!

For the record, the party didn't disenfranchise you; your own state legislature did that. If the DNC were to reverse itself now and include the delegates from Michigan and Floriday, it would be disenfranchising every voter in every state that did abide by the rules.

[DrDan]

33. no - your votes would still count exactly as they do today

think about the rule - it was a ridiculous rule. I firmly believe you do not strip a voter of his voice for something beyond his control (sorry for generic use of "his").

The voters were punished for something the party leaders did. Punish them if you like. But do not take away the voice of the voters. That is a cornerstone of this party - voter equality for everyone.

[Orrex]

45. At this point, there is no reasonable way to reflect the will of the voters in MI and FL

It would be grossly unfair to use the results of the primaries as they now stand.

A revote in Michigan will exclude those voters who already cast their ballots in the Republican primary.

A revote in Florida will heavily favor Clinton because the primary already went in her favor.

Additionally, there is no way to ascertain how many voters skipped the primaries simply because the states' legislators screwed them.


Why is the rule ridiculous, by the way?

[DrDan]

52. it is ridiulous because it punished the voters - for actions they had no control of

not unlike when women and blacks could not vote - simply because they were women or black.

Punish the party leaders. Punish the state party. Do not punish the voters.

One of our strongest foundations is equality in voting. And that was taken away by this rule.

[Orrex]

64. The primary process is not the GE

It is inaccurate to equate exclusion from the primary process with exclusion from the general election, especially when the primary exclusion is the result of a state's failure to comply with the rules of the process. Blacks and women were denied the right to vote because of who they are; Florida and Michigan will not send delegates to the convention because those states ignored the rules of that convention.

It is up to the voters in Florida and Michigan to punish those states' legislatures.

[DrDan]

71. I hear what you are saying on both points

but . . . to offer votes to 48 states and Puerto Rico and Guam . . . and then to not do so in Florida and Michigan is disenfranchisement. This is the prevalant thought among the D-voters in Florida - can't speak for Michigan. They (we) feel left out. I know it is different. But the impact can be as high as 20% of the D-voters.

To add insult to injury, the party then recognizes and counts the choices of certain chosen individuals - the superdelegates - who can decide their choices at any time they like - up to including after the start of the convention. And then the party tells the voters of Florida and Michigan that our votes are to be ignored.


I know the voters need to deal with the state leaders - but nothing there can happen prior to the convention. So for 2008, we are screwed.

[Orrex]

72. Quit being so reasonable--I'm trying to get acrimonious here!

And anyway I agree with you re: the superdelegates. That whole chunk of the process strikes me as flatly anti-democratic and seems absurd except as a ceremonial function.

I've been trying to think of a good analogy for the way that your state legislature has screwn you. The best I can think of is a hypothetical case in which the state rejects some Federal decree and thereby loses a bunch of Federal funding for, say, housing subsidies in the state. As a result, the individuals in the state are hosed as a result of choices made by the legislature entirely separate from what the individual might need or want or deserve.

It's not a perfect analogy (if such exists), but I think that it demonstrates that similar out-of-our-hands problems can occur in all kinds of situations.


I fear that the FL and MI results are fatally tainted in this case, for the reasons that I mentioned above. To that end, I can't imagine a way to resolve the issue in a way that reflects the true will of the voters.

[DrDan]

54. I know and agree

it will be difficult to find a solution. It will require both candidates approval - that will be tough.

Right now - we need a senior party leader who can step up and broker a solution. Gore? Kennedy? WJC?

But - in counting delegates - I am not sure counting the votes as cast would make a difference. But it sure would be symbolic in bringing this to a unifying conclusion.

[madinmaryland]

20. The point I am trying to make is there are people posting

that they will not vote for the democratic nominee if their candidate is not chosen. There are even polls out there indicating up to 20% may not vote for the democratic nominee, if their candidate is not chosen. After seven years of this long national nightmare, how can people even contemplate not voting for the D nominee.

As far as Florida and Michigan goes, I agree that you have been disenfranchised and are understandable upset. I think that it will hurt the democratic party in the GE, if we are not able to find a way to resolve that issue.

And yes, I am a loyal though not blind D. We have been very fortunate this election cycle to have a full slate of qualified candidates.

[DrDan]

28. I agree there will be an impact in the GE

and Dean has to find a unifying solution . . . one that involves agreement with the two leading candidates.

As far as I know - he has yet to reach out to them and to the other senior leaders of the party for help resolving this mess.

[madinmaryland]

30. Dean HAS to step up and try and resolve this situation very

quickly. The longer it festers, the worse it will be.

[DrDan]

36. EXACTLY!

He should have resolved this very quickly! I agree 100%

He should have enlisted the help of the senior party leaders - Gore, Kennedy, even WJC. He needed help from those who could broker a solution.

[Dhalgren]

22. I agree with you completely, Dr.

I will vote my conscience - anyone who doesn't is the "idiot"...

[Orrex]

26. Could you tell us idiots what your conscience is advising you to do?

Are you going to take a principled stand and vote Democratic because, realistically, another Republican Presidency would destroy the country?

Or are you going to take some other principled stand?


We idiots sometimes have a hard time comprehending the higher purpose of the conscience-driven voter.

[DrDan]

29. and who called you an idiot?

My stand involves voting for the candidate I believe best represents my views.

Not earth-shattering, unique, creative. It is what I plan on doing.

[madinmaryland]

37. You should visit the DU lounge...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=7385344&mesg_id=7385344

:hi:

[DrDan]

42. I don't understand your point

I am just suggesting the voters in Florida be heard - like the voters from the other states.

[Terran]

40. Ummm, you need to blame your state party

not the eventual nominee. Neither Obama nor Clinton had anything to do with the plan to move your state's primary up against the parties' rules.

[DrDan]

47. I certainly do . . .

as well as the DNC which instituted a rule that was extremely unfair - and goes against the foundation of our party.

[Orrex]

81. Forgive me for repeating a question

But I don't understand how this rule is unfair, exactly?

The dates and consequences for changing those dates were well known before the states chose to hold their primaries earlier, were they not?

[Tyler Durden]

91. Fine. You want Obama to look like the "Michigan Spoiler" be my guest.

I've said it before: Michigan has voted for 2 Democrats between 1968 and 2000: Carter and Clinton. I don't think this is the time to try anything stupid, like counting on Michigan support in November.

This doesn't have to be fair: why don't you settle for "SMART?"

[Orrex]

95. Uh, what?

:shrug:

[Tyler Durden]

106. There is a Michigan Primary Redo in the legislature.

It requires both candidates to agree. Obama is blocking it. The Deadline is Thursday.

Michigan has been beaten to death of late. I wouldn't play "Chicken" if I were Obama. He NEEDS Michigan. The rest of the country has been happy to piss on Michigan for the last few years. I wouldn't count on Michigan staying Democratic if the Obama Campaign blocks the REDO.

[Orrex]

109. What happens to the Dem voters who already voted for the Repub in the primary?

Presumably they found a Repub preferable to Clinton, and Clinton was the only Dem on the ballot.

Will they get to cast their votes again, for the candidate of their choosing, or are they to be denied their choice again?

[Tyler Durden]

111. No offense indended...

But I consider cross-voters from either party in either primary to be cheaters, gaming the system. Major General Benjamin Butler, Union Army, when asked why he did not return fugitive slaves to Virginia slave holders, pursuant to the "Fugitive Slave Act," stated that as Virginia claimed to be a foreign country, not subject to the laws of the United States, it was her misfortune to be taken at her word.

As these "Democrats" have claimed to be "Republicans," it is their misfortune to be taken at their word.

[Orrex]

114. Well, consider this

Voter 1: Supports Clinton

Voter 2: Does not

Primary day arrives, and V1 happily logs his/her vote for Clinton, in the full knowledge that the vote won't result in any delegates for the Senator. V1 makes a statement by voting when the vote is known not to count; he/she has the misfortune to be taken at his/her word.

Because the primary is open, a voter can cast a ballot for either party. V2 doesn't like Clinton but figures that it might help the Dems to cast a vote for Huckabee or, heaven forbid, Paul. V2 has forfeited eligibility in any subsequent "revote," and he/she has the misfortune to be taken at his/her word.


So, in essence, you're saying that one voter should be taken at his/her word, while another voter should be allowed to change his/her word after the fact.


Not exactly sure how that's fair or just, nor do I understand how that would be evidence of Obama abandoning the state.

[Tyler Durden]

115. I don't see your point.

Someone REGISTERS as a Republican, now he should be able to re-register? What about all the REAL Republicans?

What I don't understand, is this: you are supporting a candidate that has been touted for honesty. So people who LIED should now be permitted to UN-LIE?

There have been redo's in the past (Washington, DC redid a primary). Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

Now, with The Obama Campaign not agreeing to redo and INSISTING on 50/50 (when Clinton took 55%) in my opinion is blocking the primary. Now this won't effect me holding my nose in November, but there are some pissed off people here. I wouldn't chance that if I were Obama.

[Orrex]

117. Maybe I'm missing something

When I read this:

The legislature enacted Public Act 87 to effect the following changes governing the presidential preference primary:

The provisions of law requiring the declaration of a party preference in order to be eligible to vote in the presidential preference primary were eliminated.

This action returned Michigan to an "open" primary system whereby a registered voter would be issued the ballots of both parties and the voter would select the party primary in which he or she wished to participate in the privacy of the voting station

From http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MichPresPrimRefGuide_20863_7.pdf

Admittedly, that's not the most current of documents, so if this regulation has changed I would appreciate a link to the revised language.

[Tyler Durden]

119. Moot.

Obama Supporters in the Michigan Senate have precluded agreement. The Redo is dead.

Party Loyalists had better PRAY that HRC gets the nod. Obama needs Michigan one whole fuck of a lot more than Michigan needs Obama; or at least that's the prevailing opinion I see here in Flint, Pontiac, and Lansing.

[Orrex]

120. Well, help me out for purposes of understanding

Is the regulation correct and current as I read it, or am I looking at an obsolete document?

[madinmaryland]

121. Will this explanation do, Orrex?

On January 24th, 2009, in the oval office of the new Democratic president:

The Secretary of Defense is giving the President the daily briefing. He concludes by saying: "Yesterday, three Brazilian soldiers were killed."

"OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"

The President's staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits, head in hands.

Finally, the President looks up and says, "One Brazilian is too many! I am glad that we are beginning to draw down our presence in Iraq and put an end to this long national nightmare."

:hi:

[Orrex]

122. Doh!

It's all clear to me now!

[chieftain]

18. Amen

[TZ]

21. Good post.

Here's a rec for you. Nice work, village idiot..;-)

[madinmaryland]

23. Thanks, Doc!

[Lobster Martini]

25. Hey, I may be the village idiot, but the Democrats still have my vote!

(n/t)

[cboy4]

27. This coming from the Grand Poobah of idiots.

Oooops, I forgot we're not in the sports forum. :blush:

[madinmaryland]

31. Nice post, Barry!

[cboy4]

35. lol

:bounce: :party:

[madinmaryland]

43. Ahhh! An American Hero...

:hi:

[cboy4]

55. I bet Barry wouldn't embrace Donnie McClurkin.

Ouch!

[RoadRage]

38. I'll support the candidate who has the most delegates / popular vote

As long as that person is the one nominated, they have my full support.

[ORDem]

88. Agreed. If it's a back-room deal, fuggedaboutid. :) n/t

[chyjo]

41. yes because we are sheep

I live in New York. I will vote for Hillary Clinton if and only if the presidential race here is close ............ and if by some miracle it is that close it is a testament to what an ungodly horrible candidate she was to begin with.

[GumboYaYa]

44. Village idiot reporting......

To answer your question, I am here because I have been a lifelong Democrat and have never voted for any candidtae that wasn't a Democrat. I have been a memeber fo DU for a long time and long before that I was working on campaigns for Democrats. I have spent a small fortune of my own money to promote progressive causes. I think I qualify as a Democrat....

BUT despite all of that I believe that the tactics Hillary Clinton has used in this campaign will do more damage to the Democratic party than anything I have seen in my lifetime. I can only imagine what she will do to the party if she becomes president. Bill practically destroyed the party, eight more years of Clintons may do us in for good.

I will not vote for Hillary Clinton for President in 2008.

[madinmaryland]

50. In other words, you would prefer John W. McCain to be president,

rather than a Clinton?

[death to the DLC]

57. I don't see where that was stated anywhere in the post,

poster simply stated they would not support HRC.

[GumboYaYa]

59. Yes, the Clintons are worse for the long term prospects for the party than McCain.

[madinmaryland]

62. I am confused, then If McCain is elected, then are we to accept

that we may see more Scalito and Roberts on the SCOTUS? That to me is a far worse scenario.

[DaDooRonRon]

76. For the ten millionth time

The neo-cons are on The Supreme Court for ONE reason and ONE reason only:

The Democratic Senators did NOTHING to stop it.

NOTHING.

Stop repeating this idiotic drivel that McCain equals a neo-con SCOTUS.

What equals neo-cons is the complicity of the Democratic Party to put them there, and I have seen NOTHING to show that they won't do it all over again. Abortion is a red herring - what every pol wants is a court that sees a corporation as having the same rights as a citizen, and both parties made damn sure they got one.

Got it?

[DaDooRonRon]

60. Those are the only two choices?

Welcome to Amerika, brought to you by <insert names of corporations who have the most pull over candidate>.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

[madinmaryland]

63. That seems to be the scenario that is being argued about here.

[Samantha]

58. All of the true village idiots can be found at the DLC

This elitist group continues to support right-leaning candidates and insist we come together as a party and vote them in -- whether we agree with their positions or not.

Many here at this website have said FOR YEARS they would never vote for Hillary Clinton should she run in 2008. They made their decision as a result of her support on Bush* positions. Certainly, the DLC was aware that many in the liberal base of the Democratic party would not endorse her, but the DLC put her out there anyway. It's goal was, if it must, to sacrifice the liberal vote but attract the discontented Republicans, as well as a good number of Independents. The combined total of disgruntled Republicans added to the total of Independents resulted in a greater number than the number of existing liberals within the party. And so liberals were abandoned for the sake of the math.

These DLC proponents always come in at the eleventh hour with the pitch for supporting the party's best interest over one's personal position on issues. In this case, with the issue being the preemptive war in Iraq that has alienated many liberals from supporting Hillary, I do not think calls for party unity will convince the anti-war portion of the base to unite with Hillary.

So Al From's gamble might just backfire in this election. Regardless, he and his cronies are the true village idiots in this discussion.

Kudos to you for having the courage to stand up and speak up on your position on this issue.

Sam

[GumboYaYa]

83. It may end up being a good thing if a new, truly progressive party

emerged in America. I can't remember ever voting for a candidate in a General Election who actually stands for the values I hold most closely.

[MethuenProgressive]

98. "I will not vote for Hillary Clinton for President in 2008."

You're now on my ignore list with every other "I won't vote for _____ if he/she is our nominee" poster I see.
Bye.

[death to the DLC]

105. deleted

[crispini]

48. But, is there a tollbooth involved?

:rofl:

[DaDooRonRon]

49. Whew, another loyalty oath

Haven't had one in over week - I was getting worried.

Now, what happens if you just change a few words around...

"If any of you village idiots plans to not vote for the Republican Party's nominee in November, then why are you here on Free Republic. I will happily support the nominee of our party!"

How about that.

A bit too close for comfort is it??

[madinmaryland]

53. You question why I will loyally support the D nominee.

As I have said upthread, we had a full slate of very qualified candidates the cycle, and yes I will support whoever ends up being our nominee.

[DaDooRonRon]

56. No I didn't

I asked you to look in a mirror.

One that shows an illegal war in Iraq, along with the pictures of those who voted for it, who fund it, and who, despite protestations to the contrary, will do NOTHING to expose the fake "war on terror."

I can not help it if you live in a house of bare walls.

[Upton]

67. During the last Clinton presidency we lost both the Senate and the House

Like it or not, the chance that Hillary, like Bill, is not good for other Democratic candidates has to be taken into account.

[madinmaryland]

69. You are correct. It is an issue that needs to be taken into consideration

during the Primary Season. Once the GE rolls around, that should be a non-issue for democrats.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. I'll vote for the best candidate on the ballot. Even if I have to write one in.

Which is very likely.

[SammyWinstonJack]

85. ...

:thumbsup:

[Dhalgren]

118. With you Tierra!

:thumbsup:

:applause:

[Exilednight]

89. In my eyes, Hillary is not a Democrat.

[MethuenProgressive]

99. So if she's nominated you won't vote for her?

Be honest!

[Exilednight]

101. Being honest, absolutely not. I'd just as soon sit the Presidential election out before........

voting for Hillary.

[MethuenProgressive]

102. OK, you're on ignore.

With everyone else who won't vote for Obama/Clinton if he/she is the nominee.
If defeating McCain isn't important to you, I don't need to read anything else you type.
Bye.

[Exilednight]

107. Bye! I'd say my feelings are hurt, but I'd be lying.

[SeaLyons]

92. Hillary will be glad to hear it...

and btw....you "village idiots" really do need to start imagining Hillary as our nominee.

[madinmaryland]

113. This village idiot is happy to envision

any of the democratic candidates as our nominee!

[Zavulon]

94. I will VOTE for the nominee. If it's Hillary, however, I will not "happily support" her.

She gets my vote, nothing else. No time, no money.

[fadedrose]

103. I'll support the nominee, not necessarily happily if it's not Obama

But I don't like to see DU'ers who won't vote in the GE referred to as idiots.

Idiots don't have the depth of feeling, knowledge, or understanding that these folks have. Total frustration, not idiocy, would motivate them to not vote or vote for McLame--a feeling of disbelief that the winning candidate somehow lost the nomination.

After 2000 and the SCOTUS, 2004 and Ohio, and 8 years of Bush, it's easy to be discouraged enough to not care any more. Come to think of it, idiocy is word better used to describe those who would vote for a candidate they do not support. I am such an idiot.

[madinmaryland]

116. Sorry, but when it comes to this election,

I am passionate about seeing a Democrat elected. And I do feel it is idiocy to either not vote in the election (and disenfranchise yourself) or vote for John W. McCain. The last seven years have been a national disgrace and disaster, and anyone who says there is no difference between the democratic candidates and McCain is WRONG!

[MethuenProgressive]

110. I'll vote for our nominee, no matter who it is, becuase...

...I'm a Democrat.