OFFICIAL "I'm not satisfied with Clinton OR Obama Thread" - Check In Here

[Andrea]

We hear an awful lot from supporters of those two, but I think there are probably a whole bunch of calm, rational DUers out there that want to discuss how to deal with this mess we've gotten ourselves into, and how to prevent it in the future.

It's such a shame that after starting out with eight candidates that it's come down to this. I'm really worried about our chances in the General.

[rodbailey]

1. If you believe the polls

both Hillary and Barack are losing out to McCain. That spells real trouble for the Dems. taking the WH as well as other Dems. down the ballot. We need someone at the top of the ballot who can be a sure winner. The primary process is devolving into a mud wrestling contest and both candidates are being slimed. So, I definately agree with you.

[NJmaverick]

2. This has to be the dumbest and most condescending thread

I have seen in some time. Your suggest that only those that don't support Obama or Hillary are the calm and rational ones, is both wrong and insulting. As for your whining about not liking either candidate..... hey you are entitled to your opinion, even if it's not a good one.

[Andrea]

6. Didn't mean to sound condescending

I didn't mean to suggest that only those that weren't supporting Obama or Clinton were calm and rational. What I meant to do was set a tone for the thread. I've seen a lot of things get awfully nasty lately - regardless of who is involved - and wanted to try to avoid that. My apologies.

[NJmaverick]

35. OK, sorry if my reaction was overly harsh

[Andrea]

42. It's okay

you've probably been condescended to so much lately that it was a natural response.

[rodbailey]

7. the real question is whether you want

a winner for the Dems. in November. Do you think that either Obama or Clinton can win against McCain? Not just the main numbers in the polls, but deeper numbers I have seen suggest there are a lot of folks, independents and Reagan democrats, who are really upset with both candidates. A lot of these folks have not been participating in the primaries so you get kind of a one-sided view if Obama wins because the support he gets to win that primary will not be enough for him to win that state in November. And, remember in November it's all about states and their electoral college votes.

[cali]

25. Yes, I think either can beat McCain. And blathering about

deeper numbers showing they can't is nonsense. Those numbers look good for dems. Voters trust dems by wide margins over repubs on the economy, and that will be THE issue in November. It's nonsensical to view polls 6 months out from the GE, when dems don't have a nominee, as indicative of much of anything.

[mrbluto]

202. Ah yes - the invective.

Isn't it strange when a supporter of the candidate of "Hope" immediately pulls out the stops and calls what a fellow democrat blather?

I think the "hope" there is that we'll miss the hypocracy.

Gives me such warm feeling for how my concerns will get treated by an administration that inspires such supporters.

Gives me such high hopes for the sort of unity the party will have.

[JoFerret]

265. Unity, love and hope

start with division, hate and accusations it seems.

[cali]

270. invective in my post? There's none.

and blather is certainly not a particularly harsh word- certainly not in GD-P. And supporters of the candidate on DU are hardly something to measure a candidate on. Not to mention that harsh rhetoric here comes from supporters of both candidates and supporters of neither.

[mrbluto]

303. Why do you blather like a zealot?

So how do you feel after reading that?

Happy?

Like we're embarking on a discussion where there's mutual respect?

If you do then you're drinking some mighty strong koolaide.

[ClericJohnPreston]

363. Ah yes....

it's Cali time. How I missed all those abusive food references taking time off from political discourse. Right cupcake, um kumquat, .....whatever. Cali being abusive and Cali protesting same? Methinks she doth protest too much.

[Bluebear]

65. I am still mourning Edwards leaving the race.

[Andrea]

68. It was sad and shocking

I still wish I knew what really happened. It for darn sure had nothing to do with the preferences of the people.

[Bluebear]

70. Absolutely. The media just was not interested in him :(

[lark]

81. They ignored the real change agent

and gave all their attention to the big money corporatist - HRC and BO.

[JoFerret]

141. Obama and Clinton

are both pathetic compared to real possibilities we had. Combined they make a stronger option.
However they are BOTH vastly superior to the GOP candidates of this year and many a year.

[catgirl]

149. What you said is pathetic.

You're all trying too hard here. You're pretty obvious.

[JoFerret]

150. I am so glad my point was plain to you

It is a very simple one.

[Andrea]

161. Absolutely

McCain is a very scary prospect.

[JoFerret]

267. I actually said

that both are current candidates are vastly superior to McCain.

[Andrea]

285. I was agreeing with you

My point being that the thought of McCain in the Whitehouse is scary. He would complete the destruction of the constitution that Bush started.

[leftynyc]

311. Kerry and Gore were both vastly

superior to the chimp. That didn't get them into the white house.

[Andrea]

315. I agree

We need the candidate with the best combination of ability to win and ability to lead. We can't look past the GE and just assume we are going to win.

[nichomachus]

355. Yes, but

a urinal brush with a broken handle and no bristles is superior to Bush -- and they got him in.

[Andrea]

356. Not sure I agree

I think a urinal brush with a broken handle and no bristles is about equal to Bush.

:rofl:

Good one! Thanks!

[JoFerret]

266. Can't always blame the media

Although they did want their race and sex fest.

[mrbluto]

305. Acting in Unison? Coordinating? No Fair!

You and your cabal of nefarious democrats might like to take a look at this journal I posted: Obama could help bust the wheels off the GOP's little red wagon.

[Irishonly]

135. Me Too

I would really like to know and understand why. At this point it doesn't matter if you are not happy with either, one of them will be the nominee.

[lark]

320. I agree that's likely

however, what if neither candidate can win enough votes to reach the magic number of 2024? I truly think that Gore would be the ideal compromise candidate, if the delegates can't agree on which of the others to choose.

[CC]

191. Me too. I miss having a grown up

that cares about those with less. The one with the original message of hope and that did not play dirty. Though I spend my time now telling wavering repukes why either Dem candidate would be better than McSame. Neither of them is making it any easier to do. Some of their supporters make it even harder. Eventually will will have one candidate and then all Dems need to work together to save this country.

[DrCory]

271. Sigh...

As am I. I still don't understand why he flamed-out so quickly. John's message was so spot on.

[catgirl]

71. This thread was pre-arranged to "stir the pot"

To start a "not satisfied with either candidate" campaign in order to grow a group
that plans on pestering Superdelegates about a Gore option (like that isn't being
discussed in those circles already). A very premature and amateurish way of thinking.
But the "leaders" of this group ignore everyone's advice.

[mak3cats]

75. That's fine with me...

...the "I HATE OBAMA" and "I HATE HILLARY" threads are getting very tiresome.

[rodbailey]

83. Thought you might show up

I'm still wondering where you get your inside scoop from? I have had noone from any of the nationally organized Gore groups (web sites) tell me to stop any of these activities. And, if some of us think Gore might be a winner in November, why not advocate for a draft for him to anyone who might listen. Admittedly, we are small voices compared to a call from Bill Clinton, but isn't this a democracy where "small folks" are allowed to speak their minds? That's all we're doing.

[catgirl]

91. You're trying to start a false and divisive campaign

in order to achieve something many would welcome. It's your strategy that
is the problem. And no one, not even a national Draft Gore group, can tell
you to stop.

Even when Gore asked us to stop, you and a few others, started the conspiracy
theory discussion. you wouldn't listen to anyone. Some got rather aggressive
towards some of the original draft people- questioning their sincerity.

In this campaign, it started as the wait and see stategy, but quickly turned into
THIS.

[rodbailey]

101. As far as I can see,

we're still waiting and seeing. And discussing. Actually what have we done that's much beyond what www.algore.org and www.draftgore.com have done. They both "awakened" their web sites recently and there have been numerous postings at AGO over the past month by quite a few people. Their sites were refreshed once some of the national stories started reporting that there were folks in the Democratic Party discussing the possiblity of a Gore solution to a deadlocked convention. At this point, that's all we're doing, is trying to continue that discussion among a rather small circle of like-minded folk. Nothing conspiratorial about that. Depending on developments over the next couple of weeks, we may take it one step further and encourage people to contact their super delegates and suggest to them that IF the convention is deadlocked (and it will be deadlocked only if some of the delegates don't vote on the first ballot) then drafting Gore might be a good solution. I'm not sure why you are so afraid that contacting super delegates is somehow going to screw things up. Don't you think they already know this is being discussed. It's been in the papers, in magazines, on TV. For goodness sake, we're not doing anythng subversive here.

[Andrea]

104. I'm a citizen, a voter and a party member

I'm allowed to make my opinion known. Right?

[catgirl]

112. No, you are trying to start a "not satisfied with either candidate" campaign

Obviously inside circles are talking about a Gore solution if there's a brokered
convention. You, however, are hoping to encourage SDs to withhold voting in
the first round. You are also planning to turn supporters away by having false
discouragement with the current candidates... neither one can beat McCain crap.

That is NOT okay. This pre-arranged thread with these comments is not cool.
It's obvious too. You're only going to start flame throwing... but I've warned you
and you chose to go this route. You'll lose some of your group soon enough, I'm
sure, when they realize that the self-appointed leaders are actually doing more
damage than good for Gore.

[rodbailey]

121. I'm having a little trouble with the logic;

if the "inside circles" are talking about a Gore solution, you seem to think that us suggesting it to super delegates in our state would come as shocking news to them? And you think our voices will turn them away from whomever they might want to support? And who's going to throwing flames? Yikes! If a super delegate is really committed to a candidate, any letters from any member of the public is going to have about zero influence. If the super delegate is really worried about the outcome in Nov. with either of the two candidates, and knows there may be some grassroots support for drafting Gore, that might convince that super delegate to go along with a strategy that will have been worked out by folks at the top.

BTW, we lost you from the Yahoo group that we started; but you were the only one. Sorry.

[catgirl]

133. It seems to go over your head

and you're putting words in my mouth. Who said the SDs are worried about November?

You're talking about influencing SDs to skip the first round of voting. This would ensure
that neither candidate would get enough votes. Let's be honest here.

Now you need more people to join your group so you can start working on the SDs.
Your strategy here, is to convince people Obama can't win the general. This is just
plain icky and Gore wouldn't like it (at all). He has integrity and THAT is what
should be behind your work, but it isn't.

You're not going to gain any respect or traction using these dirty tactics (and you
know what I mean).

[rodbailey]

137. Actually, I don't know what you mean.

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, we are certainly not alone in thinking that some of the super delegates might sit out the first ballot. And, as I mentioned before, I don't think that if they weren't already inclined that way that a few letters from regular folks like us would sway them. And, if you've been paying attention, if it is clear that Obama has the number of delegates to win on the first ballot, we will do nothing. ONLY IF it looks like it is headed for a deadlocked convention, in which case we are not taking anything away from anyone but only suggesting one possible solution to get around the deadlock. That's all.

[Andrea]

138. I usually don't engage people that are only interested in arguing, but

In this case I need to clarify something. I have seen you repeatedly make claims about what we are trying to do or what our intentions are that are patently false. We are completely transparent. All our information is open to the public, including copies of suggested letters that completely refute what you are saying.

I would urge anyone that is concerned about this to simply go and read for yourself, rather than take this second-hand and incorrect information from catgirl.

[catgirl]

151. "secondhand and incorrect"? How about this email then

I blotted out the names. I'm posting this only because of your accusation and the fact that RodB
is completely ignoring my suggestion that dirty tricks are in play here. The whole point of this
thread is to diss the candidates in order to bring them into your group. "interesting scheme"...

Read this:

Hi all,
****** has come up with an interesting scheme to see if we can get some more folks hooked up with us at the Yahoo group. She'll also be sending out a note about this through the Yahoo group, but I know some of you aren't in that group yet, so that's the reason I'm coming at you with this e-mail.

THURSDAY EVENING at about 7:30, ****** is going to post at GD:P something about being not satisfied with either Clinton or Obama. We are urging all of you who can to be on-line at that time (and place) and comment in order to keep the post near the top of the pile for a stretch. The purpose is to see if we can find more DU folks inclined toward Gore who we can then contact about the Yahoo site (if they don't go there on their own).

I'll send another brief reminder of this tomorrow. Let's get our strategy moving. It looks like PA is going to go for Hillary (margin, I'm guessing anywhere from 6-12 points) and she will stay in the race. At the same time, there are numerous articles coming out about how some of the Dem. leaders are worried that Obama will still have the lead, but his negatives are going up and he keeps making small blunders. Plus, now he has both Hillary and McCain attacking him and all of Hillary's attacks will definately come back to haunt Obama in the fall campaign. I don't think we're the only ones who are casting about for a sure winner in November. Keep the faith and let's stir the pot a bit.

***

[mrbluto]

207. Alert the media!

Some democrats are acting in unison!

Not merely busing students with a heap of free time to swamp a caucus in favor of a particular candidate. Nor using their hooks in the DLC to twist the primary schedule to what one (mistakenly) believed to be in one's favor!

No! Actual agreement and timing and coordination to nefariously state their opinion with a chance of being heard rather than figuratively walking their voice into a pro-obama woodchipper, or getting pecked to death by pro-clinton ducks!

How eeeeeevilllllll!

[Andrea]

213. You crack me up

My late father always said that a good sense of humor was a sure sign of intelligence - he nailed that one.

[JoFerret]

153. You seem to be taking on the whole board

Is it necessary?

[catgirl]

158. I received an email about this prefabbed thread

to turn people away from their candidates. I really can't believe that they're
doing this.

[JoFerret]

160. From?

(You taking it on is giving it a credibility it does not deserve.)

Here's to the great cats of the world! Wise animals.

[catgirl]

163. It's against DU rules to name people

that's why I deleted their names. But this is their thread. You're right,
I was just trying to get them to acknowledge what they are doing. When
I was basically called a liar and they played dumb, I felt impelled to expose
their divisive plan.

[Andrea]

166. You didn't expose anything

That's what's odd. Anyone reading that email you posted could see there is nothing underhanded here. Like I said before, we're completely transparent and anyone is welcome to just follow the link in my signature line and read for themselves.

[catgirl]

178. Read the whole thread then

the whole point is to turn people against their candidate. While I would love to see a Gore
presidency, I could never take part in this kind of campaign. It's almost juvenile. Perhaps
it wasn't meant to be mean-spirited, but it's still a big turnoff.

I wouldn't be here if I had been taken off the list when I had requested it. I still think the
wait and see approach was a better one. Take care.

[Andrea]

180. Cool, we agree on something

Read the whole thread.

[mrbluto]

209. Convince people to not support a candidate.

Why there ought to be a law.

I declare everyone is special and deserves a prize!

No more criticism - leave that until it's too late in the general election!

[JoFerret]

268. Seems to me that those who prefer either of the two

current candidates do so with evangelic and desperate fervor known only to true believers and sports fans. So I wouldn't worry too much.

[lark]

328. Don't know why you concocted this spin

There was absolutely no intent to "drive people away from their candidates", and it seems like you are smart enough to know that's a patently absurd allegation. :crazy: Anyone who is happy with the current situation is not going to be changed, no matter what's said here. The intention was to provide a place for people who didn't like either candidate and were hoping for a better alternative.

[Andrea]

331. Exactly

The OP wasn't even addressed to people who have a candidate.

[mrbluto]

205. key phrase "you know what I mean"

One step away from black helicopters and mind control satellites sending signals to your fillings.

Kidding aside (I've actually been in the position of exasperatedly saying "you know what I mean") - you'll need to be more specific if you wish to be taken seriously. either you can explain it in terms agreeable to both sides, or the person you're arguing with is willfully not understanding. In either case you have to get agreement on at least that bit - otherwise it's a waste of time.

Maybe a diagram will help.

[JoFerret]

154. What "group" are you warning?

.

[CC]

194. Sorry to tell you this but

there are a lot of us not satisfied with either candidate. We will vote for which ever Dem is the candidate even if we have to hold our noses unlike some of the threats some supporters of the two candidates left threaten to not do the same. Some of us are even working hard at convincing those that might not vote for a Dem that a vote for McCain is the worst thing they could do no matter who the Dem candidate is. Whether the OP is hoping for Gore or someone else their point is as valid as any Obama or Clinton supporters.

[Andrea]

196. Thank you

It's hard trying to convince Independents not to vote McCain when they see our side acting like this. We have to do it, but it's difficult to counter some of their points when both our candidates have made huge mistakes.

I think it's not too much to ask that we have a thread from time to time that isn't all about those two groups of supporters. There are many of us here who are not aligned that way and we have just as much right to discussion as anyone else.

[mrbluto]

204. No? Not okay? So now you're a moderator?

Look if this "conspiracy" and "pre-arranged" plan is enough to threaten someone's getting the nomination then that ncandidate was pretty weak to begin with and deserves to be challenged.

If they prevail then they'll be all the stronger.

If they don't then the party is stronger because it will select a better nominee.

[lark]

325. Don't think they started the disaffection with our current choices,

the candidates and their campaigns have done that. I, for one, am definitely not happy with either candidate, but of course would vote for whoever is wearing the D label, come Nov. If the superdelegates pick a nominee, so be it - I'll vote for that person, but won't be excited about it, because I don't think either one will bring about "fundamental" change. However, if the supers can't reach agreement, I think this could be an answer. Of course, we're hoping and assuming Al would agree to put himself back in the meat-grinder that is politics these days. If he's not interested and won't answer the call, no matter what, then how have we hurt him? I do think he's the best and really admire the man, so am really curious why you think this could end up hurting him??

[mrbluto]

201. Neither doesn't mean Gore.

Not necessarily.

Could be Edwards.

[catgirl]

97. And you think Bill Clinton was the caller?

The receivee of the call worked his ass off. He accomplished a ton for the Draft
movement. To accuse him of this, is BS. The national groups never questioned
his sincerity. I do know that they question some in your group.

Gore would not like what you are trying to start here.

[Andrea]

105. I think you misunderstood him

He was referring to the fact that Bill Clinton has been calling all the super delegates. I'm not sure what you thought.

[rodbailey]

107. Actually, either I said something inartfully,

or you mis-interpreted. I was suggesting that a call from Bill Clinton to a super delegate might be more persuasive than a letter from me. I have no way of knowing who called whom in what you're referring to. Who do you know that is questioning our sincerity in perhaps trying to lobby super delegates. And, how do you know what Gore wants us to do or not do? If the one news report was accurate, some of his people were laying the groundwork for this kind of eventuality back in May '07. If there's any truth to that, then what we are talking about doing should only help their strategy. And, if they had something like a deadlocked convention in mind back then, with a Gore draft as the solution, I can certainly understand, in hindsight, why they didn't want his name on state ballots. At the time, the call to stop those efforts seemed to come out of the blue, but maybe they were the ones planning this "subversive campaign" all the time.

[catgirl]

113. They work behind the scenes

you work in a very destructive fashion. Big difference.

[rodbailey]

139. As Andrea said above,

we are pretty open in what we are discussing. Click on the link in my signature line and join our Yahoo group where the discussion is taking place and is quite civil. There is nothing underhanded going on; nothing devious; no flame-throwing. We're just concerned that the Dems. could be headed for a loss in Nov.; concerned with the mud-slinging that is hurting not only Clinton and Obama, but the Dem. party; and trying to think of a way, if the convention is going to be deadlocked, to suggest a way (that lots of others have suggested) to get a winner in November. That's all. Quite simple and transparent.

[catgirl]

162. This is a mud slinging thread!

You're out to hurt the candidates. You have ulterior motives here. It is
not "civil" the way you are going about this. This IS a flame thread. You're
propping John McCain up to be some unbeatable candidate. Obama will
beat McCain in the general and you know it.

You have people calling both dem candidates pathetic, longing for the
past candidates (good one), claiming that everyone they know is going
to vote for McCain. The fact is, this was prearranged.

[mak3cats]

174. I don't read this thread that way at all...

...the only mud-slinging I see is what's being thrown at people who are just trying to have a rational discussion about future possibilities. But maybe I'm dumb or something...

[jcg996]

280. The numbers disagree.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Apr18.html

[mrbluto]

199. Pre-arranged?

You say that like it's some sort of plot.

I get up and go to work every weekday morning.

It's pre-arranged.

Is that some sort of conspiracy?

What do you suggest the poster do? Not post anything until he/she is sure it won't generate a response or state an opinion?

Pray tell why is it "A very premature and amateurish way of thinking."?

You say this - yet offer no reasoning.

How does that seem to me?

It seems deluded and inspired by magical thinking - care to hear why?

[RoyP]

3. Been wondering about Gore'08?

Man, that would be a great solution! If only! Some superdelegates hold back in the first round in Denver, opening the convention to a brokered second round,... is that what you have in mind?

[cali]

8. utterly stupid and disgustingly undemocratic. throw out millions

of votes and install a white male. idiotic, but yes that's what the OP has in mind.

[rodbailey]

14. Just suppose, though

that the "white guy" chose Obama as his running mate, letting Barack get some solid experience for a much easier run after 4 or 8 years of a Gore White House. We could easily be looking at 16 years (or more) of a Democratic WH and think what that would mean for the Supreme Court. If Obama loses, as it appears he might, we are saddled with McCain appointing 2 or 3 Supreme Court justices and then you can really kiss good-by the civil liberties we still have left.

[cali]

19. no. It won't work. First of all, I'll vote for hillary, but I will not support

an undemocratic coup. Fortunately, Gore will never let it happen. He grasps how dangerous and wrong that is. Furthermore, it's ludicrous to put faith into general election polls 6 months from the election. Either Obama or Clinton can beat McCain. If you don't understand why, I suggest you pay attention to the economy.

[lark]

29. I've seen many many posts that HRC winning

would be undemocratic and would not be tolerated. What do the supers do when no one can win on their own - which appears to be the most likely result?

[rodbailey]

38. Without the supers

neither candidate will garner enough pledged delegates to win on the first ballot - unless one of them takes the remaining 10 primaries with a 20-30 point spread over the other. That seems fairly far-fetched considering what has been happening in the primaries so far. So, it does come down to what the super delegates do. No way around that.

[cali]

39. The SDs will put one or the other over the top shortly after June 3

and depending on what posters in GD-P say for your reality, is very silly indeed. Clearly it will take SDs for either to reach 2025, and just as clearly the SDs are not going to let this go to the convention.

[rodbailey]

33. Do you have a direct pipeline to Gore?

How do you know he would never let it happen? I think if there were a genuine deadlocked convention (which would result if even a couple dozen of the super delegates sat out the first ballot) and a draft for Gore, he would respond as the true public servent he is. He has never said he didn't want anything more to do with politics. In fact he said if he ever got back into politics it would only be at the presidential level - not VP again or a cabinet position.

[cali]

43. oh, for pity's sake. Gore is a smart and savvy man. Not that this

discussion isn't as meaningless as arguing about angels on pinheads. Here's why: Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and dozens of influential SDs like Barney Frank and Governor Corzine have been clear that this will not go to the convention. Do you actually think YOU know more than they do? How interesting.

[mak3cats]

56. Nothing about this long, long campaign season has been as expected...

...so I don't think we should anticipate any settled outcome. The point that is being made is that the party needs to be prepared for ANY eventuality. It's the only intelligent thing to do.

[lark]

87. 3 superdelegates

do not a majority make. I think the rest will have an opinion on this too. I also think the primary thing they are concerned with is winning in Nov. and picking the right person to do that.

[Andrea]

92. that's my hope and my belief - that they are concerned with winning in November

After these horrible 8 years, and with McCain on the horizon, we can't afford to lose.

[cali]

272. sorry. it's not just 3 SDs. It's the party leaders and other influential

dems. And Andrea and her cohorts are living in a fantasy. The SDs are not going to let this go to a brokered convention. Those days passed over 75 years ago. FDR was the last candidate to emerge from a brokered convention in 1932. And Adlai Stevenson, a great candidate, emerged from one in 1952 and lost. In more recent years, candidate chosen at the convention like Carter in 1980, also lost.

[mak3cats]

15. But what happens if the convention's deadlocked?

There has to be a Plan B, and I would imagine the party leaders are discussing just such a possibility.

(Also, you can make your point without being insulting. There seems to be an utter lack of good manners in this forum, which is why anyone who wants to have a rational discussion about the big picture, which is winning in November, gets shouted down immediately.)

[RoyP]

23. (you are so right about the manners in here!)

(you are so right about the manners in here!)

[cali]

32. If it's not clear to you that this won't go to the convention, you either

haven't been paying attention or you're oblivious to the obvious. It's been made clear that the SDs will put one or the other over the top shortly after June 3, and neither will be able to stay in after that happens.

[mak3cats]

44. Made clear by whom?

Pardon my ignorance, but aren't the super delegates just like the rest of us? (I'm active in my county party, and there doesn't seem to be any "it's all figured out" feeling, and I'm in Hillary country.) If the SD's are as unwaveringly partisan as the people here on DU ("my candidate or no one"), this could be a long road.

[Andrea]

51. Right, plus over 300 are uncommitted at

the moment. I've heard quite a few of them say they won't do anything until the convention. I saw Jimmy Carter say it just this past Sunday.

[cali]

59. really? you know that quite a few (however many that is) won't

endorse until the convention? First of all, Dean, Pelosi, Reid and dozens of influential SDs, have publically stated that shortly after all the voting has ended, SDs will put one or the other over the top. I think they know whereof they speak. Secondly, do you even know how many SDs the two of them need? It's not 300.

[mak3cats]

102. Still think the DNC, et al, has all of this under control?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5556543

[cali]

52. Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and dozens of influential

SDs- many who have endorsed- like Barney Frank and Governor Corzine have made it clear that the SDs will put one or the other over the top shortly after June 3rd. And no, the SDs are not as partisan as we are. Not even close.

[mak3cats]

66. So then the dreaded "party insiders" will decide one over the other...

...and have the right-wing media blathering on about how the Democratic nomination was taken out of the hands of the "little people?" If one of the candidates isn't CLEARLY in the lead, then how can the SD's pick one of them without alienating all of the other's supporters? (I'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, I'm truly curious as to how such a scenario would play out in the end. My main concern is that we win in November. I would vote for Krusty the Klown if he ended up as our nominee.)

[Andrea]

72. I think Krusty the Klown is running as an independent now.

But, if he was our nominee, I'd vote for him.;-)

[cali]

73. they will endorse a candidate who has millions of votes and

who has either the pledged delegate majority or the popular vote majority or both. And the right wing media will blather about the dems no matter what.

[mak3cats]

94. Yes, but the other candidate will also have millions of votes and a very

slightly lower number of pledged delegates or popular votes or both. You don't think that will alienate millions of Democrats, either way? Since I'm not a particular supporter of either Obama or Clinton, like I said earlier, I'll vote for either, and without holding my nose. But what about all those who won't?

[cali]

111. I believe- along with my ex-guv, Howard Dean that people

will accept that. And I'm obviously an Obama supporter, but I'll absolutely vote for Clinton if she gets it. If Gore was installed, you'd have millions of pissed off supporters from both camps. And the SDs will endorse by the middle of June. See Dean's statement today.

[rodbailey]

77. And do you really think

that Howard Dean can "force" the uncommitted super delegates to come to a decision? Was he able to find a solution to the FL and MI problem? Democrats being democrats, I don't see anyone, even Dean, telling them they've got to come to a decision on June 4 or whenever.

[cali]

273. I believe that party leaders like Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Frank and others

have the influence to persuade SDs to hop off the fence. And I absolutely believe that the vast majority of SDs don't want this going to the convention. As over 500 of the 800 SDs have already endorsed. I have evidence for my position. You don't.

[lark]

22. Unfortunately millions have voted for each person

and neither can win on their own. IMO neither is a great GE candidate. Obama belongs to a racist church where the pastor - on occasion - preaches hate and lies. Clinton has played fast and loose with the truth, and so has Obama. This isn't the media making stuff up like it did with Gore, these are real lies. If neither can win without cheating, ie superdelegates disregarding the votes of their states, then isn't it time to find someone else. Someone who is a visionary, someone who is a decent world would have already been president for nearly 8 years?

IF BO can win on the first ballot, then more power to him, the people will have chosen. If he can't, then I think drafting Gore could be the answer a lot of people have been looking for.

[suziedemocrat]

40. You say "White Male" like it's a bad thing.

It isn't. It is no better, no worse, than any other category. The person is what matters.

[Andrea]

47. good point

I wish we could look beyond race and gender and pick someone based on two things: can he or she be elected, and will he or she be a great president?

[cali]

62. it's not a bad thing in a vacume- something that this primary season

is not- not at this point. Millions of people have voted for historic firsts. In any case, throwing millions of votes out and installing a candidate chosen by party insiders is insane- something the SDs are aware of.

[brentspeak]

360. You've spoken to the super-delegates?

They personally revealed to you their opinions on the subject, eh?

[lark]

88. Disenfranchising FL and MI is throwing out millions of votes

Do you support that? Or do you only support selective disenfranchisment?

[cali]

274. That's a complex situation. Both states flauted DNC rules

The punative measures were actually instituted by McCaliff, not Dean. Some solution will be worked out that will enable some configuration of the delegates to be seated. And sorry, it's not disenfranchisement. I'm a stickler for correct language. There is no federally guaranteed right to vote in a primary. The parties are free to choose any method they wish to pick their nominees.

[mrbluto]

214. Install? Um...there would be an election.

It wouldn't be "throwing out millions of votes".

They'd be counted. The results found to be not definitive and THEN THE ALREADY IN-PLACE MECHANISM FOR SELECTING A CANDIDATE WOULD OCCUR.

A brokered convention.

Not an installation, not stealing - adhering to the rules you should have full well known when you decide to eith vote, or not vote, Democrat.

It's dishonest to characterize a brokered convention as cheating.

What is idiotic is to walk down a cattle chute Karl Rove has all but hand crafted for us.

[farrell]

27. Denver May Be Too Late.

It is doubtful that the Democratic party hierarchy, a.k.a. as super delegates, will allow the competition between HRC BHO to drag on. Dean, Pelosi, Reid and others have suggested that a decision by super delegates should be made between Jun 3 (after the last primaries in Montana & South Dakota) and July 1.

[phrigndumass]

144. Welcome to DU, farrell!

:hi:

[gateley]

152. Hi farrell --

Welcome to DU! :hi:

you brave soul, you :7

[Aussie leftie]

30. As much as I admire Gore

I cant help but remember his bad taste in running mates.

[Andrea]

41. Fortunately, there's no way that would happen again

Obviously it wouldn't be Lieberman again, but I mean even anyone nearly that bad. Chances are, it would be Obama. I'd be happy with that, or Edwards, or Biden, or Sibelius or many people.

Lieberman was a real shame. I don't think he would have ever picked Joementum if it hadn't been for the Lewinsky scandal. I remember a lot of talk at the time about picking Joe because he was a "man of faith" and squeaky clean. There was also talk that he would pick Edwards, and that's what I wanted him to do.

[bpeale]

371. would love to see Edwards/Dodd or Edwards/Kucinich ticket!

[rosesaylavee]

349. DLC made that decision for him in 2000.

He is no longer a member of the DLC.

[Andrea]

350. Thanks, Rose

That explains that. I often wondered how he could have been so far off the mark.

[hell-bent]

367. Sounds good to me!

Both candidates are somewhat toxic after this nomination battle. A brokered convention and a draft of Gore is an excellent route to the White House.

[cali]

4. nope. and what's "official" about your thread? What imprimateur

does it bear? And no, sorry, rational and sane people know that Gore won't be the nominee. Please don't bother denying that that's your ulterior motive. There's tons of evidence in the Gore Group, to demonstrate that there's your delusional obsession.

[mrbluto]

217. More mud slung from a hopeful catapult.

Again, love to see the love for fellow democrats and respect for their opinions and concerns making the rounds.

Thanks by-the-way for letting us know what is deluded and ulterior.

Please forgive me if I think you might be a little too close to the subject of "obsession" to give an unbiased assessment.

[Andrea]

219. You know what's mysterious to me?

People who insist that their delegate has already won the nomination (factual inaccuracy notwithstanding) and then become incredibly threatened by the discussion of any back-up plan.

[mrbluto]

235. Willful delusion...

...is my guess.

It's the opposite of sour grapes.

They don't want to have an option happen so they declare it sour before hand, rather than afterwards.

But yes - the ability to do that with a straight face is a mystery.

[cali]

275. That was obviously directed at me, and it incorrectly assumes

a position I don't hold. I think Obama likely will be the nominee, but sorry, I don't think he's won it, nor am I threatened by the fantasies of a group of people who seem rather uniformed.

[mak3cats]

5. Here!

While I would happily and proudly pull the lever (and yes, we still do that in my state) for either of the current candidates, I don't think it's smart to not have a fall-back position. If we go into a brokered convention, there needs to be a plan to pull the party together. And, based on the vitriol I've seen over the past few months in this forum, neither the Obama nor Clinton camps will "go quietly."

[Andrea]

10. I remember those lever machines

I loved the sound they made.

Yes, I think it looks like a brokered convention may well be coming. I'm not sure why some object to a "Plan B" or fall-back position. This year, I would prefer not to take any chances.

[shaniqua6392]

9. I am not a supporter of a particular candidate.

I like them both and I sure wish this would get settled. I worry about our chances too. There seems to be a lot of support growing for McCain. He is not a typical Republican by reputation and he is getting much of the independent vote. Scary stuff. Thanks for your post. It was refreshing to answer to something and not be attacked for it. :hi:

[Andrea]

13. You know, I think it's weird how McCain seems to be able

to get away with presenting himself as "independent" and a "maverick" when he hasn't been like that for years. He completely sold his soul to Bush. In fact, I think that's why he got the Repub nomination.

It's not going to be easy to beat him as long as there are so many people out there that aren't really examining him and what he stands for.


:hi:

[shaniqua6392]

20. The local media here in SE Michigan seems to adore him.

The other day they were bragging about how he was going to have a "holiday from gas taxes" in his economic plan. What a great thing to tell Michiganders who are struggling with job losses, foreclosures, high food costs and $3.55 per gallon gas. They will fall for it hook, line and sinker, so to speak. To me, he is just an older version of Bush. But others can be fooled very easily.

[Andrea]

57. That gas tax holiday sounds like the most ridiculous idea to me.

The oil companies will just use that as cover to raise the prices even more. It's like taking the gas taxes away from maintaining roads and giving them to the oil companies. But you are right, people who are desperate will latch onto it because it sounds like it will help them. Meanwhile, without the revenue from the gas taxes, road projects don't happen and more people get laid off.

[islandmkl]

11. I would say your brush is a little broad concerning 'this mess we've gotten ourselves into..'

the tactics employed by any candidate IN THEIR OWN, SINGULAR BEST INTEREST do much to guide the course of the fray...

the strong survive...hopefully, the best win out...

America needs more than just 'no more bush'...

we need someone who is willing to take things on with a new, different approach...beginning in the nominating process...

we all see what we see...this is not my team beating your team...we need to find the person who not only can have the strength to win a contest like we have not seen in 50 years...

but have the strength and vision to try to get America back on the right track...that is the situation we, all of us, democrat, republican, independent, crazy folks...in the end, all of are in this together...

and we need someone to lead us out...

[RoyP]

12. I don't agree with your premise,...

I don't agree with your premise, but I agree with your elabotation. We have to come together and get a unifying leader at the top of the Democratic ticket. I was a HUGE Gore supporter, then gave up, and have become a HUGE Obama suporter. In my heart, I wish Obama would win, but I'm getting afraid he's got too many vulnerabilities from the raving right. Always thought so of Hollery. Now, with both looking worse for wear, I'm back to wishing the Goreman was in it. sigh.

[mak3cats]

18. Very well said. (n/t)

[Andrea]

31. Very good points

What concerns me is that it doesn't seem we are getting the "best" by this process. It doesn't even seem like we are necessarily getting an electable nominee.

I have several problems with our nominating process. I don't like caucuses - they capture too small a percentage of the voters. I don't like open primaries - too many Republicans trying to mess up our process. I don't like the schedule of the primaries. That's a huge problem. It gives too much influence to a few small, atypical states and gives too much advantage to the big money candidates (wherever they get their money from).

I read about a great plan for scheduling the primaries called the Delaware plan. Basically, all the states are divided up into four groups by size. The smallest group votes first, then a month later the next smallest, and so on. The idea is that you get a mix of states in each group and by starting with the small states, the candidates are on more of an even playing field regardless of their budget. The guy that was writing the article said that with a plan like this, someone like Dennis Kucinich, whose viewpoints many, many people agree with whether they know it or not, would have a chance to take off.

Another DUer suggested the other day a kind of "instant runoff" voting. By that kind of method, you are more likely to end up with an electable candidate. You could have a situation where maybe a big percentage favor Obama and a big percentage favor Clinton, but most of both those groups find Edwards to be good also, make him their 2nd choice, and you end up with him as the nominee and more people willing to get behind him.

I think we really need to work on changing our process before '12. In the meantime, we may end up with a deadlocked convention and I hope it doesn't get too ugly.

[suziedemocrat]

50. No - we're not getting the best.

Caucuses are idiotic. Too much money.

Biden was right - we won't get REAL change until we have 100% publicly funded elections.

[Andrea]

60. Yes, he was right

Now look at McCain, of McCain-Feingold, violate the campaign finance laws!

[BobRossi]

16. Count me as one.

I find it quite sad that this election should be the dems for the taking and they are going to hand it to the repukes on a silver platter.
It has been a very long time since we have had a unifying candidate that we can all get behind. The two remaining candidates have neither the experience nor the
integrity to get me to vote for either one of them. At 55 years of age, I have voted for my share of "lesser of two evils". I haven't the stomach nor the will to do it again.
I see no chance in Hillarious or Obama against the repuke war machine.

In an election where all we had to do is present a credible candidate, we have chosen instead to fight among ourselves. It is a sad day to be a Democrat.

[Andrea]

64. It's the disparity between our hopes and expectations

and what is really happening that makes it even sadder for me.

The only thing that kept me going through these eight horrific years was knowing that on Jan. 20, 2009 Bush would be gone and be replaced by some fine Democrat. Now it looks like he'll either be replaced by McCain or a hobbled Democrat who barely squeaks in. Actually, it's more likely to be McCain than Obama or Clinton. The Republicans are so practiced at their dirty election theft techniques that we need a real landslide win to overcome what they'll do. That's why I wish we could have a real strong unity candidate, which is what I know Gore would be.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

17. What gets me is how close the two are ideologically

Candidates that would have been a real choice, like Kucinich or Edwards, were dismissed and we are left with two that basically are the same. And their fighting has seriously weakened our party and has resulted in enabling the GOP to play lots of dirty tricks, like the planting of a "McCain gaining support" story on yahoo this morning.

[rodbailey]

26. It's not just Yahoo reporting that.

There was a recent Rasmussen poll (part of their daily rolling polls) showing McCain either even or beating Obama and Hillary. And a recent Marist poll, in NY of all places, found a hypothetical match-up of McCain/Rice beating or even with Hillary and Obama. And that was just in NY - Hillary's sort of home town. We have got to have a strong candidate in November. I think from some reports that some of the super delegates are getting more than a bit nervous over what lies ahead. Chris Van Hollen, head of the DCCC, has expressed his concern that the longer this ugly fight goes on, the more problematical it becomes for folks he's trying to get elected to new House seats.

[sandnsea]

48. Well Edwards and Clinton are close ideologically

I mean, he voted for the IWR on her say-so, and he says he supports forcing people to buy insurance. Obama is against both of those. Then again, Edwards has opposed torture consistently along with Obama. Obama has been working on poverty issues for decades and made real differences in people's lives. And they both refused PAC and lobbyist money. So while Edwards has a few things in common with Hillary, and some other things in common with Obama - there really isn't anything to say that Obama and Hillary have anything in common on the important issues. In fact, Obama comes up much better for working people than either Edwards or Clinton.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

279. I'm a Kucinich fan

His ideas for the country are the best, imho, and vastly different from any of the three candidates you mentioned. Anyone else nominated and elected will be not very good to move our country where it should be. At least a Dem won't nominate bad folks to the SCOTUS, which is why I'll hold my nose and vote D this November.

[brentspeak]

361. "Obama comes up much better for working people than...Edwards"???

Edwards' position on tax exemptions for U.S. companies who off-shore work: he would eliminate them

Obama's position: No such policy stated

[Andrea]

67. They are basically the same

They are both pretty corporate and very centrist. Kucinich or Edwards would have really made big differences, really turned things around. Did you see what I said about the Delaware plan for primaries? I wish we could see that happen so the candidates with the best ideas would have more chance the candidates with the most money.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

278. Hear hear!

Yes, the Delaware Plan would be most helpful in getting IDEA people elected.

[Andrea]

74. I think their similarities are a main cause of this campaign

degenerating into a nonsensical nitpicking examination of personal lapses and gaffes, instead of focusing on issues.

[Two Americas]

21. agreed

You perceptions are accurate, and your fears are well-founded, IMHO.

[suziedemocrat]

24. Me! I'm still sad that Dodd didn't get any traction.

[Andrea]

78. I wonder why he didn't

Well, there's the obvious reasons that he didn't have as much money and the media ignored him. But, still, he has taken such a strong stance on protecting our civil liberties. That is critical in these times. I respect him so much.

[I. J. Reilly]

28. Neither candidate was my first choice . . .

I would rather have had a more liberal candidate. It didn't happen. One of these two will almost assuredly win the nomination. At that point I will become a passionate supporter of our nominee. I will donate my time and my money. Regardless of what I wish had happened, both of these candidates are infinitely better than any Republican. I just hope all Democrats will fall in line when it's time.

[mak3cats]

36. Just had to say I love your user ID!

(One of my favorite books, but we'll talk later.)

[LWolf]

34. I've been saying so since the beginning.

Thanks for starting this thread.

We are left with the two worst candidates out of the larger field, and I find "shame" to be an understatement.

I'm really angry. I'm angry at the party, and the status quo, for favoring corporatists over better candidates. I'm angry at my fellow Democrats for saddling me with two non-choices in my primary next month, and for hamstringing true positive change by choosing those least likely to effect the change I want to see.

I'm disgusted with the whole thing.

I don't see anything positive in November, and little to cheer about in 2009 even if one of them manages to pull it out. Which I have grave doubts about.

[HughLefty1]

100. Yes and it's a damn shame....

I had lunch with my Parents, Aunt, and Uncle today. They are all life long Democrats who will all be voting for McCain in November. Even my boss who's a registered Democrat and Bush hater told me he now plans to vote for McCain. It's a pretty sad state of affairs and the Democratic Party has itself to blame.

[LWolf]

106. That's horrific.

And I agree; the Democratic Party has itself to blame.

[Andrea]

108. That's incredibly sad

What, or who, do you think could change their minds?

[rosesaylavee]

351. Hopefully you will be able to dissuade them from that

disastrous decision. A vote for McCain is a vote to extend the last 8 years to 12. I don't understand how any democrat could possibly vote for McCain. I hope you hang around here long enough to find out what his many negatives are so that you can share that information with them.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[gateley]

37. Need some of your wisdom here --

What would cause a brokered convention? What would have to happen (or not happen) that would make the powers that be decide that a brokered convention would be needed?

Thanks.

[rodbailey]

55. There was at least one story,

I think it was in one of the British papers (although the Washington correspondent) saying that there had been talk that about 100 super delegates would sit out the first ballot and see how the votes came out. If it was overwhelming for, say Obama, then they might swing their votes to Obama on the second ballot and the end would be in sight. However, if it turned out that others joined them in sitting out the first ballot, or if things still looked very ugly and there was worry among the supers and party leaders that both candidates would be vulnerable and possibly lose in November, then they would exercise the judgment that the supers are supposed to exercise and look for a compromise/winning candidate. This story reported that there were some close to Gore who had been developing this plan since last May, with the thought that it might come to pass, and it might not. But, that was why they didn't want his name on any primary ballots during the primary season. Gore didn't want to get into this "silly season" kind of discourse we saw in the debate last evening. But, if the party decided to turn to him, he would answer the call.

[RoyP]

58. It's the Framk Kapra ending of all time!

And I'd be in favor of it!!!!!!

[cali]

63. That would be Capra, and this isn't Mr Smith Goes To Washington.

[RoyP]

79. Thanks for the spelling correction.

I know this is not a movie. I'm seriously interested in the issues, but as a news junkie, if ya' aren't lovin' this election season, really, the last several, especially since I stayed up all night watching the the "call" go back and forth between bush and gore, then the court case, then the catastrophic first bush term, the rush and crushing fall of the Dean campaign, Joementum, John "Herman Munster" Kerry's zombie walk into oblivion, and now this unbelievable story so far, It really would be a Capra like touch to have Gore swoop in and literally save the planet!

[gateley]

84. Thanks -- another question:

Now, if the SD's don't sit it out, and instead declare their support for a candidate (as Dean is encouraging them to do) -- then a brokered convention would be converted -- do I have that right?

[Andrea]

89. Right, provided that one of them reaches 2024

It's really an interesting process. It's been years since our nominee was not firmly settled well before the convention. The last brokered convention was in 1952.

[gateley]

109. Thanks --and I meant to say "diverted"

not converted, but you got it.

[Andrea]

85. A key thing is this

In order to be nominated, a candidate must have 2024 votes. It's now mathematically impossible for either to get that many from pledged delegates alone, so it comes down to the supers. If enough of them sit out the first ballot, no one will reach 2024. Starting with the second ballot, pledged delegates are "free agents" and changes could be made,

[gateley]

115. Okay -- more questions.

So theoretically on the second ballot, everyone could pledge, and one or the other would get the 2024 needed to be the nom, right?

If it's STILL a no-go after the second ballot, at what point does the Party step in and say -- enough, time for us to end this? (I'm assuming there's a limit to how many times they can re-vote?)

This is really interesting. And I learn so much better from you guys than the dry explanations I find online. So thanks!!

[rodbailey]

128. They can actually keep voting

as many times as they want. In the scenario I've seen suggested, the Party leaders (or those worried about losing not only the WH but positions further down the ballot) will have discussed what to do if it looks like the balloting will go on and on and on. That's where the draft Gore idea comes in. They would need to find a candidate that enough delegates would rally to to end the balloting. I don't remember all my history, but I think there were some conventions in the past that went to dozens of ballots. I don't think the Party leaders would let that happen.

[gateley]

134. So they COULD step in and say

"enough"?

And, once they present the "savior" -- do we have to go through the voting process again, or is it fait accompli?

I really doubt it'll get to that point, but this campaign has been full of "can't happen" surprises. I hope they're lining of a few potentials now.

[Andrea]

140. Nope, no fait accompli

They still have to vote again, and whoever (probably Gore) is the compromise candidate will have to get 2024. Probably they would do some checking around before calling that vote, to make sure they had the 2024. I agree, I very much hope they are lining up some alternative now. I'd hate to think that we would get to the convention without some kind of fall-back plan.

[Andrea]

132. Well, actually, there is no limit

There was one convention - IIRC it was 1924 - that went to 103 ballots. Can you imagine? If people are really not budging, it could go on for quite some time. Now, hopefully it wouldn't be anything like that. See, if it goes past the first ballot, other names can and probably will be put into nomination. Those could be people that ran or people that didn't. The leaders will all be negotiating with each other and with Obama and Clinton. When they strike on something that enough people agree to, particularly Obama and Clinton need to agree, they'll present that to the convention. A likely scenario would be Obama and Clinton both endorsing Gore in return for Obama being VP and Clinton going to the Supreme Court at the first vacancy. The details could definitely be different. The key would be that it's something that Obama and/or Clinton see as being good for the party and their supporters. Then they ask their delegates to vote for the compromise.

It's technically possible that their supporters would not go along with their requests, but it's unlikely. If that happened, it would be "back to the drawing boards" for another compromise. Meanwhile, more people could be nominated. It's possible, though highly unlikely, that we could end up with anyone from Kucinich to Biden to Karen Granholm.

[gateley]

146. Oh --

I didn't even think to ask if Obama and Clinton would still be in the mix. I assumed they'd be yanked (but now that I think of it, that wouldn't make any sense.)

Although I'd hate to see it get to that because of what's at stake, it would sure be interesting to see.

I don't THINK I have any more questions, but if I do, I'll know who to ask. Thanks again!! :hi:

And I think I'm going to look into the one you referred to -- gotta be a great story behind that!

[Andrea]

159. You are more than welcome

It's been an interesting discussion. It's so refreshing to just be talking about things instead of arguing. Here's a link to the Wikipedia entry about that convention with 103 ballots. It is an interesting story. I wonder if anyone has made a movie about it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_Democratic_National_Convention



:hi:

[Florida22ndDistrict]

281. re: Okay -- more questions.

I believe the record to be 103 ballots at the 1924 Democratic National Convention, but there are no rules as to how many ballots can occur. The delegates vote until a victor is established.

[cbayer]

45. Plan B: Unified ticket

I would really object to a third party coming in at this point. These two candidates and their supporters have worked too hard for another candidate to walk in and take this. Supporters in both camps would feel totally disenfranchised. In addition, I really don't think Gore wants the job.

So I continue to support a ticket with both of the candidates on it. They complement each other very well and could make a powerful team.

[RoyP]

53. Who's on top?

Who's on top?

[cbayer]

61. Trick question.

Not for me to decide. I have my thoughts on it, but I would be happy with either slate.

[rodbailey]

69. And where would Bill fit in?

That's the real problem with having Hillary on the ticket at all. If she's on top, Obama is way out in the wilderness because Bill will be at Hillary's side on all the big decisions and she won't consult Obama at all (after all, she's said he's not really that experienced). If Obama is on top, don't you think Bill would be giving Hillary all kinds of ways to undercut him on one thing after another. I think Bill really wants to be President again and, as obvious by some of his campaigning, this whole thing is about him and his legacy. While I thought he was a very good (maybe even great) president, I think he has been more of a problem than a solution during this campaign.

[Andrea]

95. I've gotta agree with you

He really complicates matters a good deal, and would continue to do so.

[cbayer]

98. He would be the first husband.

I think that the Clinton's realize the influence and power that Obama has and I think they are way to smart to dismiss him. His areas of expertise are in bringing in voters, putting his vision into words, articulating the need for a new direction. She's a policy wonk and knows this stuff inside and out. Bill is a diplomat and knows how to work the system. He also has a lot of international credentials and contacts.

The problems that confront whoever wins this election are almost insurmountable. The more good people on the team the better.

Bill has said that one of the first things Hillary would ask him to do is embark on an international tour with GHWB to try and repair the damage that has been done by Bush2. That seems like a very good idea to me.

It would be tricky having a former President in the WH as the spouse. It's never happened before.

You might be interested in this article. It's long, but really fascinating:

http://www.slate.com/id/2188751/

[rodbailey]

117. Of course

GHWB said he didn't think he go on that "crusade" with Bill even if Hillary asked him to. I think he was a little concerned it might look bad if the father was going around the world telling world leaders he was there to apologize for the errors of the son. Might make good news, but ain't gonna happen.

[cbayer]

125. I did not know that, but it makes sense.

He really can't be the apologist for his son's misdeeds. I think Bill Clinton could still do it, though. It seems to me to be one of the first issues that needs to be addressed.

[Andrea]

142. Boy, can you imagine how humiliating that would be?

It would kind of serve GHWB right for raising such a son and stealing the 2000 election for him. I can hear him now, "Hello Mr. Leader of Another Country, I'm here to apologize for the way my son ruined the world. Could you give us another chance please?".

[Pastiche423]

46. IMHO

One candidate's actions over the other is bringing about a brokered convention. At this moment in our history, unity is needed more than it ever was before.

Since unity is being thwarted, we need to be prepared as a party to do what we need to do for a win in November. When I read the polls that state such and such a percentage of supporters will NOT vote for the other candidate in November, it scares the bejesus out of me.

Are we going to sit back and watch the third * term happen? We must begin a dialog about the reality of the primary campaign - NOW.

Recommend.

[Andrea]

99. Doesn't it seem like we are playing right into the

Republicans' plans? Divide and conquer.

[Pastiche423]

110. I don't know about the "we"

but someone is.

I am too old and too tired to have to deal w/another republic administration. We have to whatever we can to not allow that to be a possibility.

We must be prepared!

[Aussie leftie]

49. Up until this year the primaries have been quite uncontroversial.

However, after seeing the problems in the system that have come to the fore this time around, maybe some tweaking of the system may be in order.

In Australia our Westminster system enables the ELECTED members of parliament to vote for the leader to represent either party (Labor or Liberal). Imagine the money and the energy that would be saved. All efforts could be focused on challenging the opposition.

It might be worth a thought.

[depakid]

82. One of the strengths of the system is that tried and true individuals typically end up squaring off

and they've held positions of prominence and been vetted by their peers.

Not to mention by REAL journalists like Kerry O'Brien and Tony Jones (who'd long since have been unceremoniously fired in the states).

Not that it always works out so well (Mark Latham managed to get through) -but on the other hand, what Rudd and Gillard did over the last 16 months was nothing short of masterful.

On an aside note: Watching question time in Canberra would be a real treat for folks on DU. I often wish they could sit in the gallery and have a look, because not only would they LOVE the banter and the confrontations, it would give them some perspective.

CSPAN it ain't. ;)

Plus, you usually get to watch the highlights and analysis every night on the ABC!

[Aussie leftie]

127. I love "question time"

It would be more interesting if there were answers as well. Do you think the US is ready for Kerry or Tony (my favourite journalists)?

[depakid]

189. I reckon so

Kerry O'Brien takes no prisoners.

He racks up Kevin Rudd just the same way he does Brendan Nelson. Not sure how much longer Brendan has.

But I do find it curious that John Howard was afraid of him....

[Andrea]

103. Is Australia a parliamentary system?

I've often thought it's a very sensible system.

[Aussie leftie]

131. Unlike the US

You don't need to be a millionaire (although it does help) to reach the top position. We use the Westminster system where both houses of parliament are voted in. If you want to be Prime Minister, you have to have the majority of votes from your elected parliamentarians in your party.

I am a secretary of my local branch (Labor Party). If I wanted to go higher up the ladder, I could stand for preselection where I'd need to get the majority of votes from my peers. If I won that, I'd be representing an electorate to try for a parliamentary seat. If I won that, well, the skies the limit.

[JoFerret]

156. Let the party pick you mean?

And the party leader leads into the election?

[FourScore]

54. It will be interesting to see what happens

if there is to be a brokered convention.

[Andrea]

114. Yes, most of us aren't old enough to have seen the last one

I'm not sure how much was shown on TV back in '52. I know by '68 the networks were showing the whole thing, gavel to gavel, until recently. It would really be educational. With these pre-scripted conventions we've had the last few decades, there's nothing really to see or learn.

[flvegan]

76. Not satisfied? How about very disappointed?

How about "can't stand either one" at this point?

Thanks big media and you complicit DNC and DLC morons.

[mak3cats]

86. That's just the point, my friend...

If so many Democrats go into the GE with no enthusiasm (or worse, don't go at all), we're screwed. (I'm glad I live near the Canadian border.) It's a god-damn shame that we're looking at making history here (i.e., with both a black and a female candidate) and the intra-party bickering is so intense. This election should be an effing cakewalk, and it's going to end up being I don't know what.

[flvegan]

93. Not just that, dems are ACTUALLY considering McCain.

WTF? How can we throw two such craptacular candidates out there that not only are folks lacking enthusiasm, but they're thinking of going to the dark side.

[Andrea]

118. It's really scary, isn't it?

After the whittling away at our civil liberties under W, what would be left after four years of McCain? It truly scares me to think what will happen.

I wish people would see the gravity of the situation, instead of arguing about race and gender and "I, me, mine".

[zalinda]

80. There has been so much acrimony

on both sides that a brokered convention will probably be our only recourse. Many Obama supporters will not vote for Clinton, and many Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama. And, while much money and time has been spent in campaigning, someone would have to lose, and in this case, it looks like both will lose.......to a repub.

It would be much better if we had Gore, then those would not vote for Obama, can say "at least he's not Obama" and those who would not vote for Clinton, can say "at least he's not Clinton". And, yes, maybe both candidates will lose but to a DEM, not a repub. Gore is the only one who can bring unity to the party. He would bring back Nader supporters and Greens, and any one else who was sorry they didn't vote for him in 2000. It would be an unbelievable landslide, and and unbelievable slap in the face to Bush and repubs. I would LOVE IT!

zalinda

[mak3cats]

90. You put it in a perfectly worded nutshell. Thanks! (n/t)

[omega minimo]

96. Edwards was the right choice. The "calm rational DUers" haven't threatened NOT TO VOTE

I'll support the Dem candidate. Preselected as they were.

[Andrea]

120. Edwards was the one that polled the best

against all the Republican candidates.

Considering that and his platform of real change, I just don't understand how we ended up here.

[omega minimo]

124. Maybe because too many people identify with the wealthy and don't get the concept

even here

[susanwy]

190. The MSM put us here

along with a gullible electorate. The MSM started by ignoring any other candidate but Clinton. Then when Obama got in the race the MSM had a choice: Which would garner us bigger ratings, and fill our advertising revenues, the first African American POTUS or the first woman POTUS? So, they set about marginalizing the other candidates and wringing their greedy little hands over the ratings numbers to see who's shit the gullible electorate would eat most. Ask yourself, who really played the "race" card first? The MSM and they loved it, people tuned in in droves. Turned out, much to their delight, that we consumed the shit almost equally, but Obama has the edge. The first black presidential candidate will definitely keep them in business. Except, they LOVE McLame as well (can't explain that), again, back to the ratings and the focus groups, who will keep the fat cats in the MSM and corporate america the happiest Obama? McLame? Tune in tomorrow!

Its pathetic! I'd jump on a Gore bandwagon, in a minute, but I don't think he wants the job. What competent person does (we'll Biden might)? Gore has secured his place in history, why screw that up? Plus, he really is a one issue guy now (thank god someone is beating the Global drum). My fear is Obama will end up like Carter, blamed for a destroyed economy that can't be fixed in the short run and ineffectual on foreign policy. Hillary will just be hated so much that nothing will get done. We're screwed either way, we may get the white house back for four years, but we will be blamed for not being able to fix the mess (and who could in four years). Then the republicans will take it back and the economy will swing (it usually does) and they'll have it at least another eight years. You've got to hand it to uncle Karl, smart man, asshole, but smart.

Great thread BTW, sorry I'm so pessimistic!

[Andrea]

195. The MSM is extremely culpable

I have a hard time deciding whether they are driven only by profits, or if they are in collusion with the Bush machine. Remember when the news broadcasts were sacrosanct - not driven by ratings, but by the requirement that a channel had to serve the public interest or lose it's broadcast license? Remember when journalism was a true profession with a code of ethics?

I think Gore might accept the nomination if asked. In Oslo in December, CNN interviewed him and he said he wouldn't rule out getting back into politics in the future, but if he did, it would only be as a candidate for president - no other position.

No question that whoever ends up as president has a horrible mess on their hands. I think the best way for us to get two terms (assuming we get a Dem in there to begin with) is to thoroughly expose all the illegal, immoral and unethical things that Bush has done. All the Republicans that were complicit need to be fully exposed, too. If the public really wakes up to the truth, they may understand why four years is not long enough to clean up the mess.

Thanks for the compliment on the thread! I really enjoy a great discussion without a bunch of name calling.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

286. re: The MSM is extremely culpable

On the Charlie Rose show when interviewed about his book The Assault on Reason he was badgered numerous times about the presidency. Somewhere in the hour of conversation he said something to the extent that he didn't plan to run, but he would if there was a sign that he should run.

When I look at what is approaching what I see is a deadlocked convention where neither candidate can win by pledged delegates. I see people from all states angry that super delegates may decide to pick their candidate's nemesis. I see Florida and Michigan still not represented and a promise of blood being spilled on the floor at the convention. I see many Florida voters extremely angry about not being fully represented. I see polls of both candidates losing to McCain in November. I see campaign platforms that are in large ignoring the issue of climate change (both candidates have not even tried to see if the issue will resonate with voters). I think that counts as a sign.

[Andrea]

292. I'm not completely familiar with the Florida situation

Can you tell me if I've got this right?

The date of the primary was determined by the legislature and not by the state party, so they had no choice about the date.

[susanwy]

335. Republican controlled legislature...

bill introduced by a dem under the assumption (some imply fueled by the republicans) that Florida should have a larger say in the process. Keep in mind that the repubs in Florida wanted their primary moved up also. It passed with a large majority both dems and rebups in a repub dominated legislature. The RNC withheld 1/2 of the 114 delegates from McLame as punishment (not that it mattered in the repubs rules, winner take all - imagine that).

Only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina had permission to hold a primary before Feb 5th (super-tuesday) and Florida jumped first. South Carolina Republicans jumped next and SC dems, Iowa, Nevada and NH moved ahead of them. Michigan began the jumping game then as well, but they didn't have permission from the DLC. The other four states all had permission because a) the DNC/DLC didn't want the repubs to go first in SC and b) they wanted these four states to hold the first primaries. (http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primaries/democraticprimaries/index.html).

However, I'm a little annoyed by the blame the voter in Florida and Michigan, they had very little choice. Like the rest of us they got caught up in party politics. All they can do now is vote out those who supported the primary move. Too bad really, between 2000, 2004 and now it seems that the gods just don't want to have to count Florida voters fairly.

[Andrea]

340. Thanks for filling that in for me

I don't like the "blame the voter" attitude either. I don't see how the individual voters hold any responsibility in the situation.

[lark]

336. That's exactly what happened

:dunce:

[Midwestern Democrat]

122. That's what galls me. They got what they wanted - a pre-emptive

two celebrity horserace from day one - and now many of them are threatening to bolt if their particular favorite doesn't prevail in the end. Well, I've got news for them - NO individual candidate is bigger than the Democratic Party itself - least of all, these two.

[Muttocracy]

168. yep, -> 3 way race -> 2 way race in a matter of days of real voting

All those debates that noone but the political junkies were watching in 2007 made no difference. It came down to the cool new guy, the former first lady, and the cute guy who was the VP candidate in 2004. They had the best name recognition a year ago, got the most media attention, therefore the most money to run the most ads etc.

But, this is really putting salt in old wounds for me. At least Biden and Dodd are doing great things in the Senate. (Why would we have wanted senators experienced in banking/finance/housing policy or foreign policy/constitutional law in the White House at a time like this? :eyes:)

[Andrea]

192. This is why I think we need to overhaul

our nominee selection process. The current system does not favor the people with the best ideas. It favors the people with the most money and the most MSM attention. Biden and Dodd both had much to recommend them and barely had a chance. That is harmful to us as a party and to our country.

[Seabiscuit]

155. Agreed, agreed, and agreed.

None of this shit would have been flying if Edwards had locked up the nomination by now. And we would have had a nominee who could have easily crushed McAnus.

[Andrea]

165. It was an extremely clear line when he dropped out

Right after that, the level of the whole discussion dropped through the floor. Without him in, all the substance was gone.

[omega minimo]

368. This was the last chance to have anything resembling a "populist"

[waiting for hope]

116. Present!

I think the only way to win the GE is to have Edwards on that ticket. But, not as VP.. :evilgrin:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

119. Dissatisfied, disappointed, dismayed, disgusted,and pretty disinterested.

To the point that I'm hardly paying attention to what has turned out a farcical campaign of two moderate candidates with little to "debate" about slinging shit at each other hoping to continue the farce against another "moderate" using the same tactics.

A display of politics as usual at it's most trivial.

Flag pins? Preachers? Cleavage? Hands on hearts? Snipers at photo ops?

Only in Awwmurika.

[Andrea]

123. I find it pretty embarrassing, actually

I keep wondering about the impression of non-Democrats when they see this campaign about nothing.

[bigwillq]

126. I voted for DK.

But the people have spoken and it's either going to be Obama or Clinton. I am now fine with either one of them as my nominee.

[RBInMaine]

129. It WILL be Clinton or Obama, so get over pipe dreams and get real. WASTE OF TIME THREAD !

[Pastiche423]

148. If neither candidate gets the needed 2025

and the SDs don't solve the problem - then what?

What is being discussed here is the "then, what?"

[Stinky The Clown]

130. Put me in the "I wish it was Gore" column

I have real issues with both our candidates.

The more I see either of them, the less I see to like.

I will absolutely vote for the nominee in November.

I'm not as sure how much I will be able to work for them. That would mean having to interact with their more ardent (spell that 'f-u-c-k-i-n-g n-u-t-s') supporters.

For different reasons, I find each of them unlikeable on a personal level.

[mak3cats]

170. A voice of reason in the vast wilderness!!! (n/t)

[KoKo]

298. Gore, here, too...for the reasons you state. n/t

[smalll]

136. I'm sympathetic.

Still for Hillary, not ready to jump over to Gore quite yet.

I'm wondering whether voters in up-coming primaries/cacuses can vote "uncommitted" to try to produce some uncommitted pledged delegates? If so, that needs to be the new campaign.

[Andrea]

147. Interesting question

I guess that depends on each state's rules. Here in Ohio, we did not have that option. DK and Edwards were still on the ballot, but they had signs up in the polling places taht said if you voted for either one, your vote wouldn't be counted.

That's another crazy thing about our nominating process. Each state has their own rules. There is nothing consistent about it.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

290. re: I'm sympathetic.

People voted uncommitted in Michigan and look what happened. You have Obama voters wanting to take that 40% for their candidate.

[Buzz Clik]

143. President Obama.

[Ka hrnt]

145. Agreed. How did it come to this?

1. All sorts of Republican (and yes, some Dem) scandals.
2. Very shaky economy (probably being overly optimistic there...)
3. Unpopular president.
4. Unpopular war.

This one shouldn't have even been close...but (and again, polls this early are rather meaningless, but it's the best data available) seriously... :wtf:

[GoldieAZ49]

157. A Historical election indeed

Dems have themselves to blame

I bet the other candidates are laughing now

[Barrymores Ghost]

164. As someone who supported Richardson, Kucinich AND Edwards...

..I'm insulted by this post.

Buck up, step up, and support a candidate. I have more respect for someone who at least gets behind a contender from the remaining field and whom I might disagree with, than someone who sits back and cries in his or her beer.

Jesus. No wonder Bush got elected twice.

[susanwy]

193. If you didn't want to discuss the topic

what is your point? Don't tell me who to support and who not to support. I want a candidate that can A) WIN and B) FIX THIS MESS. I don't see that in McLame, Hillary or Obama (like your sig photo fools us).

I'm really new to DU, but how do I ignore someone? :sarcasm:

[Barrymores Ghost]

200. What "topic," susan?

Some concern troll throws up some lame-ass, one-paragraph crying jag and you call it a "discussion," and then you twaddle up and suggest that you agree with the OP that the way to solve this cocked-up Bush mess is with Election Day abstention or a protest vote? Piss off. Really. Fer sher, like totally.

Hey, sport, if you want lessons on how to "Ignore," I'll be more than happy to direct you to the top of my post, where you can click on the "Click to add this author to your Ignore list" icon. It's not rocket science, but I can see how someone of your obviously deep intellectual acumen might need some roadside assistance.

Oh, and my last sentence was also :sarcasm:

[Barrymores Ghost]

203. P.S.: My sig photo was designed to tell those of you who might be a little...

...slow on the uptake who it is that I actually DO support. No obfuscation needed, in my book. I know what and whom I believe in, and I know who's going to win this thing. It's simply a matter of when, and how much self-serving damage that the Clinton campaign insists upon inflicting to her own party before the deal is closed.

But you know what? If, by some perverse stretch of reason or the imagination, she happens to be handed the nomination -- against the will of the majority of Progressives and Liberals and Democrats -- I will pull the lever for her. Why? Because four more years of Bush is not an option.

A few thousand write-in votes for a former Dem candidate no longer in contention or on the public radar may be the tipping point -- and then, boy howdy, won't you and your ilk be proud? Just like the Naderites were in 2000.

Any lobotomized idiot with a functioning heart and pair of lungs can see this.

[Andrea]

210. If you would read through the thread,

You would see that not one single person has suggested this or anything remotely close to it:


"A few thousand write-in votes for a former Dem candidate no longer in contention or on the public radar may be the tipping point -- and then, boy howdy, won't you and your ilk be proud? Just like the Naderites were in 2000."

[Barrymores Ghost]

221. Then kindly make your point.

And I have read through the thread, and I've gotten personal emails from some in the thread, suggesting exactly what you tell me isn't being suggested.

Maybe you can tell me what it is, exactly, that YOU are suggesting. Or perhaps, you can delineate exactly what it is about each of the Democratic candidates -- what either or both have said or done -- that has disappointed you, and then kindly cap it with the proclamation that, no matter what, you feel that either or both of them are, in any case, superior to the prospect of handing this election to John McCain.

At least then, you'll have said something.

If you can't manage the latter, then you are in the wrong forum at the wrong time...and I don't care how long you've been here, or how many times you've donated, or what your flippin' vote count is.

[Andrea]

224. It certainly seems that you HAVEN"T read the thread

Since every single thing you ask of me is already here in the thread.

Of course, I have no idea what emails you are getting from other people, but no one has posted anything like that here.

[Barrymores Ghost]

227. I have only to read your signature line to know EXACTLY what your "point" is...

...and I have addressed "it" in another thread.

Wake up, Dorothy.

[Andrea]

231. Okay look,

first you say you HAVE read the thread, then when I point out that if you HAD read it you wouldn't be asking for things that are already in the thread, you respond by saying all you need to do is read my signature line.

I'm sorry, but I have no more time to spend on you because you are being too self-contradictory and illogical.

[Barrymores Ghost]

232. And you are dodging and ducking and bobbing and weaving like....

...a crippled prize-fighter trying to hang on until the bell.

If you have a plan, sport, spit it the f*ck out. Otherwise, it's YOU who needs to be ignored.

[Andrea]

236. I don't know what your problem is

As previously stated, numerous times, the plan is this:

Since neither candidate can achieve the 2024 required votes from pledged delegates, the super delegates will have the deciding votes. Because it is looking increasingly likely that we will have no first ballot nominee, our plan is to simply write the super delegates and let them know of our support for a compromise candidate - Al Gore - in the event of a deadlocked convention. It's simply using our free speech rights (while we still have them) to weigh in with the people that will ultimately be deciding how to resolve the situation if there is a deadlocked convention.

Now, if you would like further details, could you please read the thread?

[Barrymores Ghost]

242. I've read the thread, Andrea...

...and I see one reason for a deadlocked convention, which is super delegates subverting the will of their own constituents...which isn't likely to happen. Not now.

My other point is, Al Gore has stated unequivocally that he is not a candidate.

My third point is, you need to stop and think for a moment of the fervency of those who support Clinton or Obama and their reaction to any attempt to insert Gore into the campaign in a sideways fashion. It would utterly destroy the party or the party's hopes of defeating McCain. To wish or think otherwise is pure insanity.

As someone who reveres Al Gore and his message, that is how I would react.

Snap out of it. You are living in a dream world.

And you are playing into the Rovian master plan.

[Andrea]

247. Part of your post is an actual discussion about the merits of an idea.

If you had started out that way, we could have maybe had a respectful back and forth. Obviously, I don't agree with the statements you've made here, but since your repeated response is to be insulting, I'm not going to bother trying to discuss it.

[Barrymores Ghost]

249. Thought as much. Good night. n/t

[Barrymores Ghost]

252. The fact that you would dismiss the possibility of a "respectful back-and-forth"...

...just because you had to endure a few impolite pokes tells me a lot about the level of thought you've put into your initial case statement.

Feeling threatened by a refutation of your grand plan? Hey, why not run away?

Well, that's hardly what Al Gore would do, but wtf...you're just another dissatisfied gadfly with time on your hands.

Jeesuss H.....Buck UP, Andrea! Convince me! I'm being serious. What do you offer? Please, make me believe!

[Andrea]

257. A few impolite pokes?

Fifteen or so posts later you finally pause in your insulting me and want to discuss an issue? You're telling me to buck up? You've spent too much time convincing me that you are only interested in arguing and attacking and not discussing.

I'm not going to spend my time posting and linking and explaining and discussing, when I'm pretty sure it's a waste of time.

If you are sincere, you can do a search on my name and you'll find tons of information. You'll also find that I don't insult people or make random attacks just because at first glance I think I disagree with someone. You'll find that even if I disagree with someone, I try to learn from them. Or, follow the link in my signature line and read there.

I don't as of now believe you have a sincere interest in a rational discussion. You'd have to do a lot of convincing.

[Barrymores Ghost]

259. You've never offered your solution anywhere in here. n/t

[Andrea]

261. huh?

Copied and pasted from a few posts up this sub-thread (and you did respond to it, so I know you saw it):



As previously stated, numerous times, the plan is this:

Since neither candidate can achieve the 2024 required votes from pledged delegates, the super delegates will have the deciding votes. Because it is looking increasingly likely that we will have no first ballot nominee, our plan is to simply write the super delegates and let them know of our support for a compromise candidate - Al Gore - in the event of a deadlocked convention. It's simply using our free speech rights (while we still have them) to weigh in with the people that will ultimately be deciding how to resolve the situation if there is a deadlocked convention.

Now, if you would like further details, could you please read the thread?

[Andrea]

263. I'm "running away" now

I'm just not tough enough to stick around. Actually, I have to be up for work in about 3.5 hours.

[lildreamer316]

357. Gore said he did not PLAN to become a candidate.

That is exactly what he said.

He has also expressed his displeasure with the way that campaigns are run (believe they have to be run? Are forced to run by the whims of the MSM? However you want to look at it..) these days, and wishes that campaigns could be shorter/that they don't need to be so long. Did the thought ever enter anyone's mind that he could run a NON-campaign campaign??

Have you seen ALL his videos at Current.com?? What are those, just flights of fancy?


Health Care Is A Right
http://current.com/items/84987281_health_care_is_a_right

Get The Troops Home
http://current.com/items/84986481_get_the_troops_home

Americans Deserve More Protection
http://current.com/items/84986911_americans_deserve_more_protection

Gay Men And Women Should Have The Same Rights
http://current.com/items/88817757_gay_men_and_women_should_have_the_same_rights

No Official Role For Government
http://current.com/items/88283801_no_official_role_for_government

Who Makes The Decision?
http://current.com/items/88817754_who_makes_the_decision



To use, once again, an oft over-used but very appropriate phrase..."THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX"

[Andrea]

237. Is the reason you aren't responding because you are

busy reading the thread?

[susanwy]

323. Sorry I fed the troll in the first place Andrea!

[Andrea]

329. No need to apologize

I was the one that made the questionable choice to engage someone that didn't seem very interested in real discussion!

[Barrymores Ghost]

206. P.P.S.: Additionally...

...Hillary hasn't got the slightest chance of winning. Her polling negatives are over 55%. Nearly 60% of the electorate thinks she's a liar and untrustworthy. With numbers like those, you should be scared of her actually getting the nomination. You DO want McCain to lose, don't you?

Well....DON'T you?

[lildreamer316]

358. Self-deleted

[HuffleClaw]

167. they both were selected by the media

'nuff said

[Bluebear]

169. Bingo.

[Barrymores Ghost]

223. Dance with the one who brung ya...

...or STFU.

[enigmatic]

171. Me

Dodd and Edwards were my first 2 choices; how I wish either one were still in the race right now.

[demo dutch]

172. Moot point now, this is what we've got and leave it to the Dems to screw it up once again! and

the American people as dumb as they are, are eating it up! Meanwhile here at DU everyone looks through their own prism convinced that McCain couldn't possibly win.
Wake up folks! The majority of the people like McCain and will most likely vote for him, the GOP and Media will make sure!

[Andrea]

181. Well, that's why we're trying to offer a back-up plan

We need to stop McCain.

[Barrymores Ghost]

229. If only your back-up candidate would agree to be a part of your "back-up plan"...

...How's that coming along, BTW?

[RiverStone]

173. Why post such a negative question?

If you can't find any silver lining with either Dem candidate, why post on DU at all?

I really don't get your point.

What would be your end game and how does it help the Dems?

[demo dutch]

175. None of the nonsense of the past 4 months is helping the Dems at all!

[Barrymores Ghost]

177. BRAVO! This should be an OP. Wish I could rec..... n/t

[Andrea]

182. Here's how

If things change and we end up with a nominee on the first ballot, hopefully everyone will rally behind him/her and we'll work together and stop McCain.

If things don't go like that, we want to avoid a long and protracted and damaging and embarrassing convention battle. What we are hoping to do is (only if it appears we won't have a first ballot nominee) make sure that as the party leaders hold their discussions and try to resolve the problem, that they have had some input from ordinary voters about a candidate who could unite the party.

We are encouraging people to use their constitutional rights to speak up for the good of the party.

[RiverStone]

186. Tons of input from ordinary voters has already happened...

And it is my expectation that long before the first ballot is cast at the convention, our nominee will be known.

I assure you, the SuperD's will not let this thing go to the convention undecided. Trust me, a little bird told me that the very latest the SuperD's will fall behind one nominee is the week after the last primary - but don't be surprised if it happens in May.

We will have a ticket that both Obama and Hillary supporters can and will vote for. Since I assume Obama will be the nominee, picture a Clinton supporter like Wes Clark as the VP choice (assuming Hillary politely declines the offer - which IMO she will).

Unity it is! :)

[Andrea]

188. If we do have a nominee before then, great

If not, more input can never hurt. It's really all about us - the collective us, that is - the voters.

Unity for sure! :)

[Barrymores Ghost]

225. Al Gore AIN'T running.

Jesus Fuck on a Popsicle stick.

I LOVE Al Gore. There was nobody more disappointed to NOT see him on the A-List of Dem candidates.

I thought he was robbed and jobbed in 2000, and there is no one prouder to have seen him capture a well-deserved Nobel.

I have a signed copy of "Earth in the Balance" on my bookshelf, right next to "An Inconvenient Truth."

But if you think he is going to ride in to "save" the party and the nation like some White Knight on a silver charger, in the year when we have both a woman AND an African-American in contention, on the verge of taking the White House, then you are truly living in an alternate universe.

Please, for the love of all that is holy, snap out of this sweet delusion and get with the program of beating McCain.

[Andrea]

228. We have different opinions

about how to beat McCain. My whole point is beating McCain. Why does that threaten you so much?

[Barrymores Ghost]

230. You hint and wink and say nothing...

...not exactly the traits of the dark horse whom you would champion, I might add.

I ask the question: what do you propose to DO?

[Andrea]

233. Last response

Read the thread, it's in here

[Barrymores Ghost]

234. Kindly direct me to the link...

In such a tiresome and ill-conceived OP/thread as this, I may have overlooked your ground-breaking and earth-shaking revelation.

[Andrea]

239. I should have continued to not engage you

Same old tactic -

You came into this thread where lots of reasonable people were having a reasonable discussion and started picking fights instead of engaging in a substantive discussion.

When I engaged you with logic, you countered with more name-calling and fight picking.

When I continued to respond logically and wouldn't come down to your level, you just decide to up and run.

I've seen people do it before and I'm sure I'll see it again.

I need to stick to my usual rule of not responding to people whose opening comments are just insults. It rarely gets better from there.

[Barrymores Ghost]

244. Still no link...

...why am I not surprised?

[Andrea]

250. For crying out loud,

You've already responded to the recap I posted for you. Here's the link: it's the one you responded to before.

[Barrymores Ghost]

254. Then I guess you didn't make your point.

Please, don't stop trying, though...

[mrbluto]

220. The point? Don't walk down a cattle chute, don't volunteer for a woodchipper makeover.

Silverlining?

Is that what you wish for?

Why post?

Because it is not too late.

I know certain people want to call this primary over already - but their delusions not withstanding the process is not over.

No matter how many people stick their fingers in their ears and go "Lalalalal I'm not listening" there is a provision for, a possibility of, and a growing probability of...

A brokered convention.

[frogcycle]

277. and lord knows ALL the posts on DU are positive and uplifting!

sheesh!

[merbex]

176. I just got back from a monthly meeting I must attend which has nothing to do with politics

but the subject came up.

People are very fearful of the future and the non-political people I was with tonight expressed dissatisfaction with all 3 choices

It was an eyeopener to hear some of the impressions of the group ( again, not a political group) they want real change and see this race descending into the same old same old

Those that I knew were Democrats were very concerned about the direction the race had taken

[mak3cats]

179. Be careful; questioning the "inevitability of the outcome" could draw fire...

...but the outcome is really not known at this point, is it? Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't seeing the entire range of possibilities. Nothing during this election season has turned out as expected.

[Andrea]

184. It has been a series of surprises

If it weren't for the potentially disastrous outcome (John "100 Years War" McCain), I'd probably be enjoying the unpredictability of it. As it is, I'm nervous and worried.

[merbex]

185. Because I am Democrat and want to win, I cannot ignore these polls

which have been popping up and nicely put on the front page diary over at mydd.com
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/17/18544/6245

Does it not bother anyone else that we are at this moment struggling against McCain?

That the "bitterness" that divides the 2 Democratic camps could prove fatal to our chances?

That perhaps that considering the possibility of a 3rd option is not something that should so easily be dismissed?

Al Gore is like a well rested relief pitcher and we'd be stupid to allow weakened candidates go against MCain when what we really want is the win.

This country cannot take 4 more years of Republican policies and the Democratic Party cannot take the backbiting that is going on between the 2 camps.

[Andrea]

187. "What we really want is the win"

This is what we need to keep in mind. We need to put aside our differences and our personal preferences and go for the win.

If we don't have a first ballot nominee, we need to come up with a compromise that will unite the party and put us in the strongest possible position come November - Al Gore.

[Andrea]

183. That's interesting

It's hard sometimes for me to be in touch with what non-political people are thinking. I'm heartened to hear that a) they are fearful - which to me means they understand the gravity of the situation and b) they aren't throwing in with McCain.

[mrbluto]

197. Edwards/Webb 08 - endorsed by Gore!

sigh

If only.

Perhaps not the most progressive ticket possible, but that may not be what we need right now.

I think we might want to take a short break (on the historical scale) from cleaning the gutters of prejudice and scraping the sexism off the siding and take a minute to check out the termites (aka Religious Right) chewing the frame apart, the faulty electoral electrical set-up that threatens to start a fire, the cracks in the foundation (due to economic inequity) and the those damn MSM kids pitching rocks through every window.

I think that in the future all worthy causes would be served (and unworthy ones deprecated) by defending the bedrock principles of a liberal democracy. It will be more effective to fight prejudice and sexism when we have free speech and a rational, secular basis for governance firmly re-established - and the perpetrators of the current mess properly admonished and/or indicted and convicted.

No more using an instrument of the collective will (government) to tarnish and break the very principle of having that instrument al the while defying the collective will. This sort of betrayal must be assigned a negative expected outcome for those try it.

In other words: No more free coup attempts. Punitive damages assessed.

Edwards and Webb would be the best ticket we could hope for, for those purposes.

[Andrea]

211. Completely true

"I think that in the future all worthy causes would be served (and unworthy ones deprecated) by defending the bedrock principles of a liberal democracy. It will be more effective to fight prejudice and sexism when we have free speech and a rational, secular basis for governance firmly re-established - and the perpetrators of the current mess properly admonished and/or indicted and convicted."

If we don't restore our constitution, we have no way to address any other issue.

[Eurobabe]

198. Would this be the check in here if you are voting McInsane thread?

:shrug:

[spoony]

212. No, from what I've seen the people threatening to

turn to McCain are the more rabid backers of either Clinton or Obama. There are plenty of posters who will vote for the candidate but are not necessarily thrilled by them. I think that it's a valid position.

[Andrea]

218. I think your characterization is very fair.

Good sig line, too!

[Andrea]

215. Obviously not

Read the thread - the farthest thing from it.

[bhikkhu]

208. Still idle fantasy. Gore is not running.

[Andrea]

216. Of course not

You can't draft someone who is running, by definition.

[bhikkhu]

222. And drafting someone who has not run

is a bit of an insult to those who have. And an insult to those who voted for those who have run, which would be, oh, something like the entire party.

[Andrea]

226. It's not about insulting or not insulting anyone

It's about winning in November.

[bhikkhu]

241. I know. Always a worthy reply.

But reality is what it is, whichever way you go.

Reality says if we "draft Gore" somehow, the majority who lined up behind the candidates will feel insulted. Slighted, at least.

Reality also says that neither of our candidates are capable of unifying the party, and so only arguably electable. Nevertheless, my own hope is on display, and I don't think anyone need be drafted.

[Andrea]

243. Well, I think it's more a matter of opinion than reality, in both cases.

I don't agree with the first, but I do agree with the second. Maybe we won't need to draft anyone. I don't think there's any harm in preparing for the contingency.

Meanwhile, I honestly don't see either of ours as better than the other. Both of ours are infinitely better than McCain.

[mrbluto]

246. Pop goes the weasel...

...because the weasel goes pop?

Thank you for gracing us with the circular logic of your post subject-line-only drive-by opinion! Nice to see you put a lot of work into a dialog with your fellow democrats. Nice to see you stopping by to squelch the hope of another.

Thank you Capt. Obvious.

You seem to take a strange amount of note of an idle fantasy. Why post at all? (unless there's something that frightens or confuses you) Is there a part of "Draft" or "Brokered Convention" you don't understand? are the concepts too threatening to you? By definition Gore isn't running - yet is still a possibility.

What you say is like saying "flying is impossible. You haven't bought tickets."

What? Oh. I see.

Your desires and your "magical vote" trump what others might desire. They shouldn't argue, nay - even mention - what is inimical to your hope. (at least not without you chirping in with your oh-so-constructive take on the possibility.)

Thank god we have you here to remind us of reality. A lot like Faux does for it's viewers.

Different audience.
Different objectives. (or perhaps merely different beneficiaries?)

Yet the same weak glitter and macaroni art of an opinion.

Sir - you are an avatar of your type; A specimen marvel to examine behold!

[bhikkhu]

256. Wow!

There is certainly a lot on your mind. I don't mind posting and kicking this OP, as the poster has very well thought out positions, as there is a lot of good on it, compared to much in the GDP...

Thanks for the post, really. It is well done; food for thought and a smile at good writing.

[Andrea]

258. Thank you

"There is certainly a lot on your mind. I don't mind posting and kicking this OP, as the poster has very well thought out positions, as there is a lot of good on it, compared to much in the GDP..."

Just because we don't agree on everything doesn't mean we can't have a rational, civil discussion. Thanks for being part of it.

[Barrymores Ghost]

238. Oh, I GET it NOW!!!

This is the hands-wringing, navel-gazing, "My-horse-didn't-make-it-out-of-the-starting-gate-due-to-the-MSM's-predetermined-outcome" coffee klatsch, the one that meets every so often to scratch their collective heads and bemoan the political demise of their guy and opine on the unfairness of it all, while in the meantime, the MSM is casually assassinating the character of one Democratic candidate in order to prop up another Democratic candidate whom Republicans figure to beat fairly handily in November...so the lot of you can get back together once again, the week after the selection of the 3rd term of GWB, to mumble some more about how if it had only been YOUR candidate who had declared his intention to run, or if he'd only been forcibly appointed as the nominee by the Democratic Party, ALL of this would be a distant memory!

Am I close?

I love Al Gore. I really do.

I just can't stomach delusional acolytes who are so opposed to living in a reality-based universe that they completely miss the forest for the trees.

[Andrea]

240. How is it possible that you can write

and yet can't read?

[Barrymores Ghost]

248. Ad hominem response.

FAIL.

[Andrea]

251. Now you've done it.

I'm completely crushed. If there is ONE person whose respect and admiration I was desperately hoping for, it's yours.



:cry:

[Barrymores Ghost]

253. Deflection.

FAIL 2.

[CreekDog]

245. I'm not satisfied

with your thread! :spank:

[Andrea]

255. For your reference

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5555507&mesg_id=5560878

[CreekDog]

260. well it was a joke you know

:think:

[Andrea]

262. Sorry

I'm really, really tired. It's been a tiring night and I have to be up for work in less than four hours. I'm not usually that slow on the uptake.

[CreekDog]

264. it's cool

work will be easier if you hit the sack.

don't waste time on us...GDP participants are immune to discussion at this point.

[Andrea]

308. Now, if I hadn't been so tired

Here's what I should have said:

And I'm not satisfied with your response! :rofl:

After that extremely short night's sleep, here's what I really want to say: TGIF!

[CreekDog]

345. ohhhh, that's sooooo

satisfactory. :evilgrin:

:hi:

[earth mom]

269. Checking in because I'm disgusted with the entire mess. Been keeping my fingers crossed for Gore.

It's the only shred of hope I have left.

So Thanks for this thread-it proves there is some sanity left on DU! :hi:

[Andrea]

347. BTW, I LOVE your user name

:hi:

[earth mom]

365. Thank You!

I tried to change it to something less of a statement, but it's not allowed.

Btw, I have a good friend named Andrea, so I like your name too! :hi:

[frogcycle]

276. they were my #6 and #7 choices

at the beginning, in no particular order.

Of COURSE I'm not satisfied.

I don't know what the scenario would be whereby we got a big "reset" on the whole damned thing, but I'd take it. I buy the occasional lottery ticket too.

Hell, If Superman were to come swooping over the tall buildings of Metropolis and clear up the whole mess at superspeed I'd take it.

I would settle for Obama, and think if he could win we'd probably do ok as a country. A McCain win would probably spell our demise. I don't think HRC would beat Mccain, and I'm worried about Obama.

[Orsino]

282. Money has turned the Democrats into GOPLite.

Once we allow money a vote, it always votes itself more power, and politicians in both parties now dance to its tune. Money runs the TV, and the TV tells us to vote for corporatists, against our interests.

I'm not satisfied with Obama or Clinton, and Edwards didn't thrill me sufficiently, either. Kucinich was the only real liberal in the field, I think, and the TV told us not to vote for him--eliminating him swiftly and neatly.

[MethuenProgressive]

283. My picks were: Kerry, Richardson, Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Obama, then .Kucinich

In that order. Today, I'm certain Kucinich should be ahead of Obama.

[crispini]

284. I really like Obama, and Clinton will make a fine candidate too.

Either one of them will beat the pants off of McCain.

And the discussions upthread show your real agenda posting this -- to stoke the fire for the divided convention / Draft Gore scenario. This is pretty transparent, and, as someone said upthread, it's divisive. Rather than lifting BOTH candidates up, you're trying to tear BOTH of them down, and you are encouraging others to do so. You're taking a lot of heat in this thread, and rightly so.

[Andrea]

289. No, my agenda is exactly as I have stated

You're right about one thing, though, I am transparent. Check around if you wish and you'll see.

[crispini]

293. I have read the thread, well, most of it. ;)

Look, the whole divided-convention, second-ballot scenario would be incredibly damaging to the party. No candidate nominated at the convention has emerged to do well in the GE. Campaign time will be SHORT -- 90 days to work on the GE? That's impossible. Superdelegates need to be encouraged to get off the pot and declare no later than June so we can have a presumptive nominee. That's what Howard Dean has said and I completely agree with him.

I'm a fan of Gore myself, but this whole brokered convention idea is simply porn for political junkies. It's got no practical reality.

It's going to be Clinton or Obama, and we'd better start getting used to the idea of getting behind our candidate.

[Andrea]

299. We're not proposing a divided convention, we're

proposing a way to deal with it if it occurs. It might not, but the longer this drags on, the more likely it will occur, so we might as well make sure we're heard on the matter.

I agree, we have to get behind our candidate, regardless of who that turns out to be.

[crispini]

309. Well, let's look at your OP for a minute:

"OFFICIAL "I'm not satisfied with Clinton OR Obama Thread" - Check In Here

We hear an awful lot from supporters of those two, but I think there are probably a whole bunch of calm, rational DUers out there that want to discuss how to deal with this mess we've gotten ourselves into, and how to prevent it in the future.

It's such a shame that after starting out with eight candidates that it's come down to this. I'm really worried about our chances in the General."

It sounds to me like in this post you are ENCOURAGING several viewpoints that promote a divided convention. This post says in essence:

* Neither candidate is good.
* Both candidate's supporters are hysterical and irrational.
* We are in a mess.
* We have some kind of problem that we need to work on.

I heartily reject AND denounce (hee!) all four of these propositions, and substitute four of my own.

* Both candidates are OK.
* Both candidates have some wackball supporters, but not the majority.
* We are NOT in a mess IF the supers start to get the message and line up for endorsements by June. This needs to be over by then.
* The primary season is working FINE. Each state, such as PA, is getting a degree of primary political attention they have not had before. This can only help us towards a win in the GE. If it runs much past June, I will start to worry.

:hi:

[Andrea]

317. I see it a bit differently

Instead of neither candidate is good, I'd say my opinion is more like neither candidate is good enough.

Regarding the supporters being hysterical and irrational, there certainly are some in both camps and it's impossible to tell how many, but that's not really what I meant to say. Please see my apology toward the top of the thread. That was clumsy wording on my part.

We are in a mess. I do think we are. Polling numbers are not good against McCain and we are very divided.

We have some kind of problem we need to work on. Yes, I do think that. Actually, I see two big problems: one is we look like we are headed toward a deadlocked convention, the other is we have a primary system that is insane. It's not particularly fair or democratic and it doesn't do what it is supposed to do, namely get us the best candidate to win in the general.

Now as for your points:

Both candidates are okay. Well, if we beat McCain, they are probably okay. Still, I'd rather have better than okay and I don't have any problem saying that.

Both candidates have some whack-ball supporters, but not the majority. Again, I think it's impossible to quantify, but the volume of chatter coming from the whack-balls does not make our party look very good to outsiders (I view all outsiders as possible converts) and it will not help us in the general.

We are not in a mess if the supers endorse by June. I don't think that really solves it. If we have a nominee by then, I will support that person, but I don't want the supers endorsing just for the sake of getting it over. I want them to use their judgment to make what they think is the best choice for the party.

The primary system is working fine. That one I really don't agree with. I won't belabor it, because I've posted about this in other places in this thread, but the primary system is not working well. One point I haven't made in this thread about the primary system is that the overwhelming majority of voters had to vote after all but Obama and Clinton were out. We don't know how those people would have voted if they had 4 or 6 or better yet 8 choices.

:hi:

[susanwy]

322. Oh the horror....

of a 90 day political campaign We should be so lucky!

:crazy:

[crispini]

353. LOL. Well, it sounds nice to US but

McCain is all out there raising funds and working his message into people's minds. We need to remember that not everyone is political junkies. It takes time to get ideas out into the wider culture.

[bpeale]

373. no way

"It's going to be Clinton or Obama, and we'd better start getting used to the idea of getting behind our candidate."

i won't vote for either candidate. i am sick to death of voting for the lesser of two evils. never again. and there are plenty of folks just like me out there. if either clinton or obama are the candidate, i will vote NADER. the resulting consequences are yours, not mine. i'm voting my pocketbook and my conscience, and those two are just not it.

[zalinda]

297. Okay, so you are telling me that if you saw

a tornado coming and you have a choice of 2 houses to hole up in, but your neighbor has a root cellar for the asking, you wouldn't even investigate the root cellar? Because that is the situation we have now. While the houses may still stand after the tornado goes through, the root cellar will definitely still be there.

And, as far as being divisive, all you have to do is scan the GD:P to find that any day of the week for the last few months. Both sides are tearing down the other side. And, if you think that either can beat McCain, you haven't been paying attention. The media has been propping up McCain for months and showing "our" 2 candidates as fighting brats. The public will vote in the grandpa, before the teenager, because he looks more competent.

You can call in tearing down all you want, but the fact is there is a problem, a big problem, and ignoring it won't make it go away.

zalinda

[Andrea]

300. It's an odd dynamic that has been going on

Supporters of candidate A and candidate B tear at each other in the most repulsive way, threaten not to vote for the nominee if it's not their candidate, and lower the level of interaction to a grade school playground (No you didn't! Yes I did! Did not! Did too!). Then the people that suggest a unifying alternative, a compromise, a peace candidate - get accused of being divisive. It's weird.

In the meantime, there are a lot of people who see the need to rationally discuss our situation and make a plan for the big problem on the horizon. Regardless of their individual positions, I really appreciate the contributions those people make.

[crispini]

312. If this goes to the convention we are FUCKED FUCKED FUCKED.

Excuse my French, but it's the truth.

The Supers HAVE to decide in June so we can have a nominee presumptive and that person can get rolling on their campaign for November.

Anything else would mean a McCain presidency.

[rodbailey]

306. I really think you're assigning motives

to us that we really don't have. We are not trying to tear down any candidate. In fact, if either looks like a winner at the Convention, we will all be behind that person as soon as that result appears likely. On the other hand, if it looks like the convention will be deadlocked, the Dems. need to find some path out of the wilderness they have wandered into. All we are proposing is to advocate one possible path out of that wilderness - and that is to find a compromise candidate who looks like he would be a sure winner in November. From things I've read, more than a few of the Party leaders are getting a bit nervous about how the primary contest is going and feeling that the Party is hurting itself and its chances to win in November. We are just one small voice looking for an alternative should that be necessary. Believe me, if either Obama or Clinton is the nominee, I will be volunteering just as much time as I can out in Ohio (where I spent 5 weeks during the 2004 campaign) for him or her.

[crispini]

313. Didja read the OP?

"OFFICIAL "I'm not satisfied with Clinton OR Obama Thread" - Check In Here"

Subject line says it all. Sounds like it's tearing down both candidates to me.

Oh, what does it matter -- the Supers know better than this. They will not let it go to the convention, and this whole conversation, like I said, is simply political junkie masturbatory fantasy. I'm off to do something more productive, like phonebank for my candidate.

[Romulox]

287. Both Obama and Clinton are weak on the economy and labor

The Democrats will not allow an economic populist to have the nod...

[Andrea]

294. In my opinion, our turn away from populism

is a rejection of our heritage and a losing position.

[Romulox]

304. Agree, and it's no accident, imo. Dissing Michigan voters obviously wins support in Iowa, e.g.

Pandering to red-state "Democrats" who generally are hostile to rust-belt voters, e.g., works in the primaries, but is general election folly...

Still, it pleases the money-men, who win if either a Republican or a "third way" Democrat secures the Presidency.

[Andrea]

314. Good point - what works in the primaries can hurt us in the

general. That relates to another of my issues with our nominee selection system. The Republican system is set up much more like the general, with mostly winner-takes-all states. That tends to get them the candidate that will do better in the fall. Our system is very unlike the general and is not getting us the candidates most likely to do well in the fall.

Pleasing the money-men is unsupportable, in my opinion. We need public financing of campaigns so that we are focused on pleasing the voters.

[nxylas]

288. Neither was my first choice, but they're all we've got

Jgraz's sig line pretty much sums up my views. I too was 100% behind Dennis Kucinich, then 90% behind Edwards, and now I regard Obama as the better of the two remaining choices. I figure it's no use crying over what might have been, and if Clinton is the eventual nominee, I will try and summon up as much enthusiasm as I can for her, because she'll still be light years ahead of McCain as a president.

[Andrea]

295. So, do you have ideas about changing the

nominating system? I think we really need to revamp it. I've heard a bunch of interesting ideas on that recently.

I agree that both Obama and Clinton are light years ahead of McCain. You can't even measure him on the same scale.

[nxylas]

307. I'm too confused by the system to know how to change it

I'm a recentish immigrant from the UK, where the political system is quite different, so I'm still figuring out how things work here.

[Andrea]

319. Oh, that's very interesting

I don't really understand the UK system, but I'm fascinated by it. I visited London once and just loved it. I want to go back and go throughout the UK.

[nxylas]

326. A brief overview for you

The party leaders there are chosen by a vote among party members, and typically only when a leader resigns, though a leadership challenge can be mounted at any time (such as the coup that brought down Margaret Thatcher). The leader of the party that has the most seats in parliament after a general election traditionally becomes Prime Minister. Most Brits assume that this is enshrined in law, but actually, any MP can become Prime Minister in theory, even a back-bencher. It just never happens in practice, and I am not sure under what circumstances it ever would.

[Andrea]

327. So that's why we never know too far ahead

when elections will be. I think that would solve a lot of problems here. So, when people vote for their reps in parliament, they are in effect also voting for that party's leader for PM? Or, at least for someone from that party to be PM, even if not the leader?

[nxylas]

337. Yeah, people tend to vote by party

Very few people really bother to find out who the candidates are in their party seat. You'll hear people saying "I'm voting for Gordon Brown" or "I'm voting for David Cameron" when they are not in Brown's or Cameron's parliamentary seat. It is like saying "I'm voting for Barack Obama" when casting your vote for a Democratic congressperson in your district. It's not a system I'd really recommend America to follow - it leads to a lot of second-rate candidates for parliament, because the constituency parties (a parliamentary constituency is the equivalent of a congressional district) know that the candidates won't get scrutinized too closely, and you'd never get a situation there like the one we have here at the moment, where a Democratic congress can act as a brake on an out-of-control Republican admisistration. There, it's winner take all.

(edit: typo)

[Andrea]

341. I see, I never knew how they balanced out

their possible desire to vote for one party for parliament and another for PM. I did not know that they basically had to overlook the constituency candidate (nor did I know what it was called). So, they have more unity and less separation of powers than we do - a trade off that might not be wise. Thanks for all the good info!

[formernaderite]

291. I wish Edwards and others had hung in longer

I voted for Obama in the primary after he dropped out, but my vote was prob more of a hillary protest. I can't say I've ever had the Obama fever.

[KoKo]

296. We've come down to this. Race and Gender...and mudslinging and

being called "not a Democrat" because one isn't on the bandwagon for either of them. We had our best shot at winning it all. I'm very worried. But, whomever is elected or steals it...with the crap voting machines and dirty tricks still in place will have four years of hell trying to clean up this mess. Hard times ahead...no matter who gets in there.

[Andrea]

301. I know what you mean

Sometimes it feels like we're not allowed to express a dissenting opinion. GWB would surely like to get rid of free speech, but I wish people on DU wouldn't help him with it.

As a nation, we have a huge mess on our hands. It will take a long time to dig out from where GWB has put us. I just hope we get the chance to try.


Edited to say "put us" instead of "put ut" - it was a typo.

[zalinda]

302. Yes, you are right, unless

we have a landslide, and I think we could do it with Gore. As it stands now, the repubs have known for months that it was either going to be Obama or Clinton, they have done bucket loads of investigation on them, and probably have the ads mocked up and ready to go. But, throw a monkey wrench into the whole thing with a Gore candidate, and they would have to scramble to come up with something. What would they have to throw at him? His Oscar? His Emmy? His Nobel Peace Prize? He won the popular vote in 2000, and proved to be right on everything. You don't think that people would flock to him? He's a rock star, a genuine political rock star. He's earned it, the hard way. It would be a landslide that no one has seen before, and I think that people would embrace it.

The general public seems to be in apathy right now, they are tuning out the political back biting. But, throw Al Gore in the mix and you have drama that the media would eat up. He is one of them. And nothing is more thrilling than a story of a come back, it would be all over the world in a flash. Every one in the entire world has seen what Al Gore can, and would do, there would be an enthusiastic roar of approval.

zalinda

[Andrea]

321. I'd love to see that

The Republicans caught flat-footed because all their dirty tricks were planned around two other people, and the MSM getting behind our candidate because he's good for ratings. Turn the tables on them, political judo.

[leftynyc]

310. I haven't been happy with this since

it came down to these two flawed candidates. I don't see either one winning against mccain. I'll vote for them but wish someone would swoop down and give us a REAL candidate.

[merbex]

318. That's exactly how I feel, sad to say. They've damaged each other to the point

that McCain is a real possibility..... I am astounded by the recent polls and I honestly think the partisans of both Clinton and Obama have tunnel vision when it comes to seeing this development.

They are focused on beating each other and cannot seem to see the effects this is having.

If people would just see the potential for a unifier as a possibility that may be necessary and may pan out because some super delegates could be just as disgusted and as appalled as some here on this thread are, then we have a new "ball game so to speak"

None of us know what the results will be in the succeeding contests but it may only achieve stalemate.

Stalemate is another word for brokered convention because it surely isn't an overwhelming endorsement of either 2.

[Life Long Dem]

316. More than satisfied with Obama.

The closer he gets to the Presidency the more I see he is on our side.

[redqueen]

324. Oh give me a fucking break. Like it's rocket science or something.

:rofl:

Ohhhh... however do we change it?!

Here's a hint... make sure the next Dem president DOESN'T reneg on his campaign promises to enact legislation to get us our goddamn Fairness Doctrine back...

LIKE BILL DID.

Jesus.

[Andrea]

330. The Fairness Doctrine is extremely important, agreed.

But I think we have serious problems in the process we use to select a nominee. So, both need addressed.

[redqueen]

332. Most of the problem is people paying too much attention to the whore media.

The rest of the issues PALE in comparison.

[Andrea]

334. People paying too much attention to the media,

not investigating issues and not learning to think for themselves are huge problems. But, I think it's more practical to address structure issues that can be enacted through changes in party rules and in laws. Then, we can try to raise everyone's civic duty quotient. Just my take.

[redqueen]

338. Those are issues that need attention, to be sure.

But IMO they pale so much in comparison to the media's interference that they don't even come close to being the same level of importance.

First things first, as they say. :)

[Andrea]

342. They do say that, but I often

wish to address everything at once - especially these days! :)

I think we should not only reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but also make cable networks subject to all the same rules that apply (or used to apply) to broadcast networks. That along with public financing of campaigns would go a long way toward correcting the weird kind of echo chamber we are in now.

[redqueen]

343. Absolutely!

:thumbsup:

Let's hope THIS time our Dem president doesn't turn his back on us with respect to these issues. :)

[Andrea]

346. Agreed!

:thumbsup:

[goletian]

333. get your head out of the clouds, these two are what we have, work with it - nt

[susanwy]

339. Just a thought on Edwards

He has withheld his endorsement and is holding on to 18 delegates (it is a given that he can't force his delegates to vote for the candidate he endorses). Do you think he would step in during a brokered convention and pledge his delegates to Gore to kick off the process? Or is he waiting because he wants to see if the margin is less than 18 delegates and broker the AG position or supreme court nomination?

Despite the primary season, Edwards has reason to lean both ways -

Hillary would be stronger on Health care and breast cancer research.
Obama would be in line with his populist views.

But, what does he think of Gore? Are they still friends?

[Andrea]

344. As far as I know, they are still friends

When Edwards was on Leno a couple weeks ago, he had nothing but very good and admiring things to say about Gore.

I hadn't thought of it before, but you could be right about him stepping in to start things off. He's been very consistent in saying he won't endorse. That's very interesting. I think that would be consistent with his character - being above the fray, looking for the best solution for the people, being a loyal Democrat.

I do think he realizes that the longer he stays neutral, the more leverage he has, whether for a position or platform statements. I think Obama nad Clinton must realize that a sizable number of votes they received would have gone to Edwards had he stayed in.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

348. In an ideal world, I'd get to vote for Kucinich.

Then Gore. Then Edwards.

Didn't work out that way.

[rosesaylavee]

352. I am not thoroughly dissatisfied with Senator Obama.

I am just not convinced that the current bloodletting will result in a successful win in November.

If either or both of the candidates are willing, if Gore is willing to step in and lead the ticket, I think we do have a better chance than without him and a damaged Obama or Clinton in the lead for the GE.

[Andrea]

354. Credit where credit is due

I just want to let people know that Barrymore's Ghost has expressed a decent and respectful apology to me and I hold no animosity toward him.

We all do things we regret sometimes, but it takes a big person to apologize.

[brentspeak]

359. Edwards supporter checking in

I'll be unenthusiastically pushing the button for whoever is the Democratic nominee, though.

Much more enthusiastically for Obama than Hillary, however.

[rodbailey]

362. Recent poll results

There is an AP-Yahoo poll out just yesterday that actually put Gore in the mix. When you look closely at the favorable and highly favorable numbers for the 3 contenders and Gore you get the following: Clinton - 46%; Obama - 47%; McCain - 46.25%; and GORE - 48.5%. This is significant on a number of levels. Not only does Gore show up with high favorables, but this, along with a Rasmussen poll from a couple of weeks ago actually puts Gore into the mix. Again, we are not the only ones thinking seriously that the Dems. may need to turn to a new person to solve the bitter fued going on now between Clinton and Obama; and someone who has a real chance to beat McCain in November.

[Andrea]

364. And those numbers are among independents

The independents are key - we can't win without them.

[RestoreGore]

370. Al Gore doesn't believe in BS polls.

[FinallyFree]

366. Obama cannot win...

Neither can Hillary. She is a proven liar, thanks to her publicized fantasies about dodging sniper fire. Obama is never going to separate himself from the Wright and Ayers tar babies. The white middle class will be glad to vote for McCain, because he is one of them, not an America hating, socialist elitist.

[RestoreGore]

369. Your pushing Al Gore into this mess isn't working?

That's the only reason you posted this. How many names will you glean off of this thread? We've got what we deserve. You will simply have to just accept it and keep their feet to the fire. This political sewer doesn't deserve Al Gore nor does he deserve your disingenuous sneaky tactics here. BTW, do you know what he is doing now since you support him so much?

[KSinTX]

372. Not sure about the meaning of "It's come down to this"

But the primary thesis is dead on.

[Andrea]

374. thanks

As far as, "It's come down to this", what I mean is, two candidates dividing the party in a most angry way and our chances for a victory in November very much in doubt, when it should have been our year.