Are we going to support the Democratic candidate-regardless of who

[jhrobbins]

it turns out to be. It seems like there is a lot of acrimony (and some of this is a good thing - it keeps us honest) against some candidates, but some have indicated that if the Democaratic candidate is not who they hoped for, they will stay away. Not true, right guys?

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Its Loyalty Oath Time Again Kids.

Everyone swear they will vote for a turnip if it happens to be running on the 'D' ticket.

[Dhalgren]

19. I for one will not take a loyalty oath. Period.

Hey, I have an idea! Let's nominate a candidate that we all can support without equivocation! That way, no loyalty oaths are necessary. Of course, the corporations would not allow us to do that, so we are back to the "D" makes everything better....

[1corona4u]

31. Yeah, and who might that be?

[Dhalgren]

33. Let's draft Russ Feingold...

[Spirit of 34]

57. You really think all DUers would support Feingold without equivocation?

There appears to be several DLC-types and conservative Dems here. I don't think they'd be happy with Feingold's unapologetically pro-labor, pro-fair trade, anti-corporate, anti-war, pro-civil liberties, Constitutionalist platform one damned bit. He's poison to their neoliberal economic machinations, authoritarian tendencies and pro-imperialism.

[Dhalgren]

79. I guess I was throwing them a little "red" meat, as it were.

The DLC/Neoliberals will win the nomination and may win the general election (the corporations have already decided, anyway), but I wonder how many here really understand what is happening and what has already happened and how many will be sorely surprised come Jan. '08?

[MethuenProgressive]

97. I for one will vote for our nominee. Even if it's Obama or Edwards.

If it's Gravel, I'm moving to Nova Scotia though...

[HughBeaumont]

36. I'm partial to asparagus, myself.

I hate these loyalty oaths because let's face it, they really only apply to one candidate.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. What would be funny is to watch the shitstorm if Dennis got nominated.

I realize it ain't going to happen, but a whole pack of 'loyalists' here would suddenly find all sorts of reasons why it really does matter what the candidate stands for.

[wyldwolf]

2. I am. I was a Clark supporter in 2004 but by the time Kerry was nominated...

...I'd all but forgotten the little primary wars.

[LSK]

I will

[Stop Cornyn]

3. Of course

[MGKrebs]

4. I hope so.

Sometimes it seems we have gotten so used to being the opposition Party, we don't know how to be the majority.

As Michael Douglas said, "America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight."

[Kutjara]

5. I would vote for a dead haddock in preference to any Republican.

While I might personally feel that another candidate (even an Independent) represents my views better, I know that voting for such a candidate is the same as voting Republican in terms of the damage it does. The more we split the progressive vote, the lower our chances of taking back this country.

So I will grit my teeth and vote for whatever corporate shill the Party selects. It's the best I can do under the current system.

[Fresh_Start]

6. I will even if I have to hold my nose

its the wingnuts on the left that say "there's no difference between the dem candidate and the GOP candidate" that are willing to ignore the disaster of the last 6 years.

[question everything]

7. Yes, unless one wants a repeat of 1968 and 2000

when Democrats who "stood on principles" and stayed home or voted for Nader sent a Republican to the White House.

This time, the Supreme Court is in the balance. It has now tipped toward the right with the two recent appointments. There are going to be at least 2, perhaps 3 vacancies in the next few years, all of liberals.

So if one wants to help Bush to establish his legacy by having a Supreme Court full of "Thomases and Scalias," then don't vote for the candidate and be happy to live in a police state where there is no DU, for example, or other blogs.

[bpeale]

61. BLAH BLAH BLAH

this is what i hear. i will not support JUST ANY candidate, be they republican OR democrat. it's my vote & i will spend it wherever i want, or i will write my candidate in. period. end of discussion.

i will, however, support any democratic candidate EXCEPT hillary. my final word on this subject too.

[Adelante]

8. Yes nt

[riqster]

9. Oath, Schmoath

I'm voting against everyone who has an (R) after their name. In some cases, I'll also be voting FOR a Dem.
But regardless of emotion or intent, the action is the same: if it has a (D) after its name, it gets my vote in '08.

[asdjrocky]

11. Well said my Democratic friend.

[terrya]

10. Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

The idea of a "President Romney" makes me want to puke. Which is what very well may happen if we stay at home or vote 3rd party.

I will vote for the Democratic nominee.

[Beaverhausen]

12. Of course I will support the nominee

[Kucinich4America]

13. Let me put it this way...

I absolutely will not vote for a friend of Rupert Murdoch who believes that warmonger Colin Powell can repair America's reputation to the rest of the world.

Other candidates? It depends on what they do between now and next November. Bottom line is I want my country back, and I cannot support 4 more years of this shit, even with a meaningless "D" tacked on to the end of a name.

So let's avoid all that shit and elect a REAL Democrat this time

[dbackjon]

18. So if Hillary gets the nomiination

You will enable another 4 years of Fascism?

Not very smart.

In fact, anybody that espouses that philosophy is no better than the slimest Repuke, because it has the same effect - electing a Republican.


GO start KucinichUnderground, if you must, but the business of DU is, and always has been, electing DEMOCRATS, not Republicans.

[sniffa]

21. and that's gonna work wonders

kudos to the douchebag wing of the dem party and their enablers.

[Kucinich4America]

23. So don't nominate Republicans

Problem solved.

[dbackjon]

25. Attitudes like yours are why we lost in 2000 and 2004

Candidates not "pure" enough. Hillary has her faults, but she will be 10,000 times better than the best Republican.

I am not sure why that is so hard to comprehend.

Bust your butt for DK. If he wins the nomination - great - I will vote for him. But if he doesn't, vote for the Dem nominee, because no matter how bad you imagine they are (and Hillary is FAR, FAR from a Republican), they are far superior to the alternative.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Spineless stand for nothing tweedledumism is why

the Democratic Party, the party of working men and women, does not simply crush the theocratic plutocratic Republican Party in every election.

[dbackjon]

34. Wrong

[Kucinich4America]

43. You're the one that is wrong.

Millions of voters stay home on election day, because they don't see the point in voting for the "lesser" of two corporatist, warmongering evils. And that started when the DLC cancer invaded this party.

[dbackjon]

52. Pity for America than millions of voters are smart enough

Or open minded enough to see the difference.


Not having Romney, et al appoint any Judges should be enough for anyone the least bit progressive.

[Kucinich4America]

40. I supported Gore in 2000 and Dean in 2004

But I voted for Kerry anyway. So no, you don't get to throw me in your "blame Nader" box.

But in the case of Hillary, there will be NO difference between her and the Puke. More war, More corporatism, less constitution.

[Auntie Bush]

80. That's a ridiculous statement...and you know it!

[Kucinich4America]

84. Is it?

She has a Blackwater thug on her campaign. She wants Colin Powell to represent this country overseas, and yes, she wants WAR WITH IRAN.

And her idea of health care reform is MANDATORY corporate coverage for everyone. Just like Mittens did as governor of MA.

So how is she different from the Repukes again?

[Auntie Bush]

85. I don't know anything about a blackwater thug

Is he her secret service or private security? Maybe she has no control of whom protects her and she needs it from what I see and hear....even on DU.

She and I want the Dems to win this election and Powell is black and Republican (who hates the administration and their handling of the war) and the world respects him. He would bring lots of R. and B. to vote for her as the Dem candidate. Lots of Americans wanted him to run for President so I don't think that's so bad...so I don't really care. However, he has lost a lot of respect and I can think of others I'd like better...but I'm not running for president.

I haven't kept up with all the details on health care but I've heard a lot of negative comments about everyones.

Anyway...I should have saved myself a lot of time and just said...I like Hillary (and others too...especially Biden) and I'm NOT a Republican!

PS The Rethugs think she is much toooo liberal and she has a liberal voting record.

[Beacool]

104. Mark Penn does NOT represent Blackwater!

His firm does have them as a client, but Penn does not personally handle them.

As to Colin Powell, the general may have his faults but what is wrong about reaching out to the other side whenever they can help a common cause?

This country is soooo divided by petty hates that we seem to have forgotten that we are ALL Americans. I despise what the Repugs have done for the last 7 years, but no president can govern only the people in their own party. We have to reach some consensus with our opponents and work to lift our nation from the quagmire that it's in right now or we will end up like the Roman Empire. Remember how they ended up?

[cali]

90. bwahaha

sometimes DU is a riot. I don't give a shit whether you vote or don't vote. But I find your delusions quite amusing.

[denem]

89. Kucinich/Paul 08! nt.

[Dhalgren]

14. I will vote my conscience.

My vote is not for sale. My vote cannot be blackmailed. I will vote my conscience.

[HughBeaumont]

50. I love how people think that WE'RE somehow at fault . . .

. . . should the subject of these sickening loyalty oaths become our annointed nominee and not receive our votes. I say, with SO much supposedly at stake, why would people actually embrace running such a risky candidate? Blaming the voter is crap if we're forced to pick not "the Best Choice", but "Which Murdoch-annointed, pro-free-trade war corporatist Sucks Less"?

They can "SCOTUS" all they want . . . were Kennedy and O'Connor a Scalia, Roberts, Rehnquist, Alito or a Thomas in mindset? Last I checked, they were equally responsible for the Bushit we'll be paying for the rest of our lives as the other three 2000 assholes.

[jefferson_dem]

15. I sure as hell hope all the malcontents out there will support my guy once he wins...

Seriously, we'll all come together and join forces to defeat the real enemy next November...whoever we choose to represent the party. Of course, the acrimony will get worse before it gets better.

[cali]

16. yes. I will crawl through the proverbial broken glass next year

to vote for the dem nominee.

[hisownpetard]

17. I would vote for any living human being who is put forward by the Dem party, with the exception of:

no one.

[sniffa]

20. that's incorrect actually

it's not that "their candidate" didn't win; it's that a certain other candidate(s) did win. i'm sure many who espouse this, will gladly pull the lever for some of the dems who aren't their guy.

i'll pass on the oath thank you.

[JVS]

116. Sniffa, I'm impressed. I remember in 2004 you really laid into me because I was pissed about IWR...

yes voters. I'm glad you aren't part of my now HUGH ignore list.

[Lone_Wolf]

22. Will the nominee stay loyal to their Democratic base

or be swayed by big-money interests?

Loyalty should be a two-way street. I'm sure sure outside of Kucinich, if any of the others are deserving of it.

However, I plan to vote for whomever the nominee is just based on the issue of global warming. The planet is in crisis and something needs to be done.

[Perry Logan]

24. No. The anti-Clinton people proudly and repeatedly announce they won't vote for her.

Though I suspect they're lying.

[still_one]

27. I am an anti-Clinton one, but I will vote for her if she gets the nomination /nt

[bpeale]

62. i'm not lieing. hillary? not now. not ever.

[elizm]

75. Not lying. nt

[still_one]

26. anyone who does that deserves the supreme court they get

They think it is bad now, they haven't seen anything

[antigop]

37. Supreme Court nominees have to be confirmed by the Senate. n/t

[Kucinich4America]

46. And look at the ones the DLC'ers in the Senate have confirmed for Chimpy.

There's an accomplishment to be proud of.

[antigop]

49. So what type of a judge do you think a DLC'er would nominate? n/t

[still_one]

56. Like one who would preserve civil rights, roe v wade, privacy. Did you see the debates

you may want to classify certain Democratic candidates as "republican like", but the reality is compared to the republican candidates who have all said, that they will appoint people like thomas and scalia, there really is no choice

unless of course you subscribe to the judicial philosopies of scalia and thomas

[antigop]

66. oh, and a DLC'er won't nominate a pro-corporate judge? n/t

[still_one]

68. hmmm, like Bill Clinton nominated Ginsberg and Souter

If you really believe that your odds are better with a republican president than a Democratic one, I strongly recommend the book The Nine by Jeffrey Toobin

[antigop]

72. and I'd strongly recommend you look at Supreme court pro-business decisions. n/t

[still_one]

77. Without getting into specifics, do you really believe that there is no difference

between the Democratic candidates and the republicans on the Supreme Court?

Please educate me how Ginsberg and Souter, who were appointed by Bill Clinton, sold out to the corporations?

There is no doubt where roberts, scalia, thomas, alito stand on "corporations"

Incidently, painting anything with one brush as bad, i.e. pro-business decisions, is not only unfair, but incorrect. Corporations have done both good and bad, just as individuals have

Much of the problem is because of the deregulation that has occurred, and that is already starting to have blow back, i.e. NAFTA, unfair trade agreements etc.

But we stand a far better chance with any of the current Democrats, even the corporate ones, then we do with any of the republicans

And one way or another, 2008 will be between one of OUR Democrats and one of their republicans

and only one will come out a winner.

[antigop]

81. The Supreme Court is already -- NOW-- open for "business"

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b404...

[still_one]

55. EveryONE of the DEMOCRATIC candidates have said they would

only appoint a justice who believes in the right to privacy, preserving roe v wade, civil rights etc.

Everyone of the repukes candidates has said they will appoint judges like scalia and thomas

That is a fact

As far as the senate not doing their job, that is a different issue, but even more reason why we need a Democrat in the white house

[still_one]

The reality is you can't count on the Senate to do the right thing /nt

[antigop]

65. if we can't count on the Senate Dems, how can we count on a Dem pres? n/t

[still_one]

69. because EVERYONE of the Democrats said they would choose judges who would preserve

privacy rights, civil rights, etc.

EVERYONE of the republicans said they would nominate judges like scalia and thomas

Now, if you just consider those two FACTS, which one do you think you have a better chance with?

As far as supporting one candidate over another in the Democratic primaries, you have my support

but in the general election the choices are obvious between Democrats and republicans

Just to reference the debates, it was all the republican candidates, except paul, who saw no problem with gitmo, and torture

Every single Democratic nominee took the opposite position

Incidently, issues such as Gitmo, and the Geneva convention WILL come up before the Supreme Court

[antigop]

73. but they didn't say anything about pro-corporatism. n/t

[still_one]

76. There is more than one issue. The Iraq War, human rights

privacy rights, civil rights will all be determined by the Supreme Court in the next decade

As I pointed out previously Justice Ginsberg and Souter were appointed by what you refer to as a pro-corporate president, and are the goods guys on the court as far as the issues I named above

There is no doubt who the republicans will appoint, and there is no doubt that whoever occupies the White House in 2008 will either be a Democrat or a republican

I will take my chances with a Democrat

[antigop]

82. and a pro-corporate Democrat can appoint pro-corporate judges. n/t

[antigop]

38. a pro-corporate Dem can nominate a pro-corporate judge n/t

[still_one]

59. ok, and they can also nominate someone like Justice Ginsburg or Souter /nt

[Rageneau]

28. Hell no! There are 568 of us here in Fla. who insist on voting for Nader

We don't care who wins, just so long as we can swell up with self-importance and pat ourselves on the back for our immutable integrity.

Who cares if that lets another Puke be Prez? What counts is idealogical purity!

[Spirit of 34]

67. Hmmm, I wonder where we'd be today if people had the same attitude towards John C. Fremont

"spoiling" the Whig vote as people on D.U. have towards Nader (and, for that matter, any left-wing third party candidate)

[bowens43]

29. I will , even if I have to hold my nose when I vote......

[Windy]

32. I don't recall this being a question in 2004. I believe we have a divisive

candidate running. Not only is the division over her potential nomination felt across party lines, it is also occurring within the party which is the problem with her candidacy.

[dbackjon]

35. But look what happened in 2000

When we had a Progressive, Green candidate - the same people that are pissing and moaning about Hillary thought there was no difference between Gore and Bush...

[terrya]

41. Exactly

And I swear I'm seeing history repeating itself right now. I'm seeing people here, on this thread, who will either sit this election out or will vote for a third party candidate if Hillary Clinton is the nominee. And...we'll get President Romney. But she's a "douchebag", so that's paramount. No, no difference between her or Mitt Romney. Or Mike Huckabee. Nah, no difference whatsoever.

[HughBeaumont]

42. No, not really.

Gore didn't run as a progressive, green candidate. He didn't run off of the positives of the Clinton administration, but instead (along with Shrum) chose to distance himself from it altogether. His choice of Lieberman was the reason people thought there was "no difference between Gore and Bush". It wasn't because of Gore himself.

I liked Gore and voted for him. He had good ideas. He was simply a bad campaigner and made an incredibly stupid choice for his VP. That and he didn't have the deep pockets and resources of Wealth/Big Media/Big Business/Poppy Cronies on his side.

I'm sorry, but I don't see the same attributes with Hillary. Her unapologetic stance on Bewsh's wars, Iran and free trade/job offshoring are less than Democratic and odious. She's a corporate capitulator. She's a lightning rod for conservatives of all stripes, she would divide the left and center and wouldn't turn one 2004 red state. It would be the worst idea to nominate her.

[still_one]

60. Then work to get your candidate nominated, but if it doesn't happen

the republican candidates have stated LOUD and clear they will appoint judges like scalia or thomas

You may ask, is that a fear tactic I am using?

The truth is the last person who said that appointed judges who were part of the federalist society

What is the federalist society? Judges like bork, who believe that a barber has the right to refuse to give a haircut to someone because of his ethnicity

The Democratic Senators screwed up big time on the last judicial appointments bush made, which is why it is even more imperitive that a Democrat occupy that office

[rucky]

39. Why do you need to be assured?

are you afraid that if we're stuck with a certain nominee, people will jump ship?

what would that say about that nominee?

[surfermaw]

44. Yes, if we don't we will have another republican for 8 years

[AtomicKitten]

45. Any Democrat beats the hell out of any Republican.

[DCKit]

47. In my opinion, we spend entirely too much time on the presidential candidates

Expanding the number of new Democrats in Congress is FAR more important to the future course of this country.

A Democratic President may set the tone, but a left-leaning Congress will determine the path.

Who's running against YOUR incumbent Republic?

[BigDDem]

48. Looks like the

"not a dimes worth of difference" crowd is alive and well.

Ralph Nader / Zoe McPeacetrain 08!
What's the worst that could happen??!!

[ilovesunshine]

53. I'm not going to throw my vote away!

I will support whomever the nominee is.

The idea of the radical right appointing any more nut jobs to the Supreme Court keeps me up at night.

[Spirit of 34]

54. Nope

If it's Hillary I will not support her, but, given the likely GOP candidates, I wouldn't oppose her either. I'd sit it out or vote third-party.

[BigDDem]

58. The RNC

would like to send you a big "THANK YOU!!!!"

[Spirit of 34]

63. And the forces of the imperial status quo

would like to give you flowers and take you out to dinner.

Whereas the people of the Third World who seem to suffer under American neocolonialism no matter who gets elected probably don't give a shit, they're too busy trying to get water from privatized public utlities, eke out a living from their small farm with competition from U.S. agribusiness, avoid the paramilitaries looking to teach them a lesson for organizing a union at the plant of some American-based multinational, trying not to arouse suspicion or ire at the military checkpoint they must pass through daily, attempting to avoid U.S.-made munitions being doled out to one of our imperial proxies, grab onto some of the scarce resources being hoarded by an American-supported tyrant, trying not to get locked-up by some U.S. puppet dictatorship for political dissent, getting paid pennies for their labor, being abused and living in squalor so U.S. corporations can make big profits off of cheap and non-essential consumer goods.

I could go on, but to make it short-- they're too busy dealing with all the bullshit the American Empire and its corporate masters, who have a lock on power in Washington, have been putting them through for many, many years, to really care about just another asshole with a different letter at the end of their name who's gonna do more of the same in carrying out the will of the corporate puppetmasters.

Electing Hillary over Rudy will make a very marginal difference to the working-class in this country, but will make zero difference to the working-class of the Third World, who will be completely and totally fucked under either one of these heartless criminals.

Call me a naive utopian, but I will NOT vote for someone who enabled the slaughter and exploitation of the Iraqi, Palestinian, and Lebanese people, who is talking about doing the same in Syria and Iran, who supports brutal tyrants, human rights violators and the rape of Third World labor and resources. Hillary, like most of our illustrious Senators and Congresspeople, does not belong in the White House but in prison for supporting policies that have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the abject misery of many, many more, all at the bidding of her greedy corporate overlords. May she and the other heartless oligarchs someday rot in the bowels of the worst prison in America.

[Dhalgren]

78. Excellent response! Hear! Hear! Well said!

And any other accolade that I can think of! You very eloquently put the case for "none of the above" - one corporate shill over another? What is the point?

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[denem]

91. Hillary belongs in Prison?

Why don't we have a show trial for the whole congress? PPUURRGGEE!! Oh those were the days!

[Spirit of 34]

98. No show trial necessary

There could be a real trial based on the Nuremberg principles. Hillary has at least committed "crimes against peace" by supporting wars of aggression.

And yes, hundreds of thousands are dead and many more living in misery and squalor b/c of the actions she and other politicians in Washington have taken, so she and the rest definitely deserve to rot in prison for their crimes. You can spin that as Stalinism all you want, but I don't see what's Stalinist about holding people accountable for homicide.

Plenty of Democrats would like to see Bush tried at the Hague and they don't get accused of Stalinism by fellow progressives. Well, the Democrats who supported the Iraq War, who have been arming Israel to continue its occupation, expansionism, and wars of aggression, who have armed Colombia while turning a blind eye to their human rights abuses, who funded the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, who helped arm Suharto during his genocide of the East Timorese, who have done these sorts of things many times over in many brutal regimes around the world-- they are just as culpable as the Republicans who did it.

Try 'em all, let the Hague sort 'em out.

[mmonk]

92. You have guts I must say.

[Spirit of 34]

100. Thanks...I think

[mmonk]

114. You think correctly.

[BigDDem]

95. Great!! Please check with the "forces of the imperial status quo"

and see if I can get a wreath in lieu of flowers, if not, I like tulips.
As far as dinner, please allow 24 hours notice so I can make plans.

Oh, and make sure the florist and the restaurants aren't part of a corporation because everything corporate is evil.

Thanks!

[Spirit of 34]

99. No problem, I'll give Hillary and Carlos Slim a ring tomorrow

Not sure that constitutes a quorum of the forces of the imperial status quo, but I'm sure between the two of them they can scrape together enough for a bouquet of tulips and a decent meal. The tulips, however, will have to be from FTD, not a mom-and-pop-- they probably know someone on their Board of Directors so need to throw 'em some business.

[BigDDem]

108. Thanks Spirit, you're a star!

Please give a big hello to the rest of the forces of the imperial status quo.

P.S. Some Wal-Mart's have a floral department.

[Spirit of 34]

109. Occassionally my union is in contract negotiations

with some of the imperial status quo's representatives, so I'll see if I can give them a shout for you next time I see 'em on the other end of the bargaining table (though the really big shots only show occasionally, normally we have grab a hold of some proxy ballots and hunt them down at a shareholder's meeting). I'll ask 'em to call the Waltons for the tulips. Not sure about dinner, how does Capitol Grille sound? You a fan of steak?

[JackORoses]

113. you just can't stand it that your candidate is so repulsive to so many, can you?

[MissDeeds]

64. That depends

I will not support a candidate who does not reflect my positions and values. Period.

[Blue_In_AK]

70. If it turns out to be Hillary

I will be very sad and will probably stay out of political discussions. Those are the times I find refuge in the photo group. I suppose I'll vote for her, but she'll lose in Alaska, big-time, so it won't make any difference either way.

[ToeBot]

71. No. n/t

[Imagevision]

74. By NOT voting for Ralph Nader when he announces again he'll be running

[rufus dog]

83. I will vote for Hillary if

It comes out that she is having an affair with that staffer.

I didn't care about the Bill's extra marital affairs, his issue not mine, I did care that the women were not the most attractive! Come on Bill, the Kennedy's had Marilyn, Bush 41 had affairs with ugly women, you are the leader of the free world and a Democrat! Since I am being goofy, did anyone notice the crowd at the Repub debate. There haven't been that many unattractive people in a room since my Company Christmas party.

Edit: We are IT folks, it is part of the Job Requirements to be Goofy.

[CitizenLeft]

86. ABSOLUTELY.

Without hesitation.

[frogmarch]

87. The Dem nominee will get my vote

no matter who it turns out to be. And that's that.

[robcon]

88. I will not vote for Kucinich. All others have my vote.

Kucinich is too stupid to be president.

[Dhalgren]

105. Coming from a "Redskins" fan that's really something....

[LWolf]

93. Yes. It's true.

It's not quite that absolute; it's not "if the candidate is not who I hoped for;" I've never had any illusions that Democrats would ever nominate someone I "hoped for."

It's that there are CERTAIN candidates in the pack that won't get my votes.

I've said so SINCE BEFORE THE PRIMARY SEASON KICKED OFF. I've been plain, clear, open, and above board about it. Nominate a DLC/Centrist/Third Way/Corporatist/Theocratic candidate, and I will not be there with you in the general election.

[DFW]

94. I will vote for our candidate, regardless because.........

If the Democratic candidate does not win, the Republican will.
That is just too awful to contemplate, whatever reservations I
may harbor about our nominee, and if it isn't Al Gore, I have
some reservations about each of them. But any misgivings I may have
are a mosquito bite compared to the guillotine of a Republican win.

[TriMetFan]

102. Well said.

I feel the same "I have some reservations about each of them. But any misgivings I may have are a mosquito bite compared to the guillotine of a Republican win.".

[aintitfunny]

96. Yes, absolutely. (n/t)

[Beacool]

103. Of course!!!

I would support Minnie Mouse if she were the Democratic nominee!!!

ANYONE but a Republican!!!!!

[bluetrain]

106. The Democratic Party is not a hometown football team. Party leaders need to earn our loyalty.

[DFW]

110. The party leader, Howard Dean, earned my loyalty long ago.

[RichGirl]

107. If Carrot Top...

...jumps into the race and wins the dem nom I will work for him as if he were my first choice. After the last 7 1/2 years and last night watching that array of hate filled idiots...I will vote for a rubber tree plant if necessary.

[Dulcinea]

111. Absolutely.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I will definitely vote for the Democratic nominee.

[Lil Missy]

112. Yep. I'd vote for my dogs asshole over a repuke.

[JVS]

115. I am putting everyone who swears loyalty on ignore, because ignoring us is what happens when we...

pledge away our discernment. It's going to be interesting to see how DU looks.