I honestly do not care who our next Democratic presidential nominee is

[NNN0LHI]

I will back whoever it is with everything I have.

But damn wouldn't it be nice to have a some well qualified nearly unheard of person come out of nowhere and do it for us?

That would be my dream come true.

Don

[meisje]

1. but what will DUers fight about for the next two years?

[lvx35]

2. I care.

This is probably the most important presidential election in history. Its about oil independance, global warming, serious serious things the human race has to deal with. So yes, I too will back whoever we get because its bound to be better than a chimp, but damn. Some candidates are better than others IMHO.

[everythingsxen]

3. Ok, let's analyze the serious flaw in your logic:

I honestly do not care who our next Democratic presidential nominee is
I will back whoever it is with everything I have.

While I appreciate the general sentiment you are going for, you are being far too vague and hyperbolic. Taken at face value you are saying you would whole-heartedly support:

• A Neo-Nazi White Supremacist
  
• A radical fundamentalist priest/cleric/whatever
  
• A rapist/murderer
  
• Satan
  

So long as they had a (D) after their names? I know my examples are outrageous, however it is conceivable that one or two of the above could actually end up as a candidate.

It scares me to think that you might readily cast your vote for ANYONE so long as they had a (D) after their name. I prefer to believe in a world where facing certain evil from the Republicans and (in this scenario) certain (albeit no doubt lesser) evil from the Democrats that you would vote for a third party candidate who better represented your ideals.

[NNN0LHI]

7. Why would I vote for a third party that would only help the Republican win?

To send a message?

To make sure things got worse before they got better?

Don

[everythingsxen]

9. Ok, so obviously you missed the entire point of what I said..

Or perhaps you got it and are in fact saying that instead of voting 3rd Party and to ensure that those damned Republicans don't get the Presidency, you would vote for a Neo-Nazi running on a platform of exterminating Jews and Gays, but just as long as he had a (D) after his name, that would be ok?

[rosesaylavee]

36. Do you seriously think any candidate that

won the DEM nomination could be a Neo Nazi?

I don't think the OP meant he would follow someone blindly. What I gleaned from it was that he would support the candidate the majority of democrats felt best represented us as a whole.

[skipos]

10. Exactly. What "message" did Nader 2000 voters send, and how did that work out

to the benefit of America?

[everythingsxen]

11. So that's another vote for:

Neo-Nazi mass murderer as long as he is a Democrat.

Do you guys even read what I say? Or do you just skim it, think you know what I said and then post blindly?

[skipos]

13. Your premise is so silly, I didn't think you actually wanted a response

"Do you take this woman to be your wife, until death do you part?"
"Yes."
"Even if she turns out to be a neo-nazi spawn of satan mass murderer?"

Point out the neo-nazi mass murderer that you are so worried about getting the Dem nomination, and then we can talk.

[everythingsxen]

16. It was a hypothetical response to a hyperbolic statement

However, if you would like a practical example, here is one I could give you:

Suppose there was/is a very charismatic and vocal member of the anti-War movement. Suppose this person in speeches denounced Israel as the root of all evil in the MidEast. (Not at all uncommon from ANSWER speakers) Let us suppose this person gains plenty of popularity and speaks out even more against Israel, going along by inches at first by claiming that Israel/AIPAC is running the Government and/or media. (Sentiments that are uttered here on DU with alarming frequency)

Such a figure could, in theory, get the Democratic nomination and be the Presidential candidate. If posters here on DU were a representation (I realize they are not, but let's say they were) all the above candidate would need to do is get Hugo Chavez's endorsement, vow to end the war and make peace with Iran and to stop supporting Israel and end Israel's occupation of Palestine.

Suppose however days before the election a story broke that the above candidate were affiliated with several neo-nazi organizations that had funded him and that he himself was an active member of anti-semitic groups. The candidate denounces it as a pack of lies by the Republicans and/or their Israeli backers and then....

This is the part where you vote. If the OP's assertions are true, then they will vote for this candidate, no matter what.

My first response was supposed to be about critical thinking and to not blindly follow a party. Obviously critical thinking is in short supply.

Here is another "ridiculous" example.

Suppose the Republicans ran a candidate who was for phased withdrawal. The Democrats polling shows them that a pro-War candidate is more likely to win. So they in turn run someone who is pro-War. A third-party/independent candidate is for immediate withdrawal and is going to take most of the war money and put into programs to help the homeless and education.

According to the OP, they will vote for the pro-War Democrat, simply because it is a Democrat. Accordingly, voting for the Independent candidate is "helping the GOP win" according to responses. Despite the fact that the Independent candidate (in this scenario) may actually be the better candidate.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. I'll Say This Quite Simply: If You Think For A Second The Democratic Party Would Ever Give The Nom

to one of these preposterously rhetorical candidates you list, then you obviously need to learn more about the Democratic Party and what it is that we stand for. Cause your premise is completely and utterly faulty on its face.

Whoever gets the Dem nomination I'll be voting for. Wanna know why? Cause you can DAMN SURE BET they'd be far better than any other party's nomination and would make an amazing President, no matter who they were.

[buddysmellgood]

30. Thank you. Now I don't have to post it.

[TexasProgresive]

14. 3/4 of your lists are default repukes

# A Neo-Nazi White Supremacist-Everyone of these I know is a wingnut.
# A radical fundamentalist priest/cleric/whatever - ditto.
# A rapist/murderer - now this category could go either way.
# Satan - this one goes without saying:sarcasm:

[everythingsxen]

17. Well,

it was absurd in response to the absurd.

To even contemplate the concept "I will vote for who the party tells me to vote for" unequivocally, is a dangerous line of thinking.

[hsher]

19. Yes. Satan (D) - Hell. That's my district. I would vote for him. :)

Joke, everyone.
That was a joke! :P

[rosesaylavee]

37. And WHY wouldn't you vote

for SATAN? He too good for the likes of YOU!!1111!!

Series, I am tired of asparagus being cast here. We are screwn if we continue to argue about 2008.

:hi:

[NNN0LHI]

38. Wish you guys would quit tossing asparagus around here

Making me hungary.

Don

[rosesaylavee]

39. Food fight?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. Fuck Third Party Candidates.

And please also realize that come election time it is strictly against the rules to advocate voting against the Dem or advocate voting for a third party.

In private, you can do what you want of course. But when posting here, please refrain from advocating or otherwise trying to persuade people to vote for a piece of garbage third party candidate.

Thanks.

[everythingsxen]

24. Jawohl

When posting here I will not oppose the Democratic candidate, no matter who it is or what their platform is. If the party says it is right and good, it is right and good. You are right and good to point this out. Thank you. You are a true GoodThinker.

It is silly of me to have thought otherwise. I was wrong and you were always right. The Democrats have always championed righteous causes for all time. I am glad they opposed the Federal Reserve and destruction it has wrought. I am glad they fought as hard as they could to oppose NAFTA. I am glad they so diligently fought for Black Rights in the South since the end of the Civil War.

I was foolish to believe that a political parties only real function is to keep itself in power and that it will follow whichever platform will keep it in power. You are right, history shows us this not the case. Democrats have always opposed Republicans. Third Parties are villainous evils set upon the world by evil ne'er-do-wells.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. "When posting here I will not oppose the Democratic candidate"

Damn right you won't.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. And the flaw in yours is assuming that there's a possibility that will happen

There's a clear assumption that the nominee of the democratic party will be one of the known politicians that is either discussed here on DU or in the media. The chance that it won't be is statistically irrelevant.

None of the known politicians whether their views range from Bayh and Vilsack in the center to Kucinich on the left are white supremecists, radical fundamentalists, rapists/murderers, or Satan.

[everythingsxen]

27. The problem..

is not the known candidates that are being discussed, or really even the likely type of unknown candidates. It is in fact the idea of "I will vote for who the Party tells me to vote" that I am rallying against. While in practice, yes I will vote for the Democrat, it is not because a party says I should, it will be because they are most likely going to be the best candidate.

Blind devotion to a singular entity is a bad thing though, and I am simply trying to keep up the good fight. After all, isn't blind devotion to the GOP what many here rallied against when the '04 elections happened? Wasn't there horror over the notion that people were blindly voting the way the GOP told them to? Isn't this the same thing? Perhaps I have failed to learn to DoubleThink properly.

[David Zephyr]

4. It would be nice...

if someone would come out of nowhere and "and do it for us", but Frederick Douglass knew this about our human nature when he wrote: "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will..."

[Warpy]

5. I would love it if Brian Schweitzer could be persuaded to run

He's the type of plain spoken progressive we desperately need right now, plus he knows how to get people who think they're Repuglicans to vote for him.

Good Presidents generally come out of governorships since executive offices are similar.

It's why the GOP runs bidnessmen and actors and other men who will be clueless enough to need those advisers from the aristocracy.

[skipos]

8. Send people to my signature if you want to try to persuade Schweitzer to run.

I totally agree with you post.

[Poiuyt]

18. Has Schweitzer ever given any indication that he might be interested in

running?

[skipos]

20. Not that I know of.

That shouldn't stop us from trying to persuade him.

[ruggerson]

15. He would win in a landslide

A Schweitzer run is a no brainer.

The problem is getting him to run.

[Ignacio Upton]

23. He's up for re-election for Governor in 2008

He's also only served one term as Governor...he's not even half-way through with his current term yet.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. It used to be that serving one term as Governor was enough

Jimmy Carter, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson all were one term Governors.

Unfortunately making a serious bid for a presidential nomination requires you to take a year and a half off of your current job instead of the 2 months that it used to take and even less before that when the whole thing was decided at the convention.

Bobby Kennedy entered the race after the New Hampshire primary and probably would've won the nomination. The idea of anybody entering the race after the New Hampshire primary these days is absurd.

[Mind_your_head]

33. They are shameless, aren't they?

It's why the GOP runs bidnessmen and actors and other men who will be clueless enough to need those advisers from the aristocracy.

True this....I've seen/known it in action!

[Captain Hilts]

6. You got that right buddy. nt

[patrice]

12. I'm proud of the Democratic bench!

BTW: That guy from nowhere whom you just described was Dean in 2004. He was attacked instead of welcomed in.

All things considered, Democrats have many grassroots assets and the national candidates aren't anything to be ashamed of.

[LittleClarkie]

28. My problem with that idea is treating the primaries as if they were Christmas

looking for the new toys instead of playing with the ones you have already. There's nothing esp. magical about "new". Everyone was new at some point.

But often the dark horse does come riding out, so maybe you will get your wish.

[buddysmellgood]

29. I felt like that last time. I really feel like the media is telling us who the dem pick

will be. I don't believe these polls.
I feel the same again. As much as I think some of the candidates would be wrong, I have to think, who can be worse than Bush?

[everythingsxen]

32. I am sure, ultimately..

the media will decide who the Dem pick is. A handful of corporations run the media and the media is the largest group of lobbyists in D.C.

[sandnsea]

31. 'well qualified' yet 'unheard of'

Doesn't even go together.

Maybe what would be better if people paid attention to the candidate instead of the media.

[LSK]

35. Al Gore

Please run.