Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why I Will Vote for HRC or any other Current Democratic Candidate in the 2008 General Election

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-02-07 08:10 PM
Original message
Why I Will Vote for HRC or any other Current Democratic Candidate in the 2008 General Election
Hearing Liberals talk about possibly not voting for President in 2008 or voting for a third party candidate worries me a lot. Not that I dont understand the sentiment. Given our current situation, I share the disappointment of many liberals about the lack of sufficiently aggressive opposition to the Bush administration, its war in Iraq, and its potential war against Iran.

Saying that I will vote for any of the current crop of Democratic candidates or likely Democratic candidates in the 2008 general election is not meant as a criticism of those who feel otherwise. I know we share most of the same values and that we want much the same thing for our country.

But still, that kind of talk worries me a great deal, for much the same reason that talk about voting for a third party candidate in 2000 worried me. The situation in 2000 was very similar to what the situation in 2008 could very well be a Democratic presidential nominee who many liberals refuse to vote for because they believe that the Democratic nominee is too much like the Republican nominee. In 2000 we ended up with eight years of national and world wide catastrophe because of that misguided belief (notwithstanding the fact that there were other reasons as well for that catastrophe, including a Supreme Court that disgraced itself by abandoning every judicial principle that its supposed to stand for), and it could still get a lot worse.

I dont want to see that mistake repeated in 2008 because I dont think that our nation or the world could stand another four years of a Republican president. I believe that another Republican president could mean the end of our democracy and of world civilization as we know it.


The bottom line reason why I will vote for any of the current crop of Democratic candidates

This has nothing to do with so-called party loyalty. Party loyalty is a very vague concept, just as loyalty to a nations government is a vague concept. A party deserves only as much loyalty as it earns, just as a government deserves only as much loyalty as it earns.

But I believe that there is a vast difference in quality between any of the current Democratic candidates and any of the current Republican candidates (with the possible exception of Ron Paul, who doesnt have a snowballs chance in hell of getting the Republican nomination). Consequently I believe there is a vast difference between the well being of our nation in Democratic compared to Republican hands.

Its been that way for all nine presidential elections since Ive been old enough to vote. I said in 1972 that I would always vote for whom I considered to be the best candidate, rather than basing my decision on the candidates party. Yet Ive never seen a presidential election where the Democratic candidate wasnt vastly superior to the Republican candidate. And I strongly believe that 2008 will be no exception to that rule.


Its almost a given for presidential elections that candidates will campaign towards the center

It frequently turns out that even those who later prove to be the most liberal of elected officials campaign towards the center. The obvious reason for that is that doing otherwise could put their campaigns at serious risk of being derailed by powerful interests.

I have great admiration for Dennis Kucinich for daring to speak the truth about the real motive for the Iraq War and for John Edwards for making the eradication of poverty the central theme of his campaign. For those and similar reasons, they are my top two choices for president.

But often it is the case that candidates who fail to fully express my values on the campaign trail or even express views that alienate me turn out to make excellent presidents. Consider the following examples:

Abraham Lincoln made it quite clear during his 1860 presidential campaign that he would NOT even attempt to eradicate slavery or disturb the status quo with regard to slavery. That was despite his well recognized antipathy to slavery. Indeed, the reason why the South seceded from the Union upon Lincolns ascension to the presidency was because of his well known views on slavery. But Lincoln could not commit to the eradication of slavery during his presidential campaign because that would have made him unelectable. And for that reason, many Abolitionists had contempt for him or did not support his candidacy.

Yet, when the circumstances were right Lincoln ended slavery, and for that reason alone he deserves the honor of being the greatest president in U.S. history. Had almost anyone else been president at the time, slavery could have lasted for several more decades, and I suppose it is even possible that it could still be with us today.

John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960 on a platform that was as much or more militaristic than that of Richard Nixon. And indeed, he continued with that attitude into the initial stages of his presidency by carrying out the Eisenhower administrations plans for the disastrous invasion of Cuba. But he learned quickly from his mistakes. He steered us through the Cuban missile crisis without provoking a nuclear war, against the advice of many of his top military commanders; he (or his Secretary of Defense) vetoed a plan for a false flag operation recommended by his Joint Chiefs of Staff, which was meant to provide an excuse for a full invasion of Cuba; he began making plans for withdrawal from the Vietnam War while our involvement there was only a small fraction of what it would later become under his successors; he gave a peace speech a few months before he was assassinated which most of us would find unbelievably anti-war in todays climate (or in the climate of his times); and, he made overtures towards accommodation with Fidel Castro. Many believe that he was assassinated largely because of his many overtures towards peace.

Al Gore also ran for president on a platform (in 2000) that many liberals found unpalatable. What disturbed me most about it was his constant promises of what he would do for the middle class, without ever acknowledging (as far as I am aware) that there are other people in our country who depend on our government to provide them the opportunity for a decent life.

It seems obvious to us now that Al Gore would have made a far better president than would have seemed likely from the presidential campaign he ran in 2000. But it was not so obvious at the time. Nevertheless, despite my discomfort with the campaign he ran, I never considered voting for any other candidate or not voting, because I always knew that Gore was the far preferable of the two candidates who stood a chance of being elected in 2000. If more liberals would have recognized that, Gore would have had so many additional Florida votes in 2000 that the election wouldnt have been close enough to steal (and he probably would have won New Hampshire too, which also would have given him enough electoral votes to win the national election, even without Florida), and we would live in a much better world today.


What kind of president would Hillary Clinton make? War and peace issues

I specifically address Senator Clinton here, since she is the most likely Democratic nominee who could result in significant defections among liberal Democrats (though similar issues apply to some of the other candidates as well). I share many of the concerns that potential defectors have especially relating to her attitude towards the militarization of our country.

The continuing militarization of our country is an especially important issue for many liberals, including me, because we believe that the current militaristic path of our nation could prove catastrophic for our nation and the world. We find the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq to be especially abhorrent. The invasion was based on a pack of lies that should have been evident to knowledgeable people; the war has claimed the lives of more than a million innocent Iraqi civilians and ruined their country; nearly four thousand American soldiers have died; the war is bankrupting our country; and the future consequences to world peace and our planets environment are ominous.

Regarding issues of war and peace, Senator Clintons record is mixed: She was one of 77 Senators to vote for the Iraq War Resolution, which made it easier for George Bush to invade Iraq; she has refused to apologize for that vote; and she recently voted for a non-binding Senate resolution condemning the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as terrorists, which many believe may make it easier for George Bush to initiate a war against Iran. On the other hand, she said at last weeks debate that she intends to move towards the withdrawal of all our troops from Iraq; she was one of 34 Senators to vote against the Military Commissions Act; and she was one of 14 Senators to recently vote to cut off funding for the Iraq War.

Thus, with regard to the continued militarization of our country, Senator Clinton is somewhat of a question mark. Nevertheless, her overall record on the subject is far better than that of any of the Republican candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul.

One thing to consider is that, as a woman, it is very possible that Senator Clinton feels a dire need to reassure the majority of our countrys voters that she will be tough enough on defense and that may explain some of her positions as a candidate. Furthermore, given the prominent role that she played in her husbands administration, I believe that it is reasonable to conclude that as president she would not be more militaristic than her husband. And Bill Clinton was no war monger.


Hillary Clinton on domestic issues

A general indication of Senator Clintons voting record on domestic issues can be seen by a look at the Drum Major Institutes Congress at the Midterm: Their 2005 Middle Class Record (Note: Although the document specifically names the Middle Class, what it really is is a comparison of voting records favoring the middle class, working class and poor on the one hand vs. the wealthy on the other hand). The issues include an amendment on negotiating Medicare drug prices, the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act, the Class Action Fairness Act, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, CAFTA, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2005, and the Sense of the Senate in Support of Social Security. Although the document is somewhat dated and reviews an incomplete record, it is nevertheless quite revealing, and I dont believe that Senator Clintons voting record has changed significantly since 2005.

According to the document, Senator Clinton has a 100% rating for her votes on 7 of the 8 important issues (she did not vote on one) covered in the document. By comparison, for those same 8 issues, Senate Republicans as a group have average ratings ranging from 0% to 22%, while Senate Democrats as a group have ratings averaging from 43% to 100%. The other Senate Democrats running for president received ratings ranging from 75% to 100%. Not that the exact ratings are all that important. But what this shows is a huge and consistent difference between Democrats and Republicans on a host of important domestic issues, with hardly any overlap.


A final word on the 2008 general election

I believe that there are many good reasons to be disappointed in or suspicious of some of our current Democratic candidates for president. It could even be that Im wrong about there being a vast difference between each of the Democratic candidates compared with each of the Republican candidates. But we almost know for certain that any of the Republican candidates would be a disaster for our country if elected president. They are all ideologues who adhere to the toxic ideologies of the Republican Party (except for Ron Paul with regard to war and possibly Rudy Giuliani with regard to some social issues).

Each and every Democratic candidate, on the other hand, is a long time Democrat who has proven his/her belief in most of the liberal or at least moderate policies espoused by the Democratic Party since the time of FDR. It seems to me that the best available evidence points to a huge difference between them and their Republican counterparts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-02-07 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-02-07 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Too liberal?
What do you think is too liberal about them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poiuyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-02-07 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Enjoy your stay
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quinnox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-02-07 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
2. yes indeed!
Hillary will be a great president, and although I am a party loyalist, your reasoning is sound.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spiffarino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-02-07 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
4. HRC will be the last one I vote for
...but it will be for president if she makes the cut.

It is far too important that NO Republican makes it to the White House. I have to vote for the non-Repub if only because a GOP president would be a disaster of the highest magnitude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zazzle Donating Member (220 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 12:55 AM
Response to Original message
6. I'm a lifelong Democrat and worked in both Clinton campaigns
but will not be voting for Hillary in the primary or the general.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Why wouldn't you vote for her in the general?
Do you think that she's little or no better than the Republican candidate she would run against?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShadowLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 01:30 AM
Response to Original message
7. I agree, lately I don't like any of the front runners, but I'll vote for them in the general
It's way too important that we win this election to blow it on "if I can't get my way then I'm voting third party". It's better to have a moderate under the democrat party in office then a conservative republican back in the white house again. Think of the Supreme Court if we lose in 2008, we're one judicial nomination away from losing a lot of our rights, like the right to abortions, and the rights to plenty of other stuff in any recent 5-4 decisions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
19. Right, and you never know when our Supreme Court will
(s)elect our next pResident.

Welcome to DU ShadowLiberal. :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avrdream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 02:21 AM
Response to Original message
8. Great historical insight and well-reasoned post.
Thank you for being reasonable - it seems rare these days on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 03:14 AM
Response to Original message
9. I have no idea what the platform was in 2000
but I did not see Gore's campaign as 'centrist' or too much geared to the 'middle class'. From his acceptance speech:

"Together, let's make sure that our prosperity enriches not just the few, but all working families. Let's invest in health care, education, a secure retirement and middle-class tax cuts.

I'm happy that the stock market has boomed and so many businesses and new enterprises have done well. This country is richer and stronger. But my focus is on working families, people trying to make house payments and car payments, working overtime to save for college and do right by their kids."

He does say 'middle class tax cuts' but he twice uses the phrase 'working families'.

"To all the families in America who have to struggle to afford the right education and the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs, I want you to know this: I've taken on the powerful forces, and as president, I'll stand up to them and I'll stand up for you. To all the families -- to all the families who are struggling with things that money can't measure, like trying to find a little more time to spend with your children or protecting your children from entertainment that you think glorifies violence and indecency, I want you to know I believe we must challenge a culture with too much meanness and not enough meaning."

"all the families in America who have to struggle ..." That says 'working poor' to me, not 'middle class'. Talking about 'powerful forces' sounds pretty leftist to me. Is that something we are gonna hear in Hillary's acceptance speech?

"In my first term, a family in Hardeman County, Tennessee, wrote a letter and told how worried they were that toxic waste, a lot of it, had been dumped near their home. I held some of the first hearings on the issue, and ever since I've been there in the fight against the big polluters.

Our children should not have to draw the breath of life in cities awash in pollution.

(APPLAUSE)

When they come in from playing on a hot summer afternoon, every child in America, anywhere in America ought to be able to turn on the faucet and get a glass of safe, clean drinking water.

(APPLAUSE)

On the issue of the environment, I've never given up. I've never backed down and I never will.

(APPLAUSE)

And I say it again tonight: We must reverse the silent rising tide of global warming, and we can.

(APPLAUSE)"

Taking on the big polluters and not giving up or backing down, sounds like a warrior in the class struggle, fighting for the little person against the big and powerful.

"I know one thing about the job of the president: It is the only job in the Constitution that is charged with the responsibility of fighting for all the people, not just the people of one state or one district, not just the wealthy or the powerful, all the people; especially those who need a voice, those who need a champion, those who need to be lifted up, so they are never left behind.

I say to you tonight, if you entrust me with the presidency, I will fight for you. "

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/democratic...

I was SOOOO looking forward to President Gore. I was hyped about it, and I had never liked Bill Clinton. I voted 6th party in 1992 because the big three all sounded like moderate Republicans to me, and I voted 6th party in 1996 because I was not happy with Clintons first four years and because Dole was predicted to lose big anyway.

Now I am sooo looking forward to President Edwards. Taking on poverty, talking about the 'two Americas'. I see nothing to excite me about the Hillary machine. Her main platform, from her website, seems to be 'another big-shot endorses Hillary'. She talks about 'leadership' and that sounds like another Giuliani. Are they running to be 'fuehrer' of America? I think the President should be a public servant not a 'fuehrer' supported by a crowd of sycophantic big-shots. She talks about experience. To me, that is one thing she lacks. She lacks the experience of being an ordinary American. She has been a Senator and an ex-first lady for the last seven years. Before that, she was first lady for 8 years. Before that, a Governor's wife for 10 years. There's 25 years in which she has NO experience living as an ordinary working American. She does not live the way we live, has not experienced our problems, chores, or frustrations. In John Edward's Two Americas, she is part of the elite, not part of the working class.

Of course, John Edwards is not part of the working class either, but Edwards, like Gore, talks passionately about fighting for the working class. Hillary knows how to fight the vast rightwing conspiracy, but the only 'principle' she fights for is 'her own lead in the polls'. She can fight to keep that and win an election, but can't actually advance a progressive policy any more than Bill could, but they both are prepared to advance plenty of non-progressive policies (nafta, welfare reform, telecommunications act) and give more validity to right wing talking points ("the era of big government is over"). Unlike Howard Dean, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore, or John Edwards, I am not inspired or excited about a Hillary candidacy, I am repulsed by it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. Good point about Gore's acceptance speech
My statement about Gore running from the center in 2000 was based on my memory. So either the excerpts from his acceptance speech are not very representative of his rhetoric during that campaign in general, or else my memory is somewhat faulty on this. I suspect it is the former, but I could be wrong.

I am pretty sure that Gore was a big supporter of NAFTA at the time, and I am also pretty sure that he used anti- "big government" type of rhetoric during the 2000 campaign.

Like you, I am very inspired about the possibility of an Edwards presidency (and Kucinich too). I also like Dodd pretty much. I am not much excited about the possibility of the other declared candidates (but I would be inspired by a Gore or Clark candidacy), and Hillary is certainly near the bottom of the list.

But I most certainly would vote for (or even work for) her or any of the others in the general election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. admittedly, I did not follow the campaign that closely
although I had been on the net for two years. The following site shows him fighting for social security against Bush's privatization plans and on 'government reform' it says this:

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Al_Gore_Government_Ref...

"Power to the people was Gores cry today as he trundled across the fading emerald farmland of Wisconsin in his ongoing struggle to blunt the appeal of Ralph Nader and keep traditionally Democratic states in his column. He promised he would hold an average of one open meeting a week with ordinary people. He pledged not to add a single extra job to the federal government. And he returned repeatedly to his vow to make the overhaul of the campaign finance system his top legislative priority." Source: Katharine Q. Seelye, NY Times Oct 30, 2000

My concern was more with stopping the far-right and dishonest campaign of George W. Bush. His tax cuts and social security privatization were and are anathema to me. I will continue to attack the Republican party for their service to the well off. Pragmatically though, there is no way that any Democratic Presidential candidate will win in Kansas, so I will be working to re-elect our Blue dog congresswoman. One way I will try to help her campaign, though, is by distancing her from Hillary. I am quite certain that Hillary will motivate Republicans to GOTV. I guess I will need to remind them that our Congresswoman has worked hard for all of her constituents, and also remind them that 'one party rule' was a disaster for six years, that a Republican President needs a Democratic Congress for balance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. Stopping Bush was my main concern too
I had a hard time deciding whether to vote for Bradley or Gore. I slightly preferred Bradley, and I thought that he was the more liberal of the two. But I also didn't want to see a long drawn out battle for the nomination, which inclined me to vote for Gore.

I couldn't decide, so I switched my party registration to Republican so that I could vote against Bush in the primaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 03:28 AM
Response to Original message
10. Very interesting and educational. Thank you for this. A voice of reason. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dollface Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
12. Thank you for thinking this through and articulating your reasoning. I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 08:15 AM
Response to Original message
13. Count me in on that as well
No more stealth nuts from the Republicans. I have no idea who
the Democratic nominee will be (I disagree that Hillary has it
locked up at this point), but I will not withold my vote and risk
Rudolph Giuliani, Mitt Romney, or Fred Thompson picking the next
Supreme Court Justices, or our next ambassadors, or the next cabinet.

I'll gladly vote for Hillary (or any of the other Democrats) before
I vote for extending the Dark Ages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
14. I support the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nominee.
I have to. It's in my signature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
15. Although I'm mad as hell at
the Democrats for giving away what little spine they had, I will vote for whomever is the nominee. I've even thought of leaving the party recently over debacle after debacle, but the bottom line is I was born a proud Democrat and I will die a proud Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. The big issue for me is impeachment
Kucinich, the only House member Democratic candidate for president, is for it. The other candidates really haven't much weighed in on the issue, though some would consider it unfair to expect them to, being that they're not members of the House.

I really can't get over the fact that Nancy Pelosi has taken it off the table and won't put it back on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
17. Following the primary we must get behind the choice
Whoever it so be.
I can vote for anyone of the Democratic candidates against any republican they can throw out there. We have a hell of a field of candidates and Hillary is one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
18. good for you
hopefuLLy, HRC is not the nominee. if so, you'LL have a beLLyache of worry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Hopefully it will be Kucinich, Edwards or Dodd
Edited on Wed Oct-03-07 01:39 PM by Time for change
Edited to add: or Gore or Clark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
20. I would be more inclioned to vote for Hillary if she was running
Edited on Wed Oct-03-07 12:38 PM by truedelphi
As a Republican.

But to have to vote for her as the lead candidate of the "DEMOCRATIC" party means that then I condone the take over of the "People's Party" by the DLC.

ANd I will never condone the takeover of the Democratic party by the DLC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
provis99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
24. so you'd vote for a conservative Clinton over a Lincoln Chafee style Republican
Edited on Wed Oct-03-07 03:44 PM by provis99
were he running? In my mind there are limits to party loyalty. I'm a liberal first, and a Democrat a very distant second. Should the Democrats become conservative, and the Republicans liberal, through hypothetical magical means, before the next election, I would vote all Republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. No, I didn't say that -- nothing of the sort
I said specifically that this has nothing to do with "party loyalty".

If Lincoln Chafee got the Republican nomination and ran against a conservative Democrat I would probably vote for Chafee.

What I said was that I would vote for any of the current Democratic candidates over any of the Republican candidates that are at all likely to get the nomination. And I would do that because any of the current Democratic candidates are far better than any of the Republican candidates, with the possible exception of Ron Paul, who has no chance of getting the nomination.

Lincoln Chafee wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the Republican nomination because it's not that kind of party. And anyhow, he's not even a Republican anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-03-07 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. magical means indeed
not happening . . . Dems get my vote, period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 05:25 AM
Response to Original message
28. I agreee, wholeheartedly.
I'm having a hard time dealing with all of the vitriol at DU concerning certain Democratic candidates. I find myself visiting less each day, astounded by the hate and disrespect shown to candidates not deemed far left enough to suit some peoples' tastes. I'm seriously considering going into "lurk" mode at DU until this is over.

Threats of not voting, and actively campaigning AGAINST certain Democratic candidates turns my stomach. Every four years we get this childish petulance at DU and sometimes I wonder if WE are our own worst enemy. Our WORST Democratic candidate is far better than the BEST Republican candidate, but to hear some tell it the world will come to an end if Hillary is nominated. I believe the world might come to an end if another Republican, ANY Republican, is installed in the White House in '08.

I too will vote for Clinton should she be the Democratic nominee. To do otherwise is beyond foolish, beyond childish and beyond the pale of good sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eagleswing963 Donating Member (117 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
29. I voted for Gore in 2000
Even though a church asked me to leave when I stated my opinion.

My reason as I said to the Pastor was "We put Bush in charge, I will bet my life savings we will be at war with Iraq before his first term is over!"

Shame he did not take the bet!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eagleswing963 Donating Member (117 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. And in 2008
Even though I do not like Hillary, I will vote for her over any Republican.

I wish Ron Paul would be the RNC nominee, then I would vote Republican, but he has no chance sadly.

Ron Paul, a guy who would make a great Dem.!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
31. For me it's a matter of two words: Supreme Court
Supreme Court nominees and their decisions outlive the President that appoints them and sometimes have an even greater impact than the President that appoints them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jun 26th 2017, 12:30 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC