Some DUers need to get ready to suck it up.

[Perky]

Warner and Bob Casey are speaking at the DNC

Moderates like Kaine and Bayh are on the shortlist.

If you are looking for a Liberal tint in Denver, you are going to be disappointed.

If you are looking for a partisan bloodbath in the fall, forget about it,

You may roll your eyes....you may hold your nose... You can even stomp your feet.

But this election will be won or lost in swing states like Virgina, Missouri and Colorado and winning those votes in the middle is far more important than your's or mine.


And as much as you may want a liberal lion on the ticket or a liberal platform, it is unlikely you are going to get anything approaching what you yearn for,

Not saying you are wrong to feel as you do....I am just saying the ten percent of the activists community who will think Obama has sold out the base with the choices he makes in the next few weeks need to get this clue. that they are less important than the 55% of the exurbanites needed for an electoral mandate.

So get ready to suck it up or get out of the way until after the election is over. We don't need your faux hand-wringing or your crocodile tears. It is Far more important that we win the election than it is that we hold old out for some liberal principle or lion that is at once myopic and stubborn.

So it you are thinking about Nader or longing for McKinney... Do us a favor....do yourself a favor.....leave now.

WE NEED TO WIN THIS ELECTION NO MATTER WHAT THE COST

[TexasObserver]

1. true

Middle voters in battleground states is the whole ball game.

Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Colorado
Missouri
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Indiana

to name about half of them

[Oceansaway]

2. i agree...n/t

[atreides1]

3. NO MATTER WHAT THE COST

And what if in the end the cost is more then we can deal with?

[yellowdogintexas]

6. what could be worse that continuation of the status quo? nt

[PurityOfEssence]

21. the final, complete neutering of the only viable entity against monarchist theocracy

What price victory?

If we align ourselves with broadening the list of crimes for which the death penalty should apply (done), call for increases in Faith-Based Unconstitutionalism (done), entertain further off-shore drilling (done), fight capping credit card interest (done), further restrict workers' rights to sue their employers (done), embrace domestic spying (done), call for escalating the stupid war in Afghanistan (done), waffle on leaving Iraq (done), play games with health care and sustain Medicine Incorporated (workin' hard at it), guarantee Israel ANYTHING its little heart desires (done), further restrict abortion (done), then what does it really matter to have a little "d" after the president's name? They'll be "doing" us in the nasty sense, and we'll be "done" awaiting the fork of history, and it will have been all of our own doing. That's what the "d" will mean: "done been did".

The status quo at least has an opposition party of some sort, but with the constant appeasement and embracing of the corporatists and fantasists, too much accomodation could well be WORSE. The hyperclintonianism of Mr. Obama's outreach habits threatens to destroy this party, and the joke may really be on us: he may suck up to and bend over for him on every issue and STILL LOSE, leaving a gutted joke of a party that went along with it all and still couldn't prevail.

That would be WORSE.

Tactical caution and evasion of certain hot-button issues is one thing, but wholesale surrender is another.

I'm serious about this: the feeble bleating that we have to cave on virtually everything worth standing for just to get elected will not only probably not work, it will relegate us to the status of serfs. At least with the status quo there's a whiff of hope; if we cave on everything and lose, we're over, and if we cave and win, we've become our enemy and eradicated our allies. Lose-lose. Bad-bad. Dumb-dumb.

[Perky]

7. You are either in the wrong part or the wrong country

You would prefer McCain?

[Erin Elizabeth]

15. The cost can't possibly be more than this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJUCU1UH2w

No way could it be more than that, my friend.

Buchanan on McCain: "He will make Cheney look like Gandhi."

[blondeatlast]

18. Is McCrepit a safer bet for you? Geez. nt

[goodgd_yall]

32. And in your worst nightmare, what do you think "the cost" would possibly be?

I have no idea what you might be thinking could be worse than another Republican in the White House.

[bread_and_roses]

4. Right! Let's stick with what worked to OVERWHELM and CRUSH the Rs in '00 & '04 (n/t)

[yellowdogintexas]

5. WE NEED TO WIN THIS ELECTION NO MATTER WHAT THE COST

what you said

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[Perky]

By who?

[salonghorn70]

13. I Really Don't Understand Your Point

Please explain what "JFKed" means.

[blondeatlast]

17. +1. nt

[onehandle]

9. I would imagine that most already have. After all, a Centrist tops our ticket.

If you didn't like the Clinton Presidency, you probably won't like the Obama years either.

Tough Shit. We must win!

[TwilightGardener]

10. There's going to be bitching and grousing no matter what. But I'm with you, all

that matters is winning--it's not just everything, it's the only thing.

[WeDidIt]

11. Indiana and Virginia

Flip those two states and Mcain cannot win.

I support Barack. Veep is a secondary consideration. I'm with the ticket no matter who gets picked.

[BlooInBloo]

12. hahahah!

[blondeatlast]

14. Yep. This election's about convincing the middle, no matter how much it pains us on the Left.

And right again--WE MUST WIN IT.

[Barack_America]

16. I'm looking for a Dem in the White House....

For the next 8 years.

End.of.story.

Whatever Obama needs to do to position himself to win this election and govern well enough to win the next one is fine by me. (save selecting a full-out Republican, that is)

[LisaM]

19. I hate Nader. He's a liar who kept pushing the meme that Bush and Gore were just alike

Clearly, that was a bald-faced lie, and anyone who'd give him the time of day now is brain dead, if you ask me.

However, I am really, REALLY disappointed that we are being asked to compromise on abortion rights. Sickened is more like it.

You can yammer all you want about people who've stated that some VP possibilities will "uphold all laws". Well, I don't find that to be good enough. If we get one of these compromise candidates who states that they are "personally opposed to abortion" but will uphold the laws, I fear for abortion rights. That same person, if the laws change and become more restrictive (as they already have in some states) will also do no more than uphold those laws - he or she won't work to make the laws more progressive.

I am stunned that it's okay with some people to essentially turn back the clock on women's rights. I want my presidential and VP candidates to both work to STRENGTHEN abortion rights, not simply uphold the weakened laws we have. Is this too much to ask? Why are we on this road back to the 1950s?

[LostinVA]

23. And gay rights -- it's ridiculous

[TreasonousBastard]

20. Of course, but the ones who need to get the message...

will ignore it, as always.

Liberals and progressives have always had a hard time getting into office in this country, perhaps a bit harder than hardline conservatives have. Truth is that no one perceived as a radical of any stripe has a good chance of getting in office without some major outside influence. FDR had the Depression and WWII, but I doubt anyone wants a repeat of those just to get a progressive in office. LBJ had the Kennedy glow still on him in '64, and Bill Moyers conveniently portrayed Goldwater as a manic who would blow us all up, but that's not gonna happen this year no matter how hard we try to make McCain the monster.

So, we gots us one of two people, and only one of those only two people, who will be sworn into office as President next January. If anyone genuinely believes that neither of them is worth the office, than so be it, but otherwise you must make a choice.

And that choice is one of the two.

And, if of the two your choice is not Barack Obama, you do not belong here.

[Two Americas]

22. a couple of points

This is not about what we "want" it is about what the people in the country need.

Secondly, I don't agree with the assumption that the centrist approach is a necessary compromise in order to win. I think it makes winning less likely.

I won't be stomping my feet, nor whining, nor do I think I am a purist or ideologue. I will, however, continue to speak out about this calmly and logically at every opportunity.

It trivializes the desperate crisis we are in to smear critics as petulant foot-stompers pouting because they "don't get their way," and to portray this as a debate between rational realistic people versus purists and impractical people.

The idealism and the traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party are not an obstacle to victory, they represent the only sure path to victory. There is no such contradiction between practicality and idealism as you imply, and there is no evidence to support that those of us calling for a strong stand on the traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party are not credible or practical or realistic, and so therefore should be dismissed on that basis.

[LisaM]

24. You express it well. Thanks.

I don't think it's my imagination that DU itself has shifted to the center since 4 years ago.

[Two Americas]

29. yes

So much so, that I no longer get upset about it since I no longer have any expectation of it being even a moderately left wing community, or any sort of opposition or dissident community.

I would rather be up against an out-and-out opponent of the Left than to argue with "don't get me wrong, I agree with you but we need to be realistic and move to the right." The first we could defeat. The second we not only cannot defeat, but they make it impossible to defeat the first, as well. I also have much more success converting the first than I do the second, by a factor of 100-1.

None of us would be successfully persuaded by a forthright undisguised right wing argument. However, the "don't get me wrong..." arguments are very seductive and clever, and quite effective at moving us to the right or at least in getting us to accept the drift to the right and be quiet about it.

The supposed logic is this: "left wing positions can't win (FDR, RFK, MLK???) so therefore we need to be practical and compromise and not get too radical if we want to win. You DO want to win, don't you? Look at how bad those Republicans are, and keep focusing on that and pay no attention to how we are going about this." Of course the public rejects us because they see us as calculating, pandering, unprincipled, expedient opportunists. They reject that about us, not left wing positions. 70% of the general public supports New Deal left wing political positions on all matters of power and economics, which is what politics are supposed to be about. That tells us that idealism and principles (mocked here as "purist, fringe, whining, impractical, unrealistic" and the like) are the shortest path to victory, as well as being morally sound.

[LisaM]

30. Exactly.

To me, this is playing particularly in the abortion debate. Our rights are being whittled away - it's like flake off a piece of chalk - and one day, we're going to wake up and they'll be gone.

[bread_and_roses]

34. well said (n/t)

[blondeatlast]

25. Thanks Mods, for removing that post. nt

[MadHound]

26. Yes, the game plan that's been played out for the past three decades will continue

And the political divide in this country will continue to move to the right. The terms liberal, centrist and conservative are meaningless now. What is now considered a mainline conservative used to be considered a dangerous, John Birch sort of reactionary. Now a centrist is what used to be considered a moderate Republican. And a liberal is now, essentially, anybody to the left of Barry Goldwater.

This is what happens when we follow the strategy of winning at all costs. In that sort of scenario, people are ready to sell their morals, conscience and soul to the devil, all in order to achieve victory. Democrats have become ready to sell out their essential constituencies, ignore their base, and become ever more corporate cozy all in order to win. Thus we're stuck with the situation that we have now, a choice between the lesser of two evils, the choice to vote against someone, not for somebody, the choice between getting screwed, or getting a kinder, gentler screwing.

Yes, yes, win at all costs, don't think, don't look ahead, and above all, don't criticize. I'm imagining that before too terribly long Democrats could run Rush Limbaugh as their candidate and nobody within the party would same "boo", just to get him elected and claim a Pyhrric victory.

Winning at all costs is a foolish move. We need accountability in our government, not more of "win at all costs."

[Alter Ego]

27. Your last sentence was unnecessary.

[SidneyCarton]

28. No, there are prices we cannot pay...

But Obama isn't asking us to pay any of them.

[wyldwolf]

31. best post I've read all day

[inthebrain]

33. Elections should never be about principles or ideas.

Sucking up to the cult of personality is what it's all about.

Screw critical thinking while we are at it.

Man, this is one hell of a winning formula you got here.