I think it is the 'base' of the Democratic party who is now supporting Hillary Clinton

[bigtree]

I'm not talking about a historical base. I'm thinking of voters who can be counted on voting for our Democratic nominee in the general election -- rain or shine.

I really don't think the bulk of her detractors and constant critics actually vote and support Democrats consistently enough to be called the party's base.

Maybe they can claim to be the 'base' of opposition to Bush and the republicans. Most of those who write and speak in opposition to Sen. Clinton's candidacy are generally solid in their opposition to Bush and the republicans.

But, I regard our party's 'base' as folks who consistently, regularly vote for Democrats. A great deal of the folks in (vocal) opposition to Sen. Clinton seem to have an affinity for third parties and 'progressive' candidates who demonstrate independence and distancing from the Democratic party in their protests and appeals. That's not what I would consider a Democratic 'base'. Many of these independent-minded voters' appeals are in direct opposition to our party.

I know more than a few folks who I would consider our party's base, and I've never heard any of them suggest that they would refuse to vote for our party's nominee like I've heard from many folks who have threatened to pull their 'base' of support from Democrats if primary voters make her the nominee. I think, though, that it should go without saying, that if Sen. Clinton does manage to achieve the nomination and those primary voters stick with her through to the general election, they will have demonstrated their efficacy as our party's 'base' and should be given that recognition.

That's who I believe is rallying around Sen. Clinton today. These seem to be voters with a pragmatism that will extend to their participation in the general election. I believe it is that pragmatism about the efficacy and importance of the advancement of our party which defines our 'base,' not the ephemeral and conditional support for our eventual nominee that has been expressed by many progressives and the like in their reluctance to unconditionally support our eventual nominee.

It may be a good and correct action to establish conditions for one's vote for our nominee, but if they're threatening to abandon our nominee in the end, I don't think they deserve to call themselves the 'base' of our party.

[Larkspur]

1. I can not support Hillary since she supports shipping my job to India

And she is raking in millions from Asian Indian Americans and lobbyists for Asian Indian companies. Her pollster, Mark Penn, is a notorious union buster, so only expect her support of labor to be skin deep.

[Captain Hilts]

2. Okay, vote for Giuliani or Romney. nt

[antigop]

3. Non sequitur. n/t

[Larkspur]

20. I'll vote Socialist or Green Party

[Netbeavis]

24. then don't complain to us if the GOP win another term

You can't complain about how bad the GOP is and then not vote for the only party that has a legitimate chance to defeat them.

[Beelzebud]

39. Touche.

When Hillary Clinton loses the general election, don't blame the 3rd parties.

[bigtree]

42. I don't know how to credit folks for sitting on their hands if we lose the general

or how I would credit someone for voting for a candidate in the general other than the nominee in that case.

What becomes of all of their concern and principle if a republican succeeds? The irrelevance of those actions, in that case, are very close to complicity if you believe that every vote counts.

[Larkspur]

45. Hillary as nominee makes it a lose-lose situation for me

[JDPriestly]

63. I liked Bill Clinton, but the most common refrain that I heard

in the 2000 election was: The Republicans and Democrats are all the same. If Hillary is nominated we will hear that again. She talks like a Republican, she prays like a Republican, she votes like a Republican. So why vote Democratic if the Democratic nominee is so much like a Republican?

Edwards and Kucinich are not Republicans. They both know who they are and what they stand for. And they are not Republicans. They are Democrats.

Where does Hillary stand on habeas corpus? Will she repeal the Patriot Act? What portions of it will she repeal? How about NAFTA? Will she stop the outsourcing of jobs? Will she fund the creation of new industry here? Will she support the creation of real jobs that pay well in our country? Will she stop the War in Iraq and GET ALL OF OUR TROOPS OUT? Will she try to amend the oppressive Bankruptcy Bill? Will she support union rights 100%? Will she repeal the No Child Left Behind law? Will she guarantee freedom of internet communications? Will she come down hard on predatory lenders? Will she give borrowers rights to challenge the practices of the predatory lenders? Will she make sure businesses are regulated? Will she enforce and strengthen OSHA? Will she prosecute defense contractors who cheat or who make excessive profits in time of war? I question whether she will even try to do most of these things. I think she is a right-winger pretending to be a Democrat. She grew up in a comfortable middle-class family and she has never known what it is to stretch a budget to feed a family and buy the things the kids need to start school. I doubt seriously that she ever worried about how she was going to afford a pair of shoes or a coat for Chelsea, and I doubt seriously that her parents ever had to worry about such trivia when she was growing up. Hillary is not Bill. She comes from a very different background. She is not working class and never was. She is a Republican lite.

[bigtree]

66. I don't think we can underestimate the effect of the Democrats

. . . who will assume positions in government radiating out from a Democratic presidency. Conversely, the negative effect of a republican presidency will radiate its tripe outwards as well to its minions.

[Truth2Tell]

154. No, but we can certainly overestimate the effect. n/t

[Clark2008]

71. Edwards voted like a Republican on many issues when he was a senator. n/t

[TornadoTN]

94. Shh! People don't like to be reminded of his real record!

Lost to the memory hole those years - or worse yet, there are plenty of excuses to give Johnny-boy a pass.

That being said, I don't mind Edwards overall. I just don't think he's the "saintly savior" that so many people here make him out to be.

[mitchtv]

161. Clark WAS a republican

most of his life .Ok for him tho?

[superkia]

104. Vote Kucinich in the primaries for a positive change for the people!

[CANDO]

130. Right on, JDPriestly.

If Hillary is our nominee, we can't win even if she "wins". The DLC'ers are helping conservatives destroy this country. I refuse to be complicit in my own destruction. I will vote third party if she gets the nod.

[leftynyc]

195. In all honesty

can you really see Hillary nominating someone like Alito or Scalia to the Supreme Court?

[liberalnurse]

114. I totally agree.....

Some can't see the power that Hillary garner and win this election. General Clark said it best of late.....explaining on simple terms, she has beaten the republican attacks all her political life...she is the one.

[Larkspur]

128. She has not beaten the Repuke attacks all her life

She finally caved on health care back in the 1990's and her hubby, Bill "The Philanderer" did a good job of making her look ridiculous after saying she was not a Tammy Wynette.

Hillary is a corporate whore which makes her a Repuke.

[vssmith]

119. Hillary is a Republican.

[tabasco]

75. You have never heard of coalition breaking?

It is a matter of political reality that coalitions are often broken by splinter parties.

Did you ever study history? It appears you are ignorant of the realities of politics and wish to ignore the truth.

In the current political situation, in which elections are turned by hundreds of votes, any left-leaning party that breaks the coalition is helping the monolithic republicans. If you want to feel holy and vote for a splinter group, go right ahead. But don't try to deny the reality of what you have done.

[Beelzebud]

79. Give people a viable choice, and you won't have to worry about that.

[Hydra]

106. If we on the left are truly the tiny splinter

The I really wonder what I'm doing here in America. I see nothing sane coming out of the middle or the right, which in reality are so far right it isn't funny.

[Netbeavis]

83. what should happen....and I put that in quotes

Once a Dem candidate is elected to run, all of the other candidates and their supporters should support that person's bid to the White House. No whiners, no sour-grapes.

Priority #1 is having a Dem in the White House. As unromantic as it sounds, supporting a Dem candidate that you do not like, or do not like as much as your first choice, is WAAAAAAAY better than having the GOP win again. This country can not take George Bush Part II for 8 more years.


Look at it this way, at least we (the Dems) have a choice to quality candidates. Guys on our "B-list" would be front-runners on the GOP side. What does the GOP have now? Disfunction.

[Larkspur]

44. I live in CT. If Hillary can't win CT in the GE then she is doomed in the rest of the states

[Marr]

54. You also can't claim that you're candidate is the best one, then blame

third party voters when they lose.

[Fading Captain]

186. Yes, you can

Voting for a party as a "lesser of two evils" is futile.

Vote for who best represents you.

Continuing to vote for RW democrats does nothing but further the right wing grip on the party.

The Clinton supporters are using the GOP as a bogeyman to scare voters into supporting her, much in the same way the GOP used the Osama bogeyman to scare Americans into Iraq.

[bigtree]

187. just as convoluted as it can be

there will be two parties which will receive the bulk of the votes in 2008

the one with the most votes wins*

the party who wins will be able to fill the Executive Branch with thousands of* their party members. The number of positions of authority, influence, and support throughout the Executive Branch is so staggering that these will be filled with party members of all stripes. that includes judgeships and other positions of authority and influence at Justice, Defense Dept. appointments, CIA, FBI, State, and all of the Cabinet positions and their support . . .


I gotta laugh at the last point you made. I'm using the prospect of another republican administration as a 'bogeyman'. It is Sen. Clinton's detractors who are using her as a 'bogey(wo)man' to ward off votes for our party's nominee in the general election with the convoluted logic that we couldn't be any worse off if we allowed a republican in behind their exaggerated apathy of sitting on their hands or casting an inconsequential vote for someone else.

[Fading Captain]

196. Look

I don't see Hillary as such a great fucking alternative.

She supported the Iraq war. She supported the patriot act. She's a corporate whore like most Republicans. She's talking BS on Iran. Her health care "plan" sounds like an Insurance industry's wet dream. She's said ZILCH about what she's going to do help protect good-paying union jobs.

So, excuse me. If she is our nominee, I can not in good conscience, vote for her.

I don't support the "democratic party."

I support certain ideas.

And not just lip service to those ideas.

[bigtree]

197. what good does that support do if it just sits by in the general election

and risks the republican party holding on to the Executive?

It's an Executive culture of pure republicanism that you risk perpetuating by refusing to support the Democratic party in the general election with your vote. Conversely, a Democratic administration will generate countless positions of authority and influence for countless Democrats of all stripes, regardless, in most cases, of the ideology or policy of the president. There's more at stake than just denying Sen. Clinton her health care plan. Frickin Paul Wellstone voted for the patriot act . . .

You have to have a way to elevate your concerns into action or law. I don't think the most pressing of those can wait for a perfect Democratic president or a perfect Democratic nominee. The most pressing need is to take the reigns of the Executive out of the *republicans' blundering corrupt hands. It will be an arguably less critical matter to manage a Clinton administration to our satisfaction than it would of that of any of the republican neo-fascists who are angling to lord over us.

[Fading Captain]

198. I appreciate your civility

But in my mind, the Clintons are closer to the neo-fascists than they are to the ideals talked about by people like Kucinich and Nader.

Why is it, do you think, that media crowned Clinton from day one? Why is it, that articles in newsweek magazine refer to her simply as "Hillary?" Why is it that she's garnering praise and support of neo-cons?

Look, there is a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party going on.

I hear people talk about the next elections as if winning was the only thing that mattered.

Well, we won the mid-term elections? And what did the Democratic Party do each and every time they were challenged by the president? They caved.

Listening to some Democrats talk about winning the next election is like listening to Republicans talk about "winning" the war.

It's meaningless. It's empty.

We need to tap into hearts and minds of real Americas, who are losing their jobs. The Americans whose sons and daughters enlist in the military because they can't afford the college education that has become an absolute requirement for any prosperity because the Clintons' trade deals shipped all of our manufacturing jobs overseas. The Americans who are paying through their noses as fuel costs rise and inflation eats away at their paychecks. The Americans who need the peace of mind that comes with real health care reform.

Those Americans are ready to listen to someone, I think, talk to them about the real issues. And talk fearlessly.

The Repub-lites on the right wing of Democratic Party don't give a shit about those Americans. They give a shit about the corporate donations and the fancy board of governor jobs waiting for them after their term is up.

[liberalnurse]

113. Oh now, no you won't.

I support you for your feelings but I know your heart will soon beat again for the real reason we all vote.....

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

156. You'd Really Do Something That Monumentally Stupid?

I can't think of a thing more absolutely moronic and ignorant then voting for a 3rd party this election. There really is little that could be more of an absolutely mentally moronic thing to do.

[mitchtv]

160. Greens:

Totally owned subsidiary of the GOP

[Radical Activist]

190. If Giuliani or Romney ran as Democrats would you vote for them?

Would that make you a better Democrat?
Are you really willing to suspend your brain and independent thought just because someone puts a "D" next to their name?

[King Coal]

70. The base I know is voting for Edwards. It's an easy choice. A no brainer.

[bigtree]

72. I think he also has a sizable amount of support from the folks I'm talking about

the folks who believe in our party and will support our eventual nominee to advance our Democrats to deny the republicans.

[The Wielding Truth]

76. Seems like she is the media's choice. I don't think the Dem base

is sold, yet.

[ChiciB1]

4. I Think It's People Who Either Don't Have The Time Or Those Who

don't really follow politics as closely as those of us who are die-hard junkies! Those who only have enough time to listen to various sound bites and go along to get along. I know many people who absolutely will NEVER talk about politics and won't attend any event regardless of what they think!

For myself I have a "need" to be much more inquisitive and speak my mind, even if others don't agree with my point of view. I do try not to "argue" or be "offensive" about what I think and prefer to have conversations rather than shouting matches. Works better for me anyway.

[bigtree]

11. I agree that our group here is much more ambitious about advancing their concerns

regardless of what's being offered from legislators and operatives of the Democratic party. Folks here have an energy and enthusiasm which is very appealing. It's hard to imagine that the advocacy doesn't have an impact.

But, when I vote in the general election, I only see a choice between allowing republicans to amass enough numbers to propel their candidate into office, or providing my own vote for our nominee to help in their advancement and help in securing the republicans' defeat.

[Kolesar]

17. You are supposed to be doing due-diligence to get the appropriate nominee elected

The primary is not about a "loyalty test" to see if Democratic voters sulk away.

[bigtree]

21. That's why I took pains to stress the general election

I agree that the primaries are the place for unwavering conviction. General elections have almost always been a compromise for me to effect the advancement of our party's nominee over the republican.

[jobycom]

33. I think the opposite.

The ones who hate her are the ones who have bought the line of bull started by Drudge and Newsmax that she's not a liberal, that she supported the war, and all of that nonsense. The base has seen all this before, so they aren't as easily fooled. The rank and file Democrats--the ones who have been involved in the party for many elections, not just because they oppose Bush but because they actively believe in what the Democratic Party stands for, and actively believe that there is a real difference between parties, have seen this all before. We've seen Gore slandered, and Kerry slandered, and local and statewide officials slandered, by the Republican mud machine, for so long that we recongnize the pattern, and know what to reject.

Those are the ones supporting Clinton, and that's why her numbers are not only high, but solid. They were the same core voters who chose Kerry over Dean, Gore over Bradley, Clinton over Brown, etc. They tend to support experience over popularity. Many (but far from all) see candidates like Edwards and Obama as untested, single-issue voters, and are looking for candidates they are more familiar with, who are not just running because of recent issues or because they just want to be president, but also because of a long-term committment to all of the goals of the party. Those are the ones whose experience tells them that change happens slowly, that you have to plan the attack, not just attack.

They aren't moderates, they just don't believe that an inexperienced candidate can actually cause the changes he wants to cause.

Those who don't like Hillary, that's your enemy. That's the Democratic Party base, and that's who is voting for Clinton. All these arguments that the Party has abandoned the base fails to recognize who the base really is. I've worked with them, I've worked within the party, I've seen all this. That's what's happening. And it's a group that believes itself more experienced and wise (even if it isn't always so), so it's going to be hard to change their minds, if you think their minds should be changed. The good news is that they will vote for whomever gets nominated, if you do pull off a coup.

Now, it's not a unified group, though. That's just a description of its trends. There are of course Edwards and Obama supporters as well, and there are always people who want change faster. I don't think many of them trust Edwards--his war support in 03 makes him look more opportunistic than sincere to most people. I think many could be swayed to Obama. He wants change and a new direction and he wants it all now, and he has no experience to get it done. All of that goes against what The Base usually likes. At the same time, he reminds people of classic Democrats--JFK, RFK, especially. He has a good shot at it. A lot of The Base likes Clinton, but still feels that she did not do enough to oppose the invasion. They understand why she didn't, but they still wish she would have. So there's room for movement. Obama would have to suddenly start looking wiser, though.

That's my take. I used to be president of a Democratic club, so my opinions are based on close association with the Party and the voters. It could still be wrong, and I'm sure if anyone bothers reading this they will tell me I'm wrong. :) But that's the situation, and that's why Clinton is leading. That's the mindset you have to change if you want to beat her. Not that I think she has to be beaten--I haven't decided, but I would be quite happy with a Clinton presidency.

[bigtree]

36. that was a very well fleshed-out perspective

I tend to agree that experience is important with this group I describe.

[sandnsea]

57. I think some are misguided

and don't believe there are any in the Dem Party who have shifted their political philosophy since the days of Roosevelt and Johnson. There are. It's that simple. The Clintons lead them. Some people aren't affected by government directly, consequently they can't judge the talk against the actions. Those are the people supporting Hillary.

Further, your Democratic club and my Democratic club are worlds apart. Half of mine support Kucinich and did in 2004 too. I'll venture a guess that isn't remotely true of yours.

[bigtree]

61. The reasons I hear associated with support for Sen. Clinton's candidacy

. . . have been her electability, her experience in the Senate and as First Lady, and issues related to her gender.

The support for party isn't mired in the past as you suggest. That support seems more about the pragmatism of joining together with others to advance our concerns under the same Democratic banner; advantaging themselves of the numbers of votes they manage as they coalesce.

[sandnsea]

73. the party isn't mired in the past

For sure the Clintons aren't. For sure some of the elite don't need it to be. Exactly what I said.

And the poor and working class will pay for it, because many of them don't know the days of support for working people is over, because "the party isn't mired in the past".

[bigtree]

77. of course, that isn't my view

I don't have much nostalgia for the past. Most of the issues and concerns that animate me have been championed and steadily advanced by Democrats, over constant republican opposition. I do believe the party is still the most effective vehicle for the advancement of those issues which concern me, despite the setbacks delay, and obstruction.

[sandnsea]

78. Democrats are better than Republicans

That isn't the argument. The argument is whether Hillary and DLC Democrats are the most effective vehicle for the advancement of issues that most Democrats care about. The answer there is, not so much. Any other candidate would be better than Hillary.

[jobycom]

80. Of course some are misguided! The debate is over which ones!

:rofl:

My club was older, and very well informed. It comprised the full gamut, from professors and lawyers to judges, union workers, preachers, blue collars, accountants, writers, and quite a few politicians--state reps and senators, county supervisors--although the politicians only showed up a few times a year, when they wanted something. We had activists of all levels, including a leader of the regional Sierra Club and of the state ACLU branch (I never knew exactly what she did, but she was always getting awards). Being in Austin, we had members who knew Rove and Bush and McClellan, as well as Ann Richards, Molly Ivins, Jim Hightower (who was not well thought of), Ralph Yarborough, James K Galbraith (who spoke before our club). Some had known LBJ, and still knew his wife. The whole range of Texas politicians.

If you are implying they weren't aware of the realities of politics or the party, you're completely wrong. This is a group that knew the difference between Bill Clinton campaigning to the right and being on the right. This is a group who worked directly with the government in some cases, and could describe first-hand how Clinton's policies helped the poorest, and Bush's hurt them.

That's why they support people like Kerry and Clinton and Gore. Intimate knowledge, not lack of it. They were a liberal group--anti-war, pro-labor, for universal health care, etc. But they also understood the difference between talk and accomplishment in politics. And they understood the difference between campaigning and actual position. Kucinich was well liked, but not strongly supported as a presidential candidate (though some supported him). Clinton was probably not as well liked, but was more respected for what he had done in the face of a Republican onslaught. For instance.

[sandnsea]

127. lol, that's funny

"This is a group that knew the difference between Bill Clinton campaigning to the right and being on the right. This is a group who worked directly with the government in some cases, and could describe first-hand how Clinton's policies helped the poorest, and Bush's hurt them."

Funny how some of us heard Clinton campaigning to the left and being on the right, the way Hillary is doing now. And how the people who never need a government policy are always touting how wonderful they are. The poor know what Clinton's policies did, and how they helped pave the way for Bush to pull the rug out completely. Clinton should have known better and not let the Republicans get away with claiming the poor are lazy. The reason he did it though, is because it's exactly what he did in Arkansas, made life miserable for poor people there long before he ever got to DC.

Like I said earlier, misguided.

[waiting for hope]

125. I think more people are

looking at politics - especially after the last two elections. The voters are going to be more savvy and they are going to be looking at the issues and what candidate has put the most comprehensive and detailed plans...hmmmm, wonder who that could be? ;)

[pocoloco]

5. Keep your powder dry!!

And abovr all, don't rock the boat! Party leaders know best!

[Le Taz Hot]

6. You are confusing the Base with Sheep.

N/T

[EFerrari]

10. Also, Clinton with the party. n/t

[bigtree]

14. substitute 'the eventual nominee' for Clinton

I do think there are mostly pragmatists supporting Sen. Clinton though.

[H2O Man]

65. I can remember years ago,

my mother asking me about how people could walk down the street, and not recognize, for example, a needy child. I explained to her that many human beings have a built-in psychological filtering process, which allows them to only see people who are pretty much like themselves.

The same process allows some to believe that the supporters of one candidate are the only "real" base of the democratic party. In this thread, it happens to be someone who is a Senator Clinton supporter.

I think that the people who support John Edwards, because he recognizes those needy people along the streets of America, are also part of the democratic base. It is probably safe to say that the people who are involved in the Obama campaign are part of the democratic base, as well. In fact, I think the party is best viewed as involving all the people who are invested in all of the different primary candidates' campaigns. Heck, I's even include the people who are hoping that Al Gore gets into the race.

When the voters decide who the democratic party's candidate will be, I hope that the nonsense about the "real base" stops, and people can focus on winning the 2008 elections.

[bigtree]

67. I did (deliberately) set up Sen. Clinton as the prime example of my belief

but, you can replace Clinton with any of the others in the lead to illustrate what I mean by a 'base' of support. I believe there is a 'base' of pragmatic Democratic voters who will offer their support (votes) in the primary and then go on to repeat that vote in the general to effect the advancement of our Democratic party over the republican party. That dedication to our organizing banner is what I would characterize as a 'base' of our Democratic party.

[Double T]

12. The DLC ARE sheep.

HRC is the sheep herder.

[bigtree]

19. perhaps, in an extremely biased and subjective view

but, I don't think folks who are concerned with the advancement of our party into power in the presidency or anywhere else are 'sheep.' I think they just recognize the efficacy of their general election vote in their determination.

[Le Taz Hot]

30. Not at all.

"My Party right or wrong" is dogma and dogma precludes independent thought. Unquestioned loyalty leaves The Party unaccountable and if our democracy stands for anything, it is accountability from elected officials.

[bigtree]

37. that 'dogma' would only apply if one actually didn't believe the Democratic party stood for them

and their concerns. I still believe in the Democratic party as the most effective vehicle available today to effect the advancement of my concerns. I also believe in the party as a place where we can bring our differing views together in numbers which are able to provide effective opposition to the efforts and organization of the republicans.

[Individualist]

56. Are your concerns compatible with those of DLC?

[bigtree]

62. no. not from what folks here present as the philosophy and intentions of the DLC

for the entirety of my political experience, my views and those of the legislators and others in politics I support have been characterized for years *as liberal. I would concede, however, that many of those legislators and others are now characterized by decidedly more strident critics of our party members as less than liberal because of some issue or other they disagree with.

Liberal is still the label (and practical application) that I understand, identify with, and support though.

[Individualist]

82. ...from what folks *here* present...?

The DLC, a nonprofit created in the mid-1980s to help big business have a say in the Democratic Party platform, supports the status quo because they are paid agents of the commercial interests that define it.

*snip*

The DLC are the lowest kind of scum; we're talking about people who are paid by the likes of Eli Lilly and Union Carbide to go on television and call suburban moms and college kids who happen to be against the war commies and jihadists. On the ignominious-sellout scale, that's lower than doing PR for a utility that turns your grandmother's heat off at Christmas. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/11034127/the_low_post_why_the_democrats_are_still_doomed

This is why the DLC is dangerous. For all their claims of supposedly wanting to help Democrats, they employ people like Marshall Wittman who specifically try to undermine the Democratic Party, even if it means he has to publicly defecate out the most rank and easily-debunkable lies. They reguarly give credence to the right wing's agenda and its worst, most unsupportable lies. They are the real force that tries to make sure this country is a one party state and that Democrats never really challenge the Republicans in a serious way.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-the-dlc-is-so-dangero_b_13640.html

Without a doubt, the DLC is the most fundamentalist organization within the caucus, the most ideologically rigid, and the most destructive to the progressive cause.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/24/1712/23448

Bayh accurately states the true DLC agenda — to win by standing for nothing so that the DLC won't be held accountable for anything and can therefore implement their corporate agenda.
http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2006/12/6/2553011.html

Will Marshall, cofounder of DLC: PNAC signator
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

If the party cannot loosen the fatal grip of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)--the Republican wing of the party--it will die.
http://www.counterpunch.org/commentator02282003.html

[bigtree]

84. right. just like that.

what folks here present.

I know you assume I read their policy positioning like a bible, but I really have no interest in having them, or anyone else, dictate what I believe or represent. In fact, the tripe which has been coming from their spiritual head, Marshall, has been positively slimy. I can't recall the last remark, but I remember it was a revolting step beneath Lieberman in it's republicanism.

I think most of the accusations around here about DLC influences or DLC alliances are bull. I think the DLC label is too often used here at DU as a hammer when someone appears to stray from some pet ideological orthodoxy.

[Hydra]

111. Oh, Gee

"It doesn't support my POV, so it must be bull"

I'd like to know how our political party got infiltrated by people who want to keep the war going and the laws protecting people struck down. I'd like to know how these people got an honored place at our table.

[bigtree]

132. I love how you put that comment in quotes as if I those were my words

speak for yourself. Here's an actual quote of mine from the post you responded to:

"I really have no interest in having them, or anyone else, dictate what I believe or represent."

[TahitiNut]

163. "The Base" translates to "Al Qaeda"

Personally, I think it's "the Borg" but I'm an independent liberal. I regard partisanship as a character deficit.

[TwilightZone]

7. Considering the polls, somebody is obviously supporting her.

DU is not representative of reality, and the reality is that she's looking pretty solid in the polls. She's way ahead nationally and well ahead in states like NH, FL, and SC, and slightly ahead (on average) in Iowa.

The polls may be flawed, but they're certainly a better representation of reality than anecdotal "evidence" on DU.

[Kolesar]

13. "DU is not representative of reality"?? Speak for yourself

It's conventional wisdom and the media that are not representative of reality. They cannot even produce good writing about energy policy, much less describe what is really going on in the campaign.

Hillary is this September's Joe Lieberman. Leading in the polls by name recognition.

[TwilightZone]

18. DU is representative of reality? Yes, and Dennis Kucinich is president.

Ask President Wesley Clark or President Dennis Kucinich how representative DU is of reality.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TwilightZone]

59. Ah, name-calling. Feel better about yourself?

Brilliant conclusion, that. You've completely convinced me of the intelligence and maturity of your position.

[Dawgs]

22. Again, poll numbers do not necessarily equal support.

Many of the 'Democrats' being polled are still going with name recognition. They might be hearing that Hillary is leading so they pick her because it's easy. That doesn't mean they support her.

[TwilightZone]

27. Sorry, but "name recognition" isn't a valid excuse.

Obama's name recognition is nearly as high as Hillary's. A recent Gallup poll showed Obama's name recognition at 95%.

[Dawgs]

91. Wrong.

I don't mean recognizing of one's name. I mean, most Americans keep hearing how she is the front-runner and think that she is the best choice becuase of it. They are picking her out of default, not because she is more well known.

Almost one-third of Democrats think Hillary voted against the war. That is a problem that could hurt her if Americans wake up.

[TwilightZone]

92. If that's what you want to believe.

Hillary has been in the public eye for more than fifteen years. The vast majority of voters have already formed an opinion of her, pro or con.

If you're counting on a significant chunk of those people to suddenly change their viewpoint of her, you're going to be disappointed.

Edit: by the way, nice redefinition of "name recognition."

[Dawgs]

123. So, you choose to ignore what I said because it doesn't fit your opinion.

To each his own, I guess.

BTW, my definition of 'name recognition' is more appropriate than the one you are choosing to go with.

[bigtree]

28. true.

we'll be more able to flesh out the nature of her support after some votes are actually cast.

But, I do think these are pragmatic voters who see her as able to win.

[Captain Hilts]

48. Wow! Someone who understands how polls, etc. work. That felt GOOD! nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. If You Mean By Base Rank And File Dems And Not Activists I Tend To Agree

I also think the surveys would bear you out...

[Kolesar]

9. My loathing for Hillary has nothing to do with "threatening to abandon our nominee"

You have strung together a bunch of your personal projections about what I think to create in your mind an image of my motivations.

Hillary is lying about her motivations for voting for the Iraq War Resolution. She did it because she knew she could take the Democratic base for granted in the 2008 presidential election. Now she is trying to use Wes Clark to give her campaign the imprimatur of wisdom.

Read my sig line.

[bigtree]

15. that's why I led the post with 'I think'

[KharmaTrain]

16. Voters Will Speak Soon

I've been blissfully uncommitted in the Presidential primaries cause I DO want to hear what Democratic voters have to say...the folks in Iowa, New Hamsphire and other early states. These are the people who've taken the time to vet the candidates and I look forward to seeing what happens in these early primaries as what a majority of the members of the Democratic party think. It may not be what I like or hope...but it's there for all to see.

Now, the question some will have to ask themselves here is what if the nominee is not their choice...Hillary. What do you do? Sit out? Vote for a third party? Move to Moldova? If a majority of votes cast by Democrats prefer her, is this somehow "rigged"? Then, how will you react if your candidate endorses Hillary?

While I'm not endorsing or supporting Hillary in the primaries and my vote in my primary probably won't be determined until the final days, I am a proud lifelong Democrat and will support my party's candidate...and not because I'm "bought off", but because I have faith in other Democrats and how they've decided.

[IndianaJones]

23. They don't deserve it and they are not the base. nt.

[JDPriestly]

25. I table for Edwards about once a week, and the Hillary supporters

I have talked to are disgruntled Republicans. I think some of them will actually vote Republican in November 2008, but many of them will just stay home. Democrats are for Edwards for the most part, Obama to some extent and, out here in California, for Richardson. The people who say they are for Hillary are generally apolitical. They are just going along with the flow. When asked they recognize or even recall her name because they don't really think about politics that much. I don't meet fervent Hillary supporters (other than the disgruntled Republicans) who have really thought about their choice much. And those who want Hillary say that they want Bill Clinton and also that Hillary is the most experienced of the candidates. Those who like Edwards like his ideas and are looking for change. Those who like Obama are looking for a good feeling. They like Obama because they like the way he makes them feel. The Richardson supporters I have talked to liked him because he is Hispanic.

[bigtree]

26. that has to be an anomaly. Hillary supporters are republicans?

wow.

[JDPriestly]

51. Yes. Those are the people I have heard talk about Hillary.

[bigtree]

58. complete opposite, in my experience

Most of those I've spoken with are solid Democrats who don't regard Sen. Clinton as a departure from the principles they've supported in our party in their lifetime.

That shows, I guess, just how diverse a nation we are, with a myriad of divergent views.

[JDPriestly]

93. There seems to be a regional difference.

I'm in California -- lots of Edwards support out here. I notice that the posts that are pro-Hillary tend to be posted in the early morning which suggests to me that is east coast. Unfortunately, we here in the west don't get much of a voice in the primaries. The outcome would be quite different if we did.

[bigtree]

97. The west would be a monster

I'd go for it if it were ever a possibility, though. Just to see if we could get out of this manufactured box we're in now.

[JDPriestly]

144. Oregon has a liberal west and a conservative east.

It would be a good state for primaries. It isn't that large.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

116. I completely agree about the regional thing.

I'm here in CA too, and the hardcore Dems I work/hang with (liberal, involved) are NOT at all happy about Clinton being the nominee. The Hillary supporters I do know tend to be of three kinds of people: conservative Dems, folks who tend to vote for the "D" in a race without really knowing more than that about the candidate, and Republicans.

Edwards, Kucinich, and Obama are the names I hear most.

[onenote]

34. a list of apolitical dems and/or repubs for Clinton

Gen. Wesley Clark
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schulz
Rep. Alcee Hastings
Rep. Alyson Schwartz
Gov. Tom Vilsack
Gov. Jon Corzine
Geraldine Ferraro
Gov. Martin O'Malley
Sen. Barbara Mikulski
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee
Rep. Richard Neal
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
Rep. Jim Langevin
Steven Spielberg
Rep. Kendrick Meek
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger
Rep. Henry Cuellar
Dr. Maya Angelou
Rep. Ruben Hinojosa
Rep. Jay Inslee
Rep. Albio Sires
Rep. Corrine Brown
Fmr. Mayor David Dinkins
Fmr. Sen. Richard Gephardt
Rep. Jane Harman
Rep. Ellen Tauscher
Fmr. Ambassador Joseph Wilson
Rep. Tammy Baldwin
Gov. Mike Beebe
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver
Sen Debbie Stabenow

You know, I pride myself on being fairly knowledgable about politics, but I didn't realize that all of these folks were apolitical and/or republicans. (And, for those who care, I'm undecided but leaning towards Edwards as my choice for the nomination, although I will enthusiastically support the nominee whomever he/she is)

[PDenton]

159. Alot of people want Hillary

because she is a woman. That is incredibly shallow. I know some people want it just as a symbolic thing, but that is an insufficient reason. It is no different than voting for Obama because he is black (of the two, I like Obama better, but I favor Edwards).

[Totally Committed]

29. "I'm thinking of voters who can be counted on voting for our Democratic nominee

"...in the general election -- rain or shine."

That's a sorry-ass reason to vote for ANY candidate, let alone a POTUS. But, that's what this system has gotten us -- a presidential candidate who can only count on those who vote for the (D) and not for what they propose or stand for or will do for ALL Americans. It S U C K S.

And because the system sucks, the candiates suck, and because we keep electing candidates that suck, they never get the effing message. It's so frustrating, I want to scream.

I wonder how many will actually abstain from voting altogether? Will it be enough to send our Party a message? It should be interesting to see.

TC

[bigtree]

32. the system does corral us into the two choices

that may be regrettable, but I think voters are always looking for ways to open up the process as those organizing behind the candidates (especially the 'leaders') work to close it in.

It is, however the only system we have in place right now. republicans will advantage themselves of that system if we refuse to.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Party "purists" willing to accept anyone the bosses select.

The "bosses" being the powerful, usually moneyed, interests who decide the who the "viable" candidates will be offered to the electorate.

Hillary is a political opportunist playing her part in the charade of democracy that exists in this country.

She's playing her part well and will, unfortunately, probably be the next president beholden to corporate America and making the usual "compromises" to keep a corrupt system in power.

[bigtree]

35. the 'deciding' by the 'bosses' may influence voters

but the overriding factor in the early and lasting(?) support - like Kerry had after New Hampshire - seems to be a pragmatism about the ability of the candidate to prevail in the general.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Which is one reason there should be a national primary and limited campaigns.

But, expecting the politicians to change the system that enables the incompetent, criminal, or downright morons to become president, senator, congressman, is an exercise in futility.

We will continue to be saddled with presidents who are elected because they have the most money, the "smartest" handlers, and the backing of political parties with no agenda other than attaining power.

I don't blame the parties and politicians for doing so. It keeps them happily on the payroll and let's them throw their weight around.

I blame the mentality of the American people that looks to "leaders" to take them to the promised land and actually expect them to do so. They have abandoned the notion that those elected are supposed to be representatives of the people not leaders and should be heaved out of, or denied office for their misdeeds even if they are of "our" party.

[OHdem10]

38. Trying to divide the base only hurts the party in the end.HRC

Support for HRC in no way should be used as a Litmus
Test as to whether you are Democrat.

People support Obama and Edwards, Kucinich and all the
Candidates for different reasons. Yes some want Gore
to jump in and run.

This has absolutely nothing to do with their credentials
as Democrats.

I do not believe HRC would approve such commentary.

[bigtree]

40. I'm referring to support for the eventual nominee

I believe those who have expressed early and consistent support for HRC (and to a somewhat lesser extent, the others who are leading in the polls) will carry that support to the general election because of their pragmatism and belief in the advancement of the party over the republicans.

I think she'd agree with that premise.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

41. Where I am, the most fervent Clinton supporters tend to be older women

The main reason for supporting her is that she is a woman. Of course, I'm talking activist-types. I haven't met a 'regular' person who supports her. I can understand why those older women want to see her win. Some of them are in their 70s and 80s and this may be their last chance to see a woman in office, and IMO it's just as valid as some of the other reasons I hear for picking candidates. She is not my favorite but I will support her if she gets the nod.

[JDPriestly]

52. That would explain a lot. I mostly meet young people with

families and a lot of men in the place that I table. They are more interested in Edwards, Obama and Richardson. I also meet quite a few young guys who like Kucinich. I'm an older woman and I like Edwards.

[mod mom]

46. I'm "active" (-as in GOTV) base and I refuse to support her and her corporatism.

[bigtree]

47. right. I really didn't mean to characterize all of the party base as Clinton supporters

I *used her as an illustration because I believe her support is mostly from pragmatic voters who think she can win.

But, in characterizing those general election voters, I believe that the majority of those who bring themselves to vote to advance Clinton (or, to a large extent, any of the others currently leading in the polls) will do so in consideration and support of the advancement of our party over republicans to a greater degree than any overt or overriding allegiance to the candidate.

[leftofthedial]

49. I have voted for Democrats 100% of the time in 100% of the elections since 1976

and I think Hillary is pro-war, pro-corporate and bases her political decisions on expediency rather than principle. She has worse positions and more money than the other candidates. She is wrong on Iraq, wrong on civil liberties, wrong on health care, wrong on "free trade" and other labor issues and I can't support her. Should she or another pro-war corporatist win the primaries, I'm no longer sure my voting record will continue.

You think whatever the hell you want, but if I'm not the base then the party doesn't have a base.

[bigtree]

53. but they will have a base

you may well not be a part of that, but there will be a core of Democrats who follow up their vote in the primary with a similar vote in the general election; mostly, I believe, to advance our Democratic party over the republicans.

I do believe that every vote 'counts'

[mmonk]

55. Pragamatism has sunk my country into an abyss of hell.

It doesn't work with only one side participating.

[bigtree]

69. I don't view myself as akin to republicans in ANY way

although I am frequently cast in that mold (here at DU) by individuals who identify themselves as 'progressive'

[mmonk]

135. No you're certainly not. You're a dedicated democrat.

The problem we have currently is that Republicans aren't pragmatic.

[Larry Ogg]

60. My wife is what you would consider the Democratic base.

She is a game show network fox news sports fan that hates watching or discussing politics. But she never fails to vote and she will vote for what ever democrat is most profiled in the main steam media. In other words if the media was putting Adolf Hitler in her face every day, above all others, and calling him a democrat she would vote for him no matter what!
That’s the majority of the Democratic base, just about as uninformed as the Republican base.

But the conservative in both parties love it that way because that insures conservatives will always be in control, and it doesn’t really mater if it’s a democrat or republican in charge as long as their conservative and not liberal the status quo is preserved, and we the people are screwed, including the clueless base.

It’s a shell game, when things go bad you can blame it on the republicans or the democrats depending on who’s in control, then control will shift back too the other. It’s a vicious circle that leads us no ware but down it’s the game we must play until conservatives are no longer in power.

[bigtree]

64. I really don't believe that 'uninformed' best describes the 'base' I'm talking about

perhaps they aren't advantaged of your particular insight.

[Larry Ogg]

98. You gave very little descriptive of a democratic base that would support your view other than,

What you said here, “… who I believe is rallying around Sen. Clinton today. These seem to be voters with a pragmatism that will extend to their participation in the general election. I believe it is that pragmatism about the efficacy and importance of the advancement of our party which defines our 'base,”

Sorry but I don’t see ‘pragmatism’ I see paradigm, and I see a media controlled, manipulated and dominated paradigm assisting the DLC in assuring that no mater what, the paradigm is preserved every one is kept in line, and a conservative, not a liberal, ends up in the White House.

I have no ‘advantaged’ political insight, just a perspective that comes from seeing through my own eyes, hearing though my own ears, thinking my own thoughts, and making up my own mind. And the amazing part is I am able too see that there are a lot of other DUer’s that do the same dam thing! Just makes ya feel kind of all warm and fuzzy inside doesn’t it…

[bigtree]

133. well, let me break my impression of a base down for you

I believe there is a 'base' of pragmatic Democratic voters who will offer their support (votes) in the primary and then go on to repeat that vote in the general to effect the advancement of our Democratic party over the republican party. That dedication to our organizing banner is what I would characterize as a 'base' of our Democratic party.

[TwilightZone]

68. The base is a lot more ideologically varied than many would like to admit.

Many people seem to think that they personally represent the party's base and that Hillary can't win because she doesn't represent them personally.

The base is a lot wider (and more loyal) than it's often represented to be here. The number of people identifying themselves as Democrats has risen significantly in the past couple years. We picked up seats in the '06 elections at all levels of government around much of the country. If that's indicative of a trend, there's little reason to believe that those people will suddenly bail on the party in '08.

[bigtree]

74. agreed

I think the determination to defeat the republicans is overriding many reservations folks may have about the individuals who we intend to elevate.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

81. When presented with a choice between a real Republican..

And a Democrat trying to act like a Republican, voters will select the real Republican every time.

Hillary will inevitably move to the right after she wins the nomination.

That will further alienate those who don't like her now.

[TwilightZone]

89. Yes, just like in '06, when voters picked all those Republicans.

Oh, wait. The Democrats won just about everything, at every level of government. If memory serves, the Democrats didn't lose a single incumbent seat.

Those same voters haven't changed since '06. What makes you think their voting patterns will?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

95. What makes me think their voting patterns will change?

Democratic immobility on ending the war.

The totally unnecessary passing of the FISA bill.

I could go on but perhaps you get the picture.

The Dems have shown themselves to be nothing more than Republican lite after being given a huge opportunity by the voters to differentiate themselves from Republicans.

[TwilightZone]

96. You're giving the voting public too much credit.

They took six years to figure out what the rest of us already knew: Bush is an idiot.

If *that* took them six years, they certainly aren't going to make some wild swing to the Republicans because of eight months of Democratic control of Congress.

Wishful thinking on your part, methinks.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

99. The swing in sheer numbers of voters wasn't really all *that* large..

A lot of those races were fairly close run things.

I suspect that a lot of the "swing" was done by those who pay more attention to politics than most.

Most voters are not political junkies like a lot on this board but attention to politics is not a binary condition. There are people who pay very close attention, those who pay somewhat less attention and so on.

2008 is the Democrat's to lose and IMO, if they nominate Hillary there is a good chance she will lose.

There is nothing whatsoever that will invigorate the right wingers to come out and vote more than voting against Hillary.

[TwilightZone]

102. See #101

n/t

[TwilightZone]

101. Generic Dem is up 16 points on Generic Rep.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

Third poll from the top.

So, not only are people *not* swinging the (R) direction, quite the opposite is happening.

Edit: Hillary's lead is also increasing against all of the top-tier (R) candidates. She's up 7% on Rudy, 9% on Fred, and double digits on the others.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

105. It is the *motivated* who will come out to vote..

Hillary isn't going to motivate me to vote.

And I can absolutely assure you that Hillary will indeed motivate those on the right to come out and vote.

I'm utterly surrounded by these people and I know them very well.

I'm a libertarian leftist on the Political Compass and my wife is even further libertarian and leftist than I am. Neither of us has any enthusiasm at all for Hillary.

[TwilightZone]

107. Gee, I guess anecdotal evidence trumps all.

I'm not voting for Hillary, so neither will the rest of the country.

Good luck with that.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

108. So you disagree that it is the motivated who vote? n/t

[TwilightZone]

110. Democrats were plenty motivated in '06. Nothing has changed.

You may be suffering some inexplicable political apathy, but you're certainly not indicative of the voting public.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

115. Inexplicable?

Not if you are paying attention.

There are plenty of people here who have been outlining why they are having a harder and harder time supporting the Dems in general and Hillary in particular.

[TwilightZone]

117. Yes, that explains why Hillary is doing so well in head-to-head polls and why we did so well in '06.

Your claims have no basis in reality. There is simply no evidence of some mass shift in support away from the Dems, in general, or Hillary, in particular. The exact opposite is true.

Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so, particularly when you have nothing but personal anecdotal evidence to support your position.

[bvar22]

126. Hillary WILL motivate many Dems....

..to vote 3RD Party.

If Pro-War/AntiLABOR Hillary is the Dem nominee, there WILL be a challenge in the General from a 3RD Party Populist who is:

*Anti-WAR/Occupation. Immediate withdrawal

*Pro-Labor Withdraw from NAFTA et al, block outsourcing of American jobs.

*Pro NON-PROFIT HealthCare

Many discouraged Democrats will flock to the 3rd Party candidate. Almost ALL Independents will vote for the 3RD Party.
The Rupert Murdoch Democrats will remain loyal to Hillary.

A REPUBLICAN WIN will be ensured.

[TwilightZone]

90. I agree, and I think that '06 was an example.

Democrats obviously did quite well in '06, and there was a general trend to voting for pretty much anyone with a (D) after his or her name. I see little reason to believe that the trend won't continue in '08, regardless of the top of the ticket.

[ecstatic]

85. Correct. Sadly, these fairweather friends of the Dem party

are ready to hand the presidency over to repugs for trivial and sometimes selfish reasons. I think many of them are so well off financially that it doesn't really matter to them who is in office.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

86. I'm about as far as it's possible to be...

From "well off financially" and not be actually living on the street..

I'm going to have a really hard time voting for Hillary should she get the nomination.

Which I expect her to do.

[Larkspur]

129. The Clintons are well off, not me

And Hillary wants to ship my job to India so she can get millions from the Asian Indian community and Indian lobbyists.

[LeftCoast]

87. These are the same people who said Gore was the same as Bush

It's amazing people forget so quickly.

[TwilightZone]

88. Agreed. I'm sure President Gore would have nominated John Roberts to the SC.

Right?

[Warren DeMontague]

122. Who are the same? The people who don't support Hillary in the Primaries?

That's a ridiculous generalization.

[robinlynne]

100. I think you are very wrong.

[Hydra]

103. Your premise is faulty

I want to like Hillary, but her policies are far from what I'd like to see in a Democratic Presidential nominee.

Is she capable? Perfectly. Does she have the required experience? In spades. Will she represent me during her time in office? Do you see pigs flying?

I will vote democrat "rain or shine" as you say, but if it is for Hillary, it will simply be to show people like you why you should "be careful what you ask for."

[bigtree]

134. make my day.

vote Democratic in the general election

[smiley_glad_hands]

109. She's not my first choice, but I'll vote for her.

It'll be a cold day in hell before I ever vote for a republican.

[NMDemDist2]

112. my hubby was a Repub until Clinton's 2nd term, he is now an avowed Indie and won't vote in any

primaries.

He was leaning Edwards a few months ago but said last night he is feeling he can feel good about voting for Mrs. Clinton in the General if she's the nominee.

He's pretty savvy in a lot of ways. :shrug:

[lostnotforgotten]

118. I'm The Base And I Don't Support Hillary - Never Would She Voted For Bush's War

'nuff said!

[bigtree]

136. I think if you end up not supporting the nominee you can't really be considered a 'base' of support

for the party. I think you will have abandoned the Democrats at the point where we need your vote. Every vote counts, I believe.

[lostnotforgotten]

143. Maybe But I Am A Progressive Independent These Days

The Democratic party left me years ago.

[The Stranger]

120. What a silly little post.

Somehow, because some member of the Base may be fucked into voting for someone they wouldn't ordinarly vote for (or having the choice between that and supporting a GOP Nazi), then the aforementioned fucked persons's vote represents what the Base supports?

Utter bullshit.

[bigtree]

138. do what you want. refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee

just don't come here afterward claiming to be the 'base' of the party

[The Stranger]

151. Maybe you need to spend a little time in politics.

You seem to have this bizarre notion that the base of a political party is made up of those who vote for the eventual nominee. That is a horribly naive and incorrect view.

A political party is not simply a sign up sheet that everyone is required to sign. It is a living, breathing organization with a group of people that cling to a certain set of immutable ideals. This group of people provides the grounding and fundamental guidance and support for the party. This group of people is essential to the very working and functioning of the political party.

This group of people is the base.

[bigtree]

152. maybe you need to be less condescending about someone you know absolutely NOTHING about

You completely missed the point. The 'base' of the Democratic party will ultimately be those folks who bother to vote to advance our nominee. I don't think you can look too far back to measure that support either.

I guess you have to reserve some room in that measure for the folks who work to find and promote Democrats to run. Whether those folks vote for the nominee or not, they still help bring other voters to the polls. So, they could be considered the base.

But, I don't think you can be considered the 'base' of the party until you help advance them with your vote in their current campaign. What some want is to hold back their vote in the general election and still be considered our party's base. To me, that would be an absurd declaration. Either you contribute to your party's advancement in the general election or you don't. I can't see any reasonable way that those who refuse to provide their vote in the general election for the party's nominee can be considered (at the very least, from that point forward) the party's 'base.'

[The Stranger]

164. Instead of trying to change who is actually the base of the party because they won't vote for your

candidate, why not work to get the leadership of the party to pay attention to the ideals of the party and the base of the party and get them back on the same page?

It should easy to get the party leadership to listen to its base. That is what is so fucking bewildering about the Democratic leadership. It is capsizing because it cannot seem to do the simplest fucking thing.

[Warren DeMontague]

121. How DARE YOU tell us who we need to support in the Primaries to be "real" democrats.

There are two words that spring to mind, the first one has four letters, the second has three... ..as the only real appropriate response, here-- but it would be against the rules to respond that way.

So I won't.

What I will do, however, is give you a little abject history lesson about THIS real member of the TRUE Democrat "Base": I have ALWAYS voted, in EVERY election since I turned 18, and I have ALWAYS voted for the Democrat.

Each. And. Every. God-Damn Time.

Thank you very much.

I nearly ended about half my friendships in 2000 over Ralph Friggin' Nader. Comprende? I like Hillary Clinton. I've always liked Hillary Clinton, although frankly I've liked her less in the past 6 years. That has to do with her dithering on Iraq and her inability to formuate a cogent, consistent answer on the questions of starting AND ending that war. It has to do with her pandering on bullshit like Flag Burning. Etc. etc.

Who are these "real Democrats" in the "base" who are supporting Hillary right now? Rupert Murdoch?

But let me tell you something. I was in front of the State of Illinois Bldg. in Chicago in October of 1992- I saw Hillary and Bill and Al and Tipper and it was one of the most inspirational moments of my life. That was a wonderful year. Don't you dare tell me I'm not a "real" Democrat because I won't support YOUR candidate RIGHT NOW. She is not- and this is the thing that the real diehard Hillary Knobs just refuse to grasp- automatically entitled to anyone's support YET.

We have a primary process- NOT A CORONATION.

Do I need to say that again?

I will support our eventual nominee, of course, even if that nominee is Senator Clinton. I will support her enthusiastically. Am I to assume we can count on the exact same level of enthusiastic support from you when the nominee's last name is Kucinich?

[bigtree]

137. I frickin said 'general' about a dozen times

nothing about some lock-step in the primary.

I think the EVENTUAL nominee should get our vote if we want anyone to seriously consider us a 'base' of support for the Democratic party.

[Warren DeMontague]

146. Absolutely. And since we don't have a nominee, yet...

I think it's awfully premature for supporters of ANY candidate to be tromping around like they're divinely ordained and entitled to the thing.

We're ALL Democrats. I think you're off base to be making any kind of sweeping statements or assumptions about those of us who aren't supporting Senator Clinton- NOW. The premise of your thread, as I understand it, is that the "base" of the party is, or should be, supporting Clinton in the Primaries. Also elsewhere in your thread you suggest that "realists" should be supporting the "winners" - again, in the primaries.

Yes, we all should support the nominee in the General. When we HAVE a nominee, it will be against DU rules to NOT support him or her, or to advocate voting for someone else- so I don't know what you're worried about, on that accord.

Really, your OP looks to me like calling to the carpet everyone who dares not roll over for Hillary's inevitability train- again, in the Primaries.

And that, to me, is out of line.

[bigtree]

147. I really haven't begun to support the Clinton campaign

except to say that I would vote for Sen. Clinton in the general election if she became the nominee.

I'm a Richardson fan. He has an excellent Iraq policy that I can advocate from a candidate among those announced. And he has the breadth of experience that I think our country needs. I can't count the numerous times Hillary Clinton has advocated a policy or position that I've strongly disagreed with. I really haven't found a way to pick her as the one I want to call 'my candidate'. But, Ive been on this roller coaster we call an election enough times to recognize that one of the current bunch is likely to get the nomination.

I used Hillary Clinton as the ultimate example of my point about the 'base' of the party because I think her 'front-runner' status in the polls represents support from folks who are dedicated to the Democratic party. It's those people who I think are convinced in some way that Hillary Clinton can win; defeat the republicans and advance our party members into the presidency under our party's banner. Those people's ultimate votes in the general will constitute a coalition of opposition which, I think, can be referred to as a 'base' of support for the party if it materializes.

The number of Democrats who will be advanced into positions of power, authority, and influence in our government behind a Democratic president (or conversely, republicans behind a republican president) is staggering when you consider the potential appointments and patronage. That, I think, comprises much of the motivation behind supporting the eventual nominee against the republican one, whether that's Hillary Clinton or anyone else.

[Warren DeMontague]

157. I will enthusiastically support our nominee, too. Actually, I'm reconciling myself more with the

notion of Hillary as the nominee- while I'm a staunch supporter of a SPHC system, I'm also enough of a realist to acknowledge that in today's climate, it's not terribly likely to happen any time soon. (If we can't get one going in California, we sure as hell can't make it fly in the country-in-general) I actually found some points to like in what I read of her health care announcement- if she's really talking about forcing insurance companies to cover all those people with pre-existing conditions that they refuse to cover now, that is certainly a big step in the right direction. :thumbsup:

Frankly, I think the GOP "base" will have bigger problems with a Guiliani nomination than ours ever would have with Hillary- because the GOP base generally believes that not only abortion, but ALL birth control, should be illegal.. in fact, the fantasy that someday they'll get to start locking up people for non-procreative fucking (or blasphemy, or being gay, or teaching evolution, or wearing hats on sunday or some such shit) is the ONLY thing that drives these pinheaded, knuckle-dragging fundy "values voters" to the polls. If the GOP nominates a pro-choice fornicator like Rudy, they'll all stay home.

My point was only, it's inaccurate to say that either the base is supporting Hillary NOW or they are people who will walk away from the nominee- Clinton or whoever- in the general. I don't think that's a fair analysis of the situation.

[Greyhound]

124. At this point it's all about name recognition, nothing more.

Unfortunately the election will likely also be about name recognition since the American Consumer has no interest in politics nor the issues that will effect their daily lives and their futures.

[GeorgeGist]

131. Party First

That is for certain a baseless and counterproductive philosophy. Goodbye, bigtree.

[bigtree]

139. in the general election, it does matter whether we support the Democratic candidate

against the republican. Put whatever label you want on it. Enabling or allowing a republican back in the WH would have much more of a negative impact than would any of the candidates who've declared so far.

[B Calm]

140. Myself, I'm a little sick of the party telling me who I have to vote for!

[scarletwoman]

141. Well, excuuuuuuuuse me! I'm 57 years old and I have voted for nothing but Democrats my whole voting

life. NOTHING BUT DEMOCRATS since I was old enough to vote, and I have voted in every single election since 1970. (I turned 18 one week AFTER the election of 1968, too late for the law changing the voting age from 21 to 18 to effect me.)

I grew up in a blue-collar family of generational Democratic voters. NO ONE in my entire extended family -- long-dead grandparents on both sides, parents, aunts, uncles, most of my cousins -- ALL fervent and faithful voters, and ALL Democrats.

So, if I'm not part of the Democratic "base", I'm really wondering what else it would take to be considered so.

And I'm telling you, as I have saying on DU for as long this endless presidential campaign has been going, I will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee.

There just comes a time when voting for the supposed "lesser evil" is just too fucking much evil to stomach anymore. I'll vote for all the down-ticket Dems, and I'll write in Dennis Kucinich. But I absolutely will NOT vote for a corporatist imperialist handmaiden of the Ruling Class just because she calls herself a "Democrat", and just because there are enough idiotic people in this benighted stupid country to fall for it.

sw

[bigtree]

142. I'm sorry to hear that a nomination of Sen. Clinton will cause you to abandon the party

when we need your vote. I hope you can translate that right now, in the primary season, into enough support for an alternative.

I still hope for your vote in the general.

[scarletwoman]

145. Well, of course I will be voting for Kucinich in the Primary. I'm not abandoning the Democratic

Party, but if Clinton is the nominee, it will be the final and irrevokable evidence that the Democratic Party has left me. Not that there hasn't been an abundance of evidence of this for many years already, but I've kept up just enough foolish hope to keep voting for Dems election after election.

But I'm drawing the line now. Things have gone too fucking far to suspend my disbelief and play along with the Kubuki theater anymore.

I am NOT going to vote for what I DON'T WANT. I DON'T want more corporatism, more globalism, more militarism, more "free trade", more security state, more oligarchy, more plutocracy, more imperialism. I DON'T WANT these things at ALL. So I will NOT vote for someone who is going to bring me more of these things I DON'T WANT.

sw

[bigtree]

148. yet,

ALL of those things will materialize and fester if we allow the republican presidency to continue.

. . . more corporatism, more globalism, more militarism, more "free trade", more security state, more oligarchy, more plutocracy, more imperialism. Guaranteed.

[scarletwoman]

149. I recognize that. Since it's going to happen no matter which way I vote, the only way I can

demonstrate my non-cooperation and non-aquiescence is to not participate in the charade. I won't vote for what I don't want.

[bigtree]

150. don't forget

The number of Democrats who will be advanced into positions of power, authority, and influence in our government behind a Democratic president (or conversely, republicans behind a republican president) is staggering when you consider the numbers of potential appointments and patronage.

[Critters2]

155. Thank you

I'm supporting Barack myself, but your choice is WAAAAAY better than HRC. She barely qualifies as a Dem in my opinion.

If she gets the nomination, it'll be because she's a "centrist" supported by the DLC. And the DLC will help us lose another election.

It's time we stood for something!!

[RubyDuby in GA]

153. I "actually vote and support Democrats consistently enough to be called the party's base" and

I do not support her.

Please don't lump us all together.

[bigtree]

165. If you abandon the party nominee this time around

you will be a former member of the Democratic 'base'. There will be record numbers voting for the eventual nominee, just like with Kerry. A 'base' will form out of the general election, despite the stated intentions of some to remove themselves from that group. I hope you are part of that. I hardly think it will make the difference you want by refusing to vote for the eventual nominee and risking the advancement of the republican one.

[RubyDuby in GA]

188. Nowhere ever did I say that I wouldn't vote for the eventual nominee. I simply stated that you shou

shouldn't paint everyone with a broad brush. If she's the eventual nominee, I'll once again hold my nose and vote for the D.

You need to calm down.

[PDenton]

158. I might consider voting for hillary...

... but if it were Mitt vs. Hillary, or Giuliani vs. Hillary, I would feel like my choices were more like "Kang or Kodos". Bubba was slick, and Hillary seems no different. Clinton didn't exactly live up to alot of his campaign hype, and he didn't have any problems hurting some loyal Democrat issues, like welfare or jobs (he actually helped start bringing in more Indians to do American jobs) and he was a big friend to big business? I couldn't even be bothered to vote for Bill in 1996. So how is Hillary going to be different?

[bigtree]

166. Don't forget the legions of Democrats who get swept into power and authority

along with our candidate, if elected.

[PDenton]

170. suppose that doesn't happen, though

I would think Hillary Clinton and a Republican Congress would make great bedfellows, that's my fear. OTOH, I think a Democrat Congress could keep her in check.

Look at Congress approval ratings, they are terrible. how do we know Democrats will make gains in Congress in 2008?

[bigtree]

174. I'm referring to judgeships, Cabinet positions and their employ, agency appointments

there are myriads of positions which will be flooded by Democrats of all stripes as the republicans flee, if we achieve the presidency.

[XemaSab]

162. I think she's winning the Reagan democrat vote.

n/t

[bigtree]

167. that's a good thing

[XemaSab]

168. Notsomuch, no.

Remember, there will also be a Republican in the general election, and people on the left don't turn out to vote if they don't feel represented.

[bigtree]

172. I've never been so vain as to take my ball home because I haven't been represented enough

I've never really found politicians responsive enough to my concerns. It's always been a challenge to get the representation and hold it in enough numbers to advance my concerns into action or law. I really don't expect for the political system to be that much more accommodating of my concerns than they have been, unless we manage to get veto-proof majorities and the presidency. I know I have to work to be heard, and work to get my legislators to move the ball forward. I've always taken solace in incremental changes; relishing (or despairing) the moments where events and pressure force the larger ones.

I suspect many of those who can usually be counted on to show up and vote Democratic have the same amount of realism about the effect of their advocacy. It has to be intense and sustained, recognizing the very real obstacles from an opposition empowered by their ability to obstruct.

No, I think that it's important to try and achieve widest amount of appeal (without, of course, compromising principles or values). Our party hasn't shown the ability to win these general presidential elections with the support of 'traditional' Democrats alone. There should be some effort to appeal to those who've identified themselves as republicans in the past. Their own party has betrayed even their own principles with the WH's autocratic reign. Convincing these voters of the value in Democratic philosophy and principle shouldn't be an afterthought. It's an excellent opportunity, made possible by their inept, corrupt republican leadership.

[losthills]

169. I think you are wrong.

I cannot count the number of liberals and peace activists who have told me that they won't vote if Hilary gets the nomination.

That is her problem-- she alienates the democratic base, and conservatives hate her worse than the plague.

She is unelectable...

[Mythsaje]

171. From what I'm seeing of her healthcare plan

she's also out of her freaking mind.

If people get wind of this and start figuring out what it means, she's sunk.

[bigtree]

173. she will have support from Democrats

the question for liberals and peace activists will be (if Sen. Clinton gets the nomination) whether they are prepared and willing to walk away from the prospect of the certain invasion of Democrats (liberal, moderate, progressive) into every level of government that the Executive has influence over.

The converse will apply if republicans get their man elected.

[lastliberalintexas]

175. Without yet reading the thread, let me say bullshit

I've not only voted for Democrats my entire life, but my family has as well. I have worked on political campaigns since the age of 8, all for Democrats. Some of whom were even family members running for office/re-election. I have donated time and money to several county Democratic party organizations as well as the state and local party. I have worked in SE Texas, East Texas and DC, all for Democrats. I have never voted for a republican, ever. I vote 3rd party here in Texas at times just because we don't always have a Dem challenger, so I vote for the token Libertarian or Socialist candidate if there is one. Otherwise, I have been a loyal Dem voter and worker.

Don't you dare fucking tell me that I am not the party's base just because I won't vote for a corporate shill who so happens to have a D behind her name. As a liberal, as a compassionate human being, I am supposed to support someone who still supports the Iraq War, who has made threatening remarks about Iran, who thinks that the "answer" to the US healthcare crisis is funneling more money into the coffers of the insurance industry? No thank you.


And if that IS what the Democratic party is now all about, then maybe you are correct, maybe I no longer belong to this party that I haven't recognized for many years. When the party structure again starts to support workers and unions, our students and soldiers, human rights and the least among us, then we just might have a party of the people again. Until then, I guess the corporatists really have taken over both parties.

[bigtree]

176. "without reading the thread"

:eyes:

[lastliberalintexas]

180. Which means I read your OP but not the replies

Surely you understood that.

[bigtree]

182. you do realize that there are two days of questions, responses, and my own answers on this thread?

[lastliberalintexas]

183. Yes, that I am reading now

You still don't make any more sense than you did in your OP, though. You are still defending the black/white, with us/against us mentality expressed in your OP. You are also still presenting your opinion as fact. You seem to be arguing that since you *believe* the Dem party is still the best vehicle for advancing your ideals, we all should accept that premise as fact and fall in line to vote for the party, no matter what. I still call bullshit. Sorry.

[bigtree]

184. "I think" I believe" has preceded almost all of my comments. That's not "presenting as fact"

I clearly signaled that it is my opinion, in the title, in the body of the argument, and in the responses.

I will offer these as facts though. (open to debate, on this and any forum, of course):

There is no other political organization which has managed to coalesce as many Americans in opposition to the republican party as the Democrats.

Presently, there is no other organization which has been able to attract more votes in opposition to the republicans than the Democratic party.

There is no organization which has more effectively and more successfully managed to advance our issues and concerns into action or law than the Democratic party.

Most Americans will cast their votes November 2008 for one of the two parties.

[clixtox]

185. I have slogged through the whole thread...

And I completely agree with LLIT and many other discerning liberals and progressive previous posters above who have been supporting Democratic candidates their whole voting lives. The Democratic Party has been able to fool/mislead most of the people for a long time but "things change"! One change has to do with how people are acquiring their information. There are many alternative and new sources of "news" like blogs, youtube.com, sites like DU, moveon.org and when you add the focusing power of the coming economic hard times there is hope that the corporate anointed and paid for candidates will be apparent to enough of the likely voters.

One good possibility is that there will be such a plurality of democrats in both houses of the congress that the Republican president will be nearly powerless if Clinton is nominated and loses somehow. The Rethugs are due to lose just about every Congressional race they are in, at least I sure hope so.

Also the Republican candidate, whoever it turns out to be, will undoubtedly be a very poor vote attractor and Clinton might still win, even without the traditional "base" votes with a large enough plurality to not allow the Republicans to steal the election again.

I could never support HRC but my Representative Lynn Woolsey (CA6) certainly deserves my precious vote. It's Dennis Kucinich, or else who knows for me next year.

[ima_sinnic]

177. I have consistently, always voted D for 43 years but would never vote for HRC

she can take her love affair with corporate interests and her "mandatory" health insurance that would be required to get a job (what happened to EMPLOYERS paying for health insurance) and SHOVE THEM.

For the first time since I started voting in 1964, I would abstain, or write in Al Gore or Dennis Kucinich if she were the candidate. I HATE THAT CORPORATE SELL-OUT!!

so your entire premise, that consistent Dem voters are her "base," is off. Her "base" is corporate Amerika and the fake "democrats," the DLC.

[bigtree]

178. If we don't get your vote in the general, you will be a 'former' base member

That may be a rallying position, but not one where you could claim to have been an important element of our party's (hopeful) advancement over the republicans into the Executive.

I'd accept, though that you may then be an even more important member of the 'base' of opposition to republicans and republicanism.

I wouldn't be so convinced that only corporate Americans and "fake" Democrats are registering their approval in the polls for her campaign. It's always amazed me how folks in opposition to Democrats apply these offensive labels - which may properly apply to some legislator - to citizens who participate in the political system.

[ima_sinnic]

179. she is not a "Democrat," she is a corporacrat

for years, she never "rocked the boat" by taking a firm stand on anything or leading, but always waited to see which way the wind was blowing. Her "stand" on Iraq: endless war for endless years. Her latest "brilliant" idea, that We The People should be required to have health insurance in order to get a job, hopefully will cause her whole corporately sponsored campaign to fold, as it rightfully should.

If I am to be a "former" base--so be it. whatever. This is not the old USSR, where "party loyalty" was necessary for survival and everybody called each other comrade. I will vote for the candidate who is the most progressive and the LEAST influenced by corporate interests and the most interested, in fact, in reining in the corps and getting rid of corporate "personhood," getting us out of Iraq ASAP and restoring the processes of diplomacy, and seeing that the criminals who pulled their little coup d'etat and lied us into a war are charged with treason and brought to justice. I see her doing NONE of those things but only further maintaining the status quo, which is very much in her interests to do, apparently.

[bigtree]

181. I think party loyalty is important in elevating our coalition of concerns and opposition

to republicans to a point (the majority) where we at least have a chance of making a difference. I don't believe that any one faction within our party's coalition of concerns and opposition to republicans could achieve that elevation by the power of their own group's supporters alone. United we advance. Divided we fail.

[Radical Activist]

189. So she has the support of those with undue respect for authority and the establishment.

I'd agree with that.

[bigtree]

192. I don't agree with that.

The 'establishment' is our own invention. Perhaps it is an invention which has taken on a life of it's own, but, to a large extent, we're responsible for it. I think it would make no sense at all to individually abandon the party without the benefit of some other organization which actually has a chance of enacting its ideals into action or law. Commitment to our coalition of concern and opposition to the republicans isn't 'undue'.

It's our ultimate responsibility to continue to press forward in our opposition and advocacy with whatever tools we've managed to gather together. That doesn't preclude the gathering together of other means than supporting the Democratic party to advance those concerns -- but there is a responsibility for those who profess to be concerned about the crimes and abuses of the republican party to coalesce together with someone to elevate their opposition to the level where legislation can (with effort) be effectively and successfully managed to actually confront the opposition.

You can't effectively advance your ideals into action or law by merely posturing against "authority and the establishment." It's also important that we don't cede our nation's authority and establishment to the opposition.

[Radical Activist]

193. If the establishment doesn't exist then who is running the party?

I think you lack an appreciation for the number of people who are psychologically and emotionally more comfortable supporting the "approved" candidate whether that approval comes from a local party leader or the national media. That is the base of Hillary's support, I suspect. That mentality is more common in the Republican party but plenty of Democrats think that way as well.

[bigtree]

194. of course it 'exists'

It is the best attempt we've made as a society to have some collective order and impact. That may well not serve those who can't abide any order or any particular impact on their lives or their environment, but the 'establishment' exists out of the ultimate desire of most of us to coalesce together within our political system to collectively effect that order and impact. It's not a perfect establishment of interests, but it is the only one we've been able to manage.

And my 'appreciation' or *notice of the corralling of folks toward these promoted candidates doesn't affect my view at all. The fact that they are determined Sen. Clinton is their favorite seems to be a measure of their confidence that she can win. Certainly the media acceptance and concentration on certain candidates over others has a major impact on polling. I'm personally hoping that the polls are merely-inflated nonsense. It's happened before. But there probably will be the same type of front-runner fever we saw after New Hampshire in 2004.

The desire to win, and believing in the 'electable' candidate who best fits the 'establishment' mold wasn't restricted to republicans when we elected Bill Clinton twice.

[iamthebandfanman]

191. ANY democrat should win the general election

regardless of who it is.
the mistakes with kerry shouldnt and wont be repeated again.


there is no losing this election.

we have more than a 50% (give or take a few percent) anyone but republicans this time around. more in the 60%s in my humble opinion. so to thered hafta be an even bigger voter fraud to take it away this time, and i dont think thatll happen... itd hafta be even more obviously than the last two elections and with the country being so angry about things i doubt the vast majority would stand for it. besides, we have congress now.

id prefer it not to be hillary, but ill vote for her... and so will the thousands upon thousands who dont particularly care for but cant take another republican president with the morons theyve put up to represent their party. *shrugs* they have nobody of any merit running for president. its obvious. *shrugs*

i really dont care much for any of the top democrats much, to me they are all talk and show. typical politians with their big promises but little action. big bank accounts and the right words.

no thanks.

but will i vote for one of them in the general ? yup.
in the primary ? hell no. i know better.